# Whatcom County Council Maps the Future: Comprehensive Plan and Budget Decisions Shape County Direction The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened on October 21, 2025, for a packed agenda that would ultimately determine the boundaries of the county's growth for the next two decades and set the stage for the 2026 budget. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the hybrid meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. in the council chambers, with all seven council members present: Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. What began as a routine committee meeting evolved into a series of consequential decisions about where and how Whatcom County would grow, as council members wrestled with competing visions for urban growth areas, environmental protection, and fiscal responsibility. The meeting's significance became clear as members made preliminary but influential recommendations on the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update and discussed a $21 million budget adjustment. ## Urban Growth Boundaries Take Center Stage The heart of the meeting centered on discussions about Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) for the county's cities—decisions that will shape development patterns for the next 20 years. Matt Aamot from Planning and Development Services led the discussion, explaining that the department had raised concerns with several cities about "oversizing UGAs" and unnecessary expansions into floodplains and agricultural areas. The most contentious discussion involved the City of Blaine's proposal to expand into the Birch Point area. Council member Todd Donovan didn't mince words about his opposition: "I'd like to discuss Blaine's proposal and whether it makes sense," he said, introducing what would become the meeting's most debated topic. Aamot explained that Blaine had actually withdrawn their proposal until after the November 4th election on a de-annexation in East Blaine, but the council pressed forward with providing guidance. The complexity became apparent when Donovan moved that "Blaine's UGA proposals do not include expansions in Birch Point," encompassing both the UGA reserve areas and the conversion of rural land to UGA. The debate revealed underlying tensions about growth management. Council member Ben Elenbaas questioned the timing, wondering "if they need to amend the motion to acknowledge that Blaine has not proposed it." But Donovan was insistent that the council send a clear signal regardless of Blaine's election outcome: "Either way, the Council does not think this is a good place for the UGA to expand." Chair Galloway clarified that the motion would provide guidance to Blaine "for when they resubmit their proposed UGA, and specifying that it not include the two areas that have 'X-es' and the grayed-out area just to the right of that." The motion ultimately passed 6-1, with only Jon Scanlon dissenting—a notable split that suggested the decision wasn't without controversy. The council moved through other UGA proposals with less drama but equal significance. Bellingham's proposal, presented by City representative Chris Behee, passed 5-2 after discussion about alignment with population and housing projections. Ferndale's proposal sparked some confusion over mapping details, with City representative Michael Cerbone clarifying which areas were actually being requested for inclusion, but ultimately passed unanimously. Lynden's proposal—essentially maintaining their existing UGA—also passed without opposition. ## Utilities Chapter Sparks Environmental Debate Earlier in the meeting, the council tackled preliminary Planning Commission recommendations for Chapter 5 (Utilities) of the Comprehensive Plan Update. What seemed like a technical discussion quickly revealed deeper philosophical divides about water management and environmental policy. The flashpoint came over Policies 5S-5, 5S-6, and 5S-7, which addressed "potentially moving water from the mouth of the Nooksack River back upstream." The policies, added by the Planning Commission, contemplated installing pipelines for this purpose—language that made some council members deeply uncomfortable. Donovan moved to remove these policies entirely, expressing "discomfort with the language about installing pipelines for this purpose." But the discussion that followed revealed the complexity of water management in Whatcom County. Planning Commissioner Dan Dunne and Public Works' Gary Stoyka explained that the Planning Commission saw these policies as a request to determine feasibility, part of a broader examination of water storage and supply options. Council members found themselves caught between competing values: supporting innovative approaches to water management versus avoiding commitments to specific engineering solutions that might have unintended consequences. The debate touched on broader water solution studies being conducted by the county's Natural Resources Division and the possibility of Lake Whatcom water serving a greater population countywide. Elizabeth Kosa, Public Works Director, and other staff fielded questions about how the chapter would address "siting around essential public facilities, alternative fuels and energy sources, and climate impact mitigation work." The discussion revealed the challenge of writing policy that's both specific enough to provide guidance and flexible enough to accommodate future innovations. The motion to remove the controversial policies passed 5-2, with Stremler and Elenbaas opposing. This vote suggested ongoing tensions about how prescriptive the county should be in addressing water challenges versus maintaining flexibility for future solutions. ## Budget Realities Cast Long Shadows The latter half of the meeting focused on the proposed $20,970,606 budget amendment—a figure that represented both opportunity and constraint. Aly Pennucci from the Executive's Office walked council members through the financial landscape facing the county, painting a picture of modest revenue growth against slightly larger expense increases. The presentation revealed a county trying to balance competing demands with limited resources. Pennucci explained that even with proposed adjustments, the county was projecting an eleven percent General Fund ending balance in 2028—a figure that assumed the one percent tax increase would be implemented. Chair Galloway articulated the challenge facing local government in an era of rising costs and limited federal assistance: "My growing anxiety about what happens when the next flood or natural disaster comes and FEMA is not responding, the State emergency department is tapped out, and it lands on the County, as the local jurisdiction, and we have no money to do anything about it." This anxiety was particularly apparent in discussions about the Flood Control Zone District budget. Gary Stoyka from Public Works explained that they "had to trim from the budget to maintain the required $5 million fund balance" and warned that "they have it under control for this year, but would have to look at it again if they had a big flood event or implemented more capital projects." Donovan raised a pointed question about the $5 million fund balance requirement, noting it's "an odd thing that they have always had a flat rate for the fund balance instead of a percentage and it has been $5 million for a long time. $5 million from 20 years ago is probably $7.5 million now." The observation highlighted how budget constraints can become more binding over time if not adjusted for inflation. ## The Levy Ordinances: Incremental But Consequential The council discussed a series of levy ordinances that would implement the budget proposal through small but significant tax increases. The Emergency Medical Services levy, which received recommendation from the EMS Oversight Board, would generate about $2.7 million annually with an estimated impact of $28.53 for the average homeowner. The General Fund levy would cost the average homeowner $4.09 annually while generating $387,351. These discussions revealed the granular nature of local government finance—how services are funded through a patchwork of specific-purpose levies, each with its own rate and impact. Council members were clearly weighing the cumulative effect of these increases on residents against the need to maintain services. Pennucci walked through the impacts: Conservation Futures would cost about 15 cents annually for the average homeowner; County Road purposes would impact only unincorporated areas at about $5.70 annually for a $650,000 home; and the Flood Control Zone District increase would add about 69 cents for the average homeowner. ## Procedural Moments Reveal Governance Challenges The meeting also revealed the practical challenges of governing in a complex policy environment. Chair Galloway outlined two potential pathways for budget consideration: introducing the budget and associated levy ordinances that evening for a single public hearing November 5th, or taking more time with a November 18th amendment session and final action on December 2nd. An item on the 2026 State Legislative Session was withdrawn, with Jed Holmes from the Executive's Office noting they intended to bring it back November 5th—a reminder that local government operates within broader state and federal contexts that require ongoing attention. The discussion of Comprehensive Plan amendments (AB2025-701) was skipped due to time constraints, illustrating the challenge of addressing complex policy issues within the structured format of public meetings. ## Environmental and Development Tensions Throughout the meeting, an underlying tension emerged between development pressures and environmental protection. This was most apparent in the UGA discussions, where council members had to balance cities' requests for growth capacity against concerns about expanding into floodplains and agricultural areas. The utilities chapter discussion revealed similar tensions around water management—how to plan for future needs while protecting existing resources and environmental systems. Council members found themselves navigating between the Planning Commission's specific recommendations and their own concerns about committing to particular technological solutions. These discussions reflected broader challenges facing growing communities in the Pacific Northwest: how to accommodate population growth and economic development while preserving the natural systems and rural character that make these areas attractive in the first place. ## Closing: Setting the Stage for Future Decisions The meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m. after nearly three and a half hours of substantive discussion. Chair Galloway and her colleagues had made preliminary but influential decisions about UGAs that will shape the county's growth patterns for the next two decades, while setting up budget discussions that will determine service levels and tax impacts for the coming year. The motions approved were explicitly noted as "preliminary guidance for the Planning Commission's consideration" rather than final approvals, but they clearly signaled the council's direction on crucial growth management decisions. The budget discussions, while preliminary, revealed the fiscal constraints and competing priorities that will frame final budget decisions in November and December. As members left the chambers, they carried with them the weight of decisions that balance competing values: growth versus preservation, fiscal responsibility versus service provision, local control versus regional coordination. The next meetings would determine how these preliminary positions translate into final policy—with implications that will extend far beyond the walls of the county courthouse. The meeting demonstrated both the complexity of local government decision-making and its fundamental importance to communities. In a few hours of discussion, seven elected officials had shaped decisions about where people will live, how services will be funded, and how natural resources will be managed—the kind of granular but consequential governance that directly affects residents' daily lives.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met on October 21, 2025, for a comprehensive session focused primarily on the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update and the 2026 county budget. The meeting ran from 1:01 p.m. to 4:28 p.m. and included significant decisions on Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries for several cities and preliminary discussions on budget amendments totaling over $20 million. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated boundaries around cities where urban development is allowed and encouraged under Washington's Growth Management Act. Cities must show they can accommodate projected population growth within these areas. **Comprehensive Plan Update:** A required periodic review and update of the county's long-range planning document that guides land use, transportation, utilities, and other development policies. Whatcom County is currently conducting its 2025 update. **Committee of the Whole:** A meeting format where all seven county council members participate as a committee to discuss items before they go to the full council for formal action. Allows for more informal discussion and preliminary guidance. **Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment:** A budget modification in the middle of the two-year budget cycle to address changing revenue and expenditure needs. The current proposal involves $20,970,606 in adjustments. **Banked Levy Capacity:** The unused portion of a taxing district's authorized levy rate that can be used in future years. Several levy discussions involved using previously banked capacity. **Planning Commission:** A citizen advisory board that reviews and makes recommendations on planning and zoning matters to the county council. **Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):** A detailed analysis of the potential environmental effects of proposed comprehensive plan changes, required under state environmental laws. **Flood Control Zone District:** A special purpose district that levies taxes to fund flood control projects and maintenance throughout Whatcom County. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair / Committee Chair | | Todd Donovan | Council Member | | Tyler Byrd | Council Member | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Lucas Clark | Planning and Development Services | | Matt Aamot | Planning and Development Services | | Aly Pennucci | County Executive's Office | | Elizabeth Kosa | Public Works Department Director | | Gary Stoyka | Public Works Department | | Chris Behee | City of Bellingham | | Michael Cerbone | City of Ferndale | ### Background Context This meeting occurred during a critical phase of Whatcom County's mandatory comprehensive plan update, which happens every eight years under state law. The Growth Management Act requires counties to plan for projected population growth while protecting agricultural lands and natural resources. Urban Growth Areas are a key tool in this process, defining where cities can grow and where rural areas should be preserved. The budget discussions reflected ongoing fiscal challenges facing the county. The proposed $20.9 million budget adjustment includes both new revenues and expenditure adjustments, with particular attention to maintaining essential services while managing growing costs. The various levy discussions represent the county's primary funding mechanisms for specialized services like flood control, emergency medical services, and conservation. The meeting's timing was significant as cities had been working on their UGA proposals for months, and council needed to provide guidance before the final Environmental Impact Statement could be completed. The budget items required timely action to ensure continuous funding for county operations. ### What Happened — The Short Version The council made several significant preliminary decisions on city Urban Growth Area boundaries. They rejected Blaine's proposed expansion into Birch Point, approved Bellingham's UGA proposal, retained Ferndale's current boundaries, and approved Lynden's minimal changes. They also removed three controversial water policies from the utilities chapter of the comprehensive plan that dealt with moving water from the Nooksack River mouth upstream. On budget matters, the council discussed but took no action on the proposed $20.9 million mid-biennium budget adjustment. They reviewed multiple tax levy ordinances that would implement modest increases (typically 1%) for various county services, including flood control, emergency medical services, and general county operations. The budget discussions revealed ongoing concerns about maintaining service levels while managing fiscal constraints. One agenda item regarding the 2026 state legislative session was withdrawn and will return November 5th. Time constraints prevented discussion of proposed comprehensive plan amendments. ### What to Watch Next • **November 5th meeting:** Public hearing on the budget amendment and levy ordinances, plus the rescheduled legislative session discussion • **Blaine's resubmission:** The city withdrew its UGA proposal pending a November 4th election on de-annexation and will resubmit afterward • **Budget timeline decision:** Council must choose between quick action after the November 5th hearing or a longer process extending to December 2nd with potential amendments on November 18th ---

**Q:** What was the main focus of this Committee of the Whole meeting? **A:** Comprehensive Plan Update discussions, particularly Urban Growth Area decisions, and 2026 budget amendments totaling $20,970,606. **Q:** Which city's UGA expansion did the council reject? **A:** Blaine's proposed expansion into Birch Point area, by a vote of 6-1 with Scanlon dissenting. **Q:** What policies did the council vote to remove from the utilities chapter? **A:** Policies 5S-5, 5S-6, and 5S-7 regarding moving water from the Nooksack River mouth upstream, removed by a 5-2 vote. **Q:** Who serves as the current Council Chair? **A:** Kaylee Galloway, who chaired both the Committee of the Whole meeting and regular council sessions. **Q:** Which cities' UGA proposals were approved by the council? **A:** Bellingham (5-2 vote), Ferndale (retaining 2016 boundaries, 7-0), and Lynden (7-0 for minimal changes). **Q:** What is the estimated annual impact of the proposed EMS levy increase? **A:** $28.53 for an average homeowner with a $650,000 home value, generating $2.7 million annually. **Q:** Why did Blaine withdraw its UGA proposal? **A:** They want to wait until after their November 4th election on a de-annexation in East Blaine before resubmitting. **Q:** What is the proposed General Fund levy increase impact? **A:** $4.09 annually for the average homeowner, generating $387,351 in additional revenue. **Q:** How much must the Flood Control Zone District maintain in fund balance? **A:** $5 million, a flat rate that has remained unchanged for approximately 20 years. **Q:** What department experienced budget cuts in the proposed adjustment? **A:** Health and Community Services Department, though it will remain less than 5% of the General Fund. **Q:** Who is the new EMS administrator introduced at the meeting? **A:** Debbie Arthur, who spoke about her work experience in emergency medical services. **Q:** What is the County Road levy impact for unincorporated areas? **A:** About $5.70 annually for a home valued at $650,000, affecting only unincorporated county properties. **Q:** Which agenda item was withdrawn from the meeting? **A:** AB2025-656 on the 2026 State Legislative Session, moved to November 5th per Jed Holmes. **Q:** What is the estimated Conservation Futures levy impact? **A:** About $0.15 annually for the average homeowner. **Q:** How long did this committee meeting run? **A:** From 1:01 p.m. to 4:28 p.m., nearly 3.5 hours of discussion on complex planning and budget issues. **Q:** What percentage increase is proposed for most county levies? **A:** One percent annual increase, consistent across most levy categories including flood control and general fund. **Q:** What concern did Galloway express about future disasters? **A:** Anxiety about the county's ability to respond when FEMA and state emergency departments are tapped out and local funding is constrained. **Q:** What timeline options were presented for budget consideration? **A:** Either action after November 5th public hearing, or extended process with amendments on November 18th and final action December 2nd. **Q:** Which agenda item ran out of time for discussion? **A:** AB2025-701 on proposed comprehensive plan amendments, which was not acted upon due to time constraints. **Q:** What makes Whatcom County's flood district funding unique according to Donovan? **A:** The $5 million fund balance requirement is a flat rate rather than a percentage, unchanged for about 20 years despite inflation. ---