# A County Council Searching for Direction and Wrestling with Controversy On an Earth Day afternoon that began with celebratory wishes and ended in heated debate over labor policy, the Whatcom County Council convened for a special Committee of the Whole meeting that laid bare both the collaborative spirit and deep divisions that define the current political moment. The April 22nd session, running from just after 1 PM to 3:45 PM in the hybrid council chambers, tackled two substantial agenda items that revealed a governing body still finding its footing after significant electoral changes while grappling with complex policy questions that have stirred passionate community response. All seven council members attended: Chair Kaylee Galloway, Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, Ben Elenbaas, Barry Buchanan, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The meeting drew additional attention from county staff including Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler, Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci, Executive Satpal Sidhu, and Facilities Manager Rob Ney, along with Chief Civil Deputy Chris Quinn from the prosecutor's office. ## Setting Priorities and Forming Coalitions What began as an attempt to establish council-wide priorities quickly evolved into the formation of working groups that could reshape how the county approaches its most pressing challenges. The discussion, described by Chair Galloway as a continuation of the council's retreat, started with individual members laying out their priorities for the year ahead. Ben Elenbaas was first to articulate a clear hierarchy: "Budget wise, I think my priority is jail and associated facilities sheriff's department and then basically everything else." His statement set the tone for what would become a central theme of the discussion – the urgent need to address law enforcement infrastructure. Elenbaas expanded his focus beyond facilities to include supporting the administration in filling vacant positions at Planning and Development Services, meeting state housing legislation requirements, and advancing agricultural policy. Barry Buchanan echoed the justice project priority while adding the Healthy Children's Fund as a second major focus. "I want to put in another vote or a voice or however we're recording this for the justice project and associated infrastructure such as a sheriff's office that would go with that," Buchanan said, emphasizing the need to fulfill promises made to voters who supported both ballot measures. Mark Stremler brought urgency to the sheriff's office discussion, suggesting it should take priority over other planned facilities. "You know, the sheriff's office kind of moved to the top of my list recently," Stremler said. "And I guess it's up to the body to maybe convey that to the executive office... because we're not going to be able to build everything it sounds like." His comments reflected a growing recognition that the county faces difficult choices about which capital projects to prioritize given financial constraints. The most significant outcome of this priority discussion was the formation of an informal working group comprising Elenbaas, Stremler, and Buchanan to focus specifically on sheriff's office and justice project coordination. Jon Scanlon had proposed the idea, suggesting that "a small coalition of council members" could work together rather than waiting for proposals from the executive branch. This working group will coordinate with both the executive and sheriff's offices to identify shared priorities and develop recommendations for the full council. Tyler Byrd offered a practical suggestion early in the discussion that proved prescient: "Can we maybe start by boating on narrowing it down somehow the three items that we can focus on. And then just try to dig into those three items maybe so we actually kind of get something done as a suggestion." By the meeting's end, three clear focus areas had emerged: justice facilities, comprehensive planning, and budget prioritization. ## Executive Warns of Revenue Crisis The most sobering moment of the priority discussion came when Executive Satpal Sidhu delivered a stark warning about the county's financial future. His intervention shifted the conversation from project priorities to fundamental questions about the county's fiscal sustainability. "One of the things I don't want to bring it to the council's attention, which is actually more consequential is our revenues," Sidhu said. "We, we, I think you guys are very much aware that what is coming down the road is not glamorous is actually serious. And we are not thinking about what to do about it." Sidhu outlined the county's limited revenue options – sales tax and property tax – and emphasized that even with potential state approval for levy increases, there are limits to how much additional tax burden residents can bear. His prescription was economic growth through construction, which he argued provides three revenue streams: jobs that generate tax revenue, sales tax from construction activity, and property tax from new development. "We construction gives us three ways," Sidhu explained. "Jobs. That becomes tax. It brings sales tax. That brings tax. It brings property tax. That brings revenue. And I have not heard anything. In that manner. What we are going to look at three years from now." The executive's warning prompted a response from Stremler, who argued for examining both sides of the fiscal equation. "There's two things you could do about your finances, right? You got, you got your income and you got your expenses," Stremler said, questioning whether the county was equally committed to reducing expenditures as it was to increasing revenues. This exchange led to Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci's announcement that the county would soon request detailed service inventories from all departments. She explained that departments would be asked to identify what work they perform, how much each program costs, whether services are mandatory or discretionary, and how performance is measured. This information would be packaged for council review by early summer, potentially providing the foundation for difficult decisions about service levels and priorities. ## Comprehensive Planning and Housing Take Center Stage The priority discussion also revealed significant interest in housing policy and comprehensive planning. Scanlon highlighted the accumulation of housing recommendations from various advisory bodies over the years, including the Business and Commerce Advisory Committee, Housing Advisory Committee, and Child and Family Well-Being Task Force. "What I'd like to be able to do is work with a few folks on council and work with PDS and the executives office," Scanlon said. "Okay. We have all these ideas. What does that mean when it comes to code? What does that mean when it comes to policy and budget?" This led to the formation of additional working groups, with Donovan, Scanlon, and Elenbaas volunteering to work on comprehensive planning and housing issues, while Galloway and Byrd committed to budget prioritization work. However, the housing discussion quickly ran into procedural complications related to the Open Public Meetings Act and committee structures. The council's current three-member standing committees create quorum issues when those same members want to collaborate on related topics outside of formal committee meetings. This frustration led to a significant procedural decision that could reshape how the council operates. ## Breaking Through Procedural Barriers Elenbaas voiced the frustration many council members feel about current meeting procedures: "I can't fathom that we can function without... Yeah, anyway. Yes, and I'm looking up our 2.02 and I... I'm sort of recalling that we've self imposed our committees to the open public meetings act." Chief Civil Deputy Chris Quinn clarified that the county has indeed self-imposed OPMA requirements on its committees, even though state law would only require OPMA compliance when committees take actual or de facto action. Since county committees typically only provide advice to the full council, they would not normally be subject to OPMA. This clarification prompted action. Donovan moved that staff work with the prosecutor's office to explore code changes that would modify the OPMA policy as it applies to three-member standing committees. The motion passed unanimously, potentially opening the door to more efficient committee operations in the future. The procedural discussion also resulted in a temporary measure routing all housing-related items through Committee of the Whole for the remainder of 2025. This motion, proposed by Scanlon and seconded by Donovan, passed 4-3 with Byrd, Elenbaas, and Stremler opposing. Byrd argued for a more flexible approach where items could be routed individually rather than creating a blanket policy. ## Looking Ahead: More Meetings, More Focus The council also addressed its meeting schedule, recognizing the need for additional time to tackle complex issues. Galloway noted that during recent agenda planning, they had to cut about two hours worth of items just to fit into a single day that started at 8:30 AM. The body agreed in principle to schedule four to six additional special Committee of the Whole meetings before the end of the year, potentially tied to existing Health Board meeting days. These sessions would focus on comprehensive planning, budget discussions, and other priority topics that require extended deliberation. ## The Pre-Hire Agreement Controversy The second half of the meeting shifted to one of the most contentious policy debates the council has faced: a proposed ordinance establishing pre-hire agreements for large county construction projects. Chair Galloway, along with co-sponsors Buchanan and Scanlon, presented a significantly revised draft of legislation that has generated intense community debate. Galloway acknowledged the controversial nature of the proposal from the outset: "In the spirit of transparency and effort to be responsive to council member and community member interest and inquiry into a version two of the proposed code 3.73 construction projects around pre higher agreements, myself and my two co sponsors wanted an opportunity to share the up to date draft that we've been working on over the last six months or so." The revised ordinance, version 2.0, includes several significant changes from the original proposal. The cost threshold was increased from $5 million to $15 million, limiting the policy's application to fewer projects. Language around development projects was removed, focusing the ordinance specifically on county construction work. The proposal establishes a formal process for creating community coalitions that would recommend specific community benefits to be included in pre-hire agreements. ## Defining the Policy Goals Buchanan explained his support for the ordinance in terms of values rather than specific mechanisms: "I got aboard this effort because I believe strongly in the values that we have that we're talking about here and that is priority hires, which would be local hires, which would be veterans, which would be minorities, which would be the kinds of values that we as a community have." Scanlon framed his interest around economic impact: "My interest in this is making sure that when we have some of our larger projects using local taxpayer dollars at those taxpayer dollars are staying in our community by going into wages for local workers on those projects." The ordinance establishes targets including 50% of labor hours to be performed by "priority hire" workers, defined as minorities, women, veterans, and local/regional workers. Local workers are defined as Whatcom County residents, while regional workers include residents of Skagit, San Juan, and Island counties, with local workers prioritized over regional workers. ## Legal and Practical Complexities The policy discussion revealed significant complexity around the legal framework for pre-hire agreements. Galloway explained that the National Labor Relations Act includes an exemption for the construction industry that allows for prioritization of certain workers, but only through pre-hire agreements. However, questions remained about implementation details. Donovan expressed concern about both the process and outcomes: "Is this just going to make it take a lot longer to get stuff built. And it, and how does it improve our ability to get local people hired into jobs compared to what's going on right now." The ordinance includes provisions for community coalitions that would be established for each applicable project, with 90 days to develop recommendations and council having 45 days to act on those recommendations. The complexity of this process raised questions about project timelines and administrative burden. Chief Civil Deputy Quinn noted that the prosecutor's office is reviewing multiple issues with the draft, including whether the ordinance violates the single-subject rule by including provisions on change orders and other contract administration topics alongside pre-hire requirements. ## Intense Community Feedback Perhaps no aspect of the meeting generated more heat than the discussion of community response to the pre-hire agreement proposal. Tyler Byrd delivered perhaps the most pointed critique, arguing that the revised ordinance failed to address community concerns. "Looking at what I've seen so far and hearing what you defined so far, it's hard to understand how you actually have incorporated in the feedback from the community," Byrd said. "It really feels like it's more so than ignored more than anything else, quite frankly." Byrd described sending the draft to a dozen contractors immediately upon receiving it, reporting back that their concerns remained unaddressed. He argued that the policy would primarily benefit unions at the expense of workers and taxpayers, noting that workers would have to contribute to both their existing retirement programs and union programs without receiving benefits from the latter. "Does it help the union? Absolutely. Free money. It helps them with their pensions and cover the deficit that they're running into there," Byrd said. "Does it help us with our costs? Heck no." Byrd also criticized the process, arguing that the council had received only one presentation on the topic, from someone with a financial interest in managing such agreements. He called for presentations from opponents and more comprehensive analysis of potential negative impacts. ## Defending the Process and Intent Scanlon pushed back against characterizations of the outreach process, noting extensive engagement including a forum with 100-150 construction workers at the Mount Baker Theater, meetings with contractors, and other stakeholder discussions. However, he acknowledged that not every organization had been contacted about the revised draft since it was only released Monday night. "I think there has been a lot of bad behavior around this discussion," Scanlon said, referring to what he characterized as gendered attacks on Chair Galloway's leadership on the issue. "And I think we can elevate that to a different level. And I hope we do that moving forward." Galloway acknowledged that the policy development process had been more challenging than anticipated: "I will be honest. My first one of my first interactions with this policy was Snohomish counties ordinance that they put forward and it passed five zero on a bipartisan council. So when I sort of initiated this process, I was under the impression that this was a bipartisan issue... I didn't expect this to unfold the way it unfolded." ## Administrative Perspective The county administration remained largely neutral during the discussion. Deputy Executive Schott-Bresler explained that they had just received the draft and were not prepared to offer a formal position. She noted that the administration would need to work through operational details including staffing requirements, timeline coordination with bid processes, and administrative structure. "I think we'd ask council, the council sponsors to sort of help us think through the mechanics of how this would work," Schott-Bresler said, highlighting questions about the relationship between RFP releases and agreement negotiations. ## Future Presentations and Next Steps The sponsors announced that next Tuesday's council meeting would include presentations from multiple stakeholders representing both union and non-union contractors, tribal representatives, and various state organizations. This promises to provide the broader perspective that critics have requested. The ordinance remains a work in progress, with legal review ongoing and continued stakeholder engagement planned. Galloway emphasized that the sponsors remain open to feedback and alternative approaches that could achieve similar goals around local hiring and community benefits. ## Broader Implications As the meeting concluded with Galloway's reflection on the democratic process, the afternoon had revealed a council grappling with fundamental questions about governance, community input, and policy development. The formation of working groups on justice facilities, comprehensive planning, and budget prioritization suggests a body ready to tackle complex challenges collaboratively. The pre-hire agreement debate, meanwhile, illustrates the challenges of developing controversial policy in a fishbowl environment where every draft becomes subject to intense scrutiny. Whether the council can find common ground on this issue while maintaining productive working relationships remains an open question. The discussions also highlighted broader tensions between efficiency and transparency, local preferences and legal requirements, and the competing demands of different constituency groups. These themes will likely continue to shape council deliberations as they move forward with an ambitious agenda in an environment of fiscal constraint and community polarization. The April 22nd meeting demonstrated both the potential and the pitfalls of collaborative governance in a democracy. While the council showed its capacity for substantive policy discussion and practical problem-solving around priorities and procedures, the pre-hire agreement debate revealed how quickly substantive policy disagreements can become personal and procedural conflicts can become political battles. As the council moves forward with its newly established working groups and continues to wrestle with the pre-hire agreement proposal, the fundamental challenge remains: how to govern effectively while maintaining legitimacy across a diverse community with competing interests and deeply held beliefs about the proper role of government in economic development and social equity.