## Meeting Overview On the morning of September 9, 2025, Whatcom County's Finance and Administrative Services Committee convened for what Finance Director Randy Rydel would describe as an "unremarkable" quarterly financial report — though the 94-minute meeting proved anything but routine. Committee members Todd Donovan (chair), Tyler Byrd, and Barry Buchanan worked through an 18-item consent agenda that sparked substantive discussions about budget pressures, governance structures, and the county's financial priorities during a time of constrained resources. The meeting began at 10:17 a.m. with all three committee members present, along with several other council members observing. While the consent agenda appeared routine on its surface, several items prompted deeper examination of the county's fiscal health and operational challenges. From hearing examiner contracts to jail food services, emergency dispatch costs to workforce housing definitions, the committee's work revealed the complex web of financial decisions facing local government in 2025. ## The LEAD Program Funding Clarification The committee's first substantive discussion centered on behavioral health funding for the LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) program. Council Member Byrd questioned whether a $256,227.50 contract with North Sound Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization represented new, unbudgeted spending during a time when the behavioral health fund was already showing strain. Malora Christensen, Health and Community Services response systems manager, clarified that this was actually continuation funding for the Recovery Navigator Program that has been received for multiple years. "This is a continuation of state funding for recovery navigator program, and in Whatcom County we use that for our LEAD program," she explained. The confusion arose from language in the memo suggesting these were additional funds. Christensen acknowledged this was likely a typo and emphasized that "this is revenue coming into the behavioral health fund to be used for the LEAD program. It does not draw on the local sales tax 1/10 of 1%." This distinction proved important given council members' heightened awareness of behavioral health funding pressures. ## Hearing Examiner Contract Held for Budget Review A more contentious discussion emerged around the hearing examiner services contract with Rajeev Majumdar, which proposed a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for 2026. The contract, worth $118,779.60, represented what Majumdar described as a reasonable increase based on the county's previous year's COLA for staff. Majumdar explained his philosophy of tying his compensation to county employee COLAs, saying, "I feel like it shows to you my employer, that I have the same skin in the game." However, he noted that given economic uncertainty, he had agreed to a fixed 3% increase rather than an open-ended formula tied to whatever COLA county employees might receive. Council Member Byrd raised concerns about approving any increases before seeing the full biennial budget picture. With departments facing potential 10% cuts, he questioned whether contractors should receive increases. "If our department cuts are 10% are you taking 10% cut in yours next year too?" Byrd asked. Majumdar responded that no one had suggested negative adjustments and that he wouldn't provide more services for less income, though he acknowledged being open to "civilized conversation" if the county's solvency were truly in question. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci clarified that the executive wasn't proposing across-the-board 10% cuts — that was merely a potential scenario being discussed. She noted that budget transmission would happen the third week of October and that COLA discussions could occur toward the end of the budget process. Byrd moved to hold the contract until the budget was presented for review, arguing for a comprehensive assessment of all budget items together. The motion passed 2-1, with Donovan dissenting and noting his preference for proceeding with what he saw as a reasonable professional service contract. ## Jail Food Services and Missed Opportunities The committee's discussion of jail food services revealed both operational necessities and missed opportunities for efficiency. Caleb Erickson from the Sheriff's Office explained that the $1.24 million contract with Trinity Services Group would provide meal preparation for all county detention facilities — the main jail, work center, and juvenile detention. Erickson clarified that the vendor would procure ingredients and prepare meals in the jail kitchen, not deliver pre-made meals. "They're not making meals off site and delivering them to the jail. They will be making all the food in the kitchen, as they do now. It's just a different vendor than what we're currently using." Council Member Byrd raised an intriguing possibility for coordination with courthouse food services. The county has been working on an RFP for a café operator on the courthouse's second floor, and Byrd wondered whether combining these services could create economies of scale. "If we had a vendor that was filling that space, but that could also provide this meal service out of the courthouse to the juvenile detention facility and or the jail and corrections facility, that would obviously make it substantially more profitable and economically viable for the vendor going into that second floor space." Deputy Executive Pennucci acknowledged the potential benefits but noted the complexity and time constraints. With the current jail food service contract expiring at the end of September, they needed immediate action to ensure continuity of service. She suggested revisiting the combination possibility when the contract comes up for renewal in 18 months. ## East Whatcom Resource Center Management Questions The Opportunity Council's management of the East Whatcom Regional Resource Center prompted questions about community access and governance alternatives. Council Member Byrd noted longstanding community frustration with limited access to the facility, which was built to serve the local community. "The community out there has been frustrated with opportunity Council's management of this building and the access, or level of access and use by the community, which was the whole point of us building this building," Byrd observed. He questioned whether the county should consider a new RFP for facility management, particularly since the community had recently established its own parks district. Parks Director Bennett Knox responded that access had improved — the Columbia Valley Parks District was now holding meetings in the facility. He emphasized that parks staff were working to build collaborative relationships with local organizations and asked for an opportunity to continue that approach rather than pursuing an immediate RFP. Knox highlighted ongoing county investments in the area, including Bay to Baker trail planning, a covered sports court, and kitchen improvements coordinated with the Health Department. "We're excited to be engaged in that part of town as we've got some active projects," he said. ## Quarterly Financial Report: Cautious Optimism Finance Director Randy Rydel's quarterly presentation provided what he characterized as an "unremarkable" financial picture — accountant speak for good news. The county collected 48% of budgeted revenue and expended 45% of budget, both consistent with historical patterns. Rydel highlighted the county's approach to budget supplementals, which have varied significantly from year to year. While some years saw only $2-3 million in additional appropriations, 2024 required $40 million. The biennial budget structure contributes to this variability, as the second year of each budget cycle represents decisions made 18-30 months earlier with less certainty. "We can see in some of these, when I drill down, that there tends to be more budget supplemental asks for that second year of the even years," Rydel explained, noting that 2025 has seen fewer such requests, reflecting improved budgeting refinement. General fund cash balances remained healthy at $31 million in August, with property tax collections on track and sales tax showing modest improvement over 2024's disappointing performance. Rydel titled his sales tax slide "cautious optimism," noting that 2024 was "kind of a breath holding, belt tightening place for people." The Road Fund presented more challenges, with a balance of $7.4 million — better than initially projected but still requiring close monitoring. Public Works Director Chris Comsa has implemented cost controls that have proven effective so far. ## What-Comm Dispatch Costs: Governance Concerns One of the meeting's most pointed discussions focused on rapidly rising emergency dispatch costs through What-Comm, the regional 911 dispatch center. The budget supplemental showed What-Comm's EMS dispatch costs had increased 40% over three years, creating significant financial pressure for the county. Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler explained that What-Comm sets its budget on a different timeline than the county's, creating timing mismatches that require budget adjustments. She noted that one of their office's goals was to engage earlier in What-Comm's budget process to provide better county input. The fundamental governance problem became clear during the discussion. As Committee Chair Donovan observed, "It's an odd setup that the What-Comm board can put things in our budget." The county has limited representation on What-Comm's governing board relative to its financial contribution, creating situations where the county can be outvoted on decisions that significantly impact its budget. Council Member Byrd was even more direct: "I strongly think that this council needs to go back and reassess the makeup and structure of that board." He advocated for seriously considering consolidation of What-Comm with Prospect 911 dispatch in neighboring Skagit County, arguing that "there's a substantial savings there that can be had if we combine those facilities." Jed Holmes from the executive's office provided details on the cost allocation formulas, noting that EMS costs are allocated based on call volume regardless of jurisdiction, while law enforcement costs consider population, call volume, and number of commissioned officers. The county pays approximately 30% of law enforcement dispatch costs. The committee agreed to revisit What-Comm governance issues, recognizing this as a structural problem requiring longer-term solutions beyond budget adjustments. ## Public Defense Costs: The Unfunded Mandate Challenge Superior Court Clerk Raylene King presented one of the most challenging budget pressures: a $500,000 supplemental request for conflict assignments and overflow cases for indigent defendants. This represented a 12.79% increase from the previous year, bringing total outside conflict costs to approximately $1.2 million. King explained the multiple pressures driving these costs upward: new caseload standards, space limitations, attorney retirements, and a shrinking pool of qualified attorneys willing to take contract work. "We have been avidly looking for defense counsel, outside counsel, to take contracts that they would take a significant portion. We have not been successful. So far with that, we've put out two RFQs within the last year with no responses." The situation illustrates a classic unfunded mandate challenge. As King noted, "There's certain requirements that are coming in" from the state regarding public defense, but no corresponding funding. The county must provide adequate defense or face legal challenges, yet has limited options for controlling costs. Deputy Executive Pennucci framed this as a policy choice: maintain higher general fund reserves to cover such unexpected but legally required expenses, or increase base budget allocations with less flexibility. The county had chosen the reserve approach, building in buffer capacity while trying to find more cost-effective service delivery methods. King expressed hope that ongoing restructuring efforts with the Public Defender's Office and HR might help contain future costs, and that expanding the pool of qualified attorneys could increase competition and moderate prices. ## Stewart Mountain Ownership Model The committee briefly addressed the complex Stewart Mountain Community Forest acquisition, which has been years in development. Deputy Executive Pennucci explained that an additional $200,000 from the Conservation Futures Fund was needed to extend the purchase deadline to year-end, giving the Whatcom Land Trust and Nooksack Tribe time to finalize their agreement on ownership structure. The delay resulted from the complexity of coordinating multiple stakeholders and a reappraisal that increased the sale price. While the Conservation Futures Fund showed a low balance, a $2.9 million grant reimbursement was expected in October or November. Rachel Vasak from the Whatcom Land Trust emphasized that the project was nearly complete: "The five and a half million dollar grant from ecology, as well as the $3 million grant, and we're almost to the finish line, and this is really the key piece of the puzzle to ensure that this project goes forward." ## Economic Development Investment Board Recommendations The final major item addressed the Economic Development Investment Board's recommendations for $7.2 million in 2026 funding. The board had recommended $3.55 million for infrastructure projects (primarily to the Port of Bellingham), $1.7 million for housing, and reserved $600,000 while being unable to reach consensus on the final $1.3 million. The contentious item was the Opportunity Council's Bellis Fair Senior Housing project, which failed to receive EDI Board recommendation by narrow margins. The project, designed for residents 62 and older, sparked debate about the definition of "workforce housing" and whether seniors housing aligned with EDI's economic development mission. Council Member Byrd argued against the project, stating it didn't fit the workforce housing purpose: "The goal of including housing was workforce housing and the project that you're speaking of is senior housing." He worried about opportunity costs of using limited EDI funds for projects that could be funded through other housing programs. Council Member Scanlon countered that demographic restrictions weren't part of the original RFP and that significant numbers of people over 62 remain in the workforce. "There's a lot of folks 62, 65 still working and beyond 65," he noted, citing data showing rising workforce participation among seniors. The debate highlighted a fundamental tension in EDI fund usage. Originally focused on infrastructure to support economic development, the fund was expanded to include workforce housing following legislative changes. However, the definition of "workforce housing" remained unclear, creating uncertainty about appropriate uses. Committee Chair Donovan moved to fund the Bellis Fair project with EDI money, noting both it and the approved Unity Street project were "shovel ready" for 2026 construction. After extensive discussion about alternative funding sources and the need for clearer workforce housing definitions, the motion passed 2-1, with Byrd dissenting. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting adjourned at 11:51 a.m. with several issues requiring follow-up. The hearing examiner contract was held pending budget review in October. The committee agreed to revisit What-Comm governance issues. The Bellis Fair housing project funding would be considered by the full council that evening. The meeting illustrated the complex balancing act facing county government: maintaining essential services while managing cost pressures, honoring legal obligations within budget constraints, and defining policy priorities amid competing demands. With the biennial budget process beginning and structural challenges in areas like emergency dispatch and public defense, the county faced difficult choices about service levels and financial sustainability. The tone throughout remained collegial despite substantive disagreements, reflecting council members' shared commitment to responsible fiscal management while serving community needs. As they moved toward budget deliberations, the questions raised during this "unremarkable" quarterly report would likely prove quite remarkable in their ultimate resolution.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Finance and Administrative Services Committee met on September 9, 2025, for 1 hour and 34 minutes to review 18 consent agenda items, receive a quarterly financial report, and discuss several budget amendments and housing funding decisions. The meeting featured significant debate about a hearing examiner contract renewal and Economic Development Investment (EDI) funding for senior housing. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Consent Agenda:** A group of routine items voted on together to save time, though individual items can be pulled for separate discussion. **Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization (BHASO):** State-level organization that manages behavioral health funding and contracts. **LEAD Program:** Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program that diverts people from jail to treatment and services. **Economic Development Investment (EDI) Fund:** County fund using sales tax revenue to support economic development, infrastructure, and workforce housing projects. **Workforce Housing:** Housing intended to serve working families, though the committee noted this term needs better definition. **Budget Supplemental:** Mid-year budget adjustments to add spending authority or revenue beyond what was originally approved. **What-Comm:** Regional emergency dispatch center serving Whatcom County jurisdictions. **Conservation Futures Fund:** Fund dedicated to purchasing and protecting environmentally sensitive land. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Todd Donovan | Committee Chair | | Tyler Byrd | Committee Member | | Barry Buchanan | Committee Member | | Aly Pennucci | Deputy County Executive | | Rajeev Majumdar | County Hearing Examiner | | Randy Rydel | County Finance Director | | Caleb Erickson | Sheriff's Office Chief Corrections Deputy | | Jill Boudreau | Executive's Office Senior Policy Manager | ### Background Context Whatcom County is facing budget pressures requiring careful evaluation of all expenditures. The county uses a biennial (two-year) budget process, making mid-year adjustments through supplemental budget requests when new funding becomes available or unexpected costs arise. The Economic Development Investment fund has accumulated nearly $100 million since inception, with ongoing debate about how to best use these funds to support economic development while addressing housing needs. The committee's discussion reflected broader tensions between maintaining fiscal discipline and meeting community needs, particularly around defining "workforce housing" versus general affordable housing. The county's relationship with regional bodies like What-Comm also creates challenges when external entities can effectively mandate county spending through board decisions where the county lacks voting control. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee approved 17 of 18 consent items worth millions in contracts and agreements, but chose to delay the hearing examiner contract renewal until budget discussions. Finance Director Randy Rydel reported stable second quarter finances with revenues and expenditures tracking to historical patterns. The committee recommended approval of a $956,986 budget supplemental and a Criminal Justice Treatment Account plan. The most contentious discussion centered on whether to use EDI funds for a $1.3 million senior housing project that the Economic Development Board had narrowly rejected. After debate about the definition of workforce housing and whether seniors qualify, the committee voted 2-1 to recommend using EDI funds, setting up further discussion at the evening council meeting about potential alternative funding sources. ### What to Watch Next - Evening council meeting discussion on EDI funding alternatives for the Bellis Fair senior housing project - Budget transmission from the county executive in the third week of October - Public hearing on the property surplus resolution at the first October council meeting - Business and Commerce Committee input on workforce housing definitions ---

**Q:** What was the total value of the hearing examiner contract extension that was delayed? **A:** $118,779.60 for 2026 services, representing a 3% cost of living adjustment. **Q:** Why did Council Member Byrd want to delay the hearing examiner contract? **A:** He wanted to assess it alongside the entire budget review process rather than approve it separately. **Q:** How much money did the EDI board have available to allocate for 2026? **A:** Approximately $7.2 million after reserves and administrative costs. **Q:** What was the vote on delaying the hearing examiner contract? **A:** 2-1 to delay, with Byrd and Buchanan voting yes, Donovan voting no. **Q:** What percentage of the EDI fund has gone to county-specific projects versus other jurisdictions? **A:** 29% for county projects, 67% to other governmental jurisdictions like cities. **Q:** How long is the jail food services contract term? **A:** 15 months, covering the end of 2025 and all of 2026. **Q:** What was unique about the EDI board vote on the Bellis Fair senior housing project? **A:** It was one of the closest votes ever seen on the EDI board, narrowly failing. **Q:** How much did Finance Director Rydel say the county has in general fund cash as of August? **A:** About $31 million, slightly higher than prior years. **Q:** What behavioral health funding continues from previous years? **A:** $256,227.50 for the Recovery Navigator Program supporting the LEAD program. **Q:** How much additional money is being requested for the Stewart Mountain project? **A:** An additional $200,000 to extend the closing date to the end of the year. **Q:** What is the total amount of the budget supplemental request discussed? **A:** $1,820,416 for various items including EMS dispatch and conflict assignments. **Q:** Why are What-Comm costs increasing? **A:** EMS dispatch costs have increased 40% over the past three years, creating budget pressures. **Q:** How much money is being requested for conflict assignments for indigent defendants? **A:** $500,000 to get through the end of the year. **Q:** What is the age requirement for the Bellis Fair senior housing project? **A:** Age 62 and up, with many residents potentially still working. **Q:** What vote was the final committee recommendation on using EDI funds for senior housing? **A:** 2-1 to recommend EDI funding, with Buchanan and Donovan yes, Byrd no. **Q:** How many consent agenda items were there initially? **A:** 18 items covering various contracts and agreements. **Q:** What did the second quarter financial report show about county finances? **A:** "Unremarkable" results with 48% revenue collection and 45% expenditures, both within historical patterns. **Q:** When will the county executive transmit the biennial budget? **A:** The third week in October for supplemental changes and budget discussions. **Q:** What happened to most of the consent agenda items? **A:** They were approved 3-0 with only the hearing examiner contract being delayed. **Q:** What is the jail reentry project about? **A:** Helping inmates get Medicaid enrollment and identification before release to improve reentry success. ---