# Real Briefings — Module 1: Essential Meeting Information **Meeting Duration:** 15m 17s **Real Briefings:** realhousingreform.org | A project of the Real Housing Reform Initiative --- ## Basic Meeting Information **Meeting Type:** Council Public Works and Health Committee Meeting **Date:** Tuesday, September 23, 2025 **Time:** 9:55 AM - 10:10 AM (15 minutes, 17 seconds) **Location:** Hybrid Meeting - Council Chambers, Whatcom County Courthouse **Committee Chair:** Jon Scanlon **Committee Members Present:** - Jon Scanlon (Chair) - Mark Stremler - Ben Elenbaas **Other Council Members Present:** - Barry Buchanan - Tyler Byrd - Todd Donovan - Kaylee Galloway **Staff Present:** - Sue Sullivan, Environmental Health Manager, Health and Community Services - Aly Pennucci, Deputy Executive ## Primary Agenda Items **Main Item:** - AB2025-640: Resolution relating to the 2025 Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan Update ## Key Decisions Made **Committee Recommendation:** - **PASSED (3-0):** Committee recommended approval of a substitute resolution with amendments proposed by Council Member Galloway regarding the 2025 Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan Update **Vote Breakdown:** - **Yes:** Scanlon, Stremler, Elenbaas (3) - **No:** None (0) ## Notable Context This brief meeting focused on a single technical item - approving the final phase of an 18-month update process for the county's Coordinated Water System Plan before it goes to the State Department of Health for approval. The discussion became more substantive when Council Members raised concerns about how water service areas should relate to future urban growth area expansions, leading to amendments that soften restrictive language in the original resolution. The committee had limited time and moved quickly through the discussion, with most detailed deliberation deferred to the full Council meeting later that evening. --- # Real Briefings — Module 2: Detailed Issue Analysis ## Issue Deep-Dive: Water System Plan and Urban Growth Area Coordination ### The Core Issue Whatcom County was finalizing its 18-month update to the Coordinated Water System Plan, which requires state approval. However, the resolution contained language that could significantly restrict how municipalities consider water infrastructure when planning future urban growth area (UGA) expansions. ### Background Context - The Water Utility Coordinating Committee had already reviewed public comments - Comments were primarily focused on climate considerations from Public Works - The plan includes data on water associations and their capacity for additional hookups - State Department of Health has 90 days to approve the plan once submitted - Goal is approval by end of calendar year 2025 ### Technical Details **Original Problematic Language:** The resolution stated that "A City's designation of a water service area that extends outside of an Urban Growth Area shall not be utilized as justification for later expanding the Urban Growth Area." **Why This Mattered:** Council Members were concerned this absolute prohibition could: - Prevent cities from considering existing water infrastructure in growth planning - Create perverse incentives for cities to refuse extending water service outside UGAs - Conflict with Growth Management Act principles that encourage efficient use of infrastructure ### The Amendment Process **Council Member Elenbaas' Initial Concern:** Suggested changing "shall not" to "shall not solely" to allow water service to be one factor among many rather than completely prohibited. **Council Member Galloway's Comprehensive Amendment:** - Added extensive "whereas" clauses referencing the Growth Management Act - Emphasized that UGA designation should consider multiple factors including population projections, land availability, transportation, and environmental considerations - Modified the restrictive language to state water service "may be considered as one of several types of factors" but "shall not be the only factor justifying expansion" ### Policy Implications **Growth Management Act Alignment:** Galloway's amendments specifically tied the resolution to GMA requirements for orderly development, environmental protection, and efficient infrastructure use. **Planning Coordination:** The discussion highlighted ongoing tensions between water planning and comprehensive plan updates, particularly regarding which areas might be suitable for future urban development. **Jurisdictional Flexibility:** The amendments preserve municipal discretion in growth planning while preventing water service alone from driving UGA expansions. --- # Real Briefings — Module 3: Community Voices & Public Input ## Public Participation Summary ### Public Comment Period **Format:** This was a committee meeting with no designated public comment period for general topics. **Public Input on Main Agenda Item:** No direct public testimony was taken during this meeting on the water system plan resolution. ### How Public Input Was Previously Incorporated **Earlier Public Comment Process:** Environmental Health Manager Sue Sullivan noted that the Water Utility Coordinating Committee had already met earlier in September 2025 to review public comments on the draft plan. **Types of Comments Received:** - Primary focus was on climate-related concerns - Comments came largely from Public Works - Resulted in additions of data points to tables and other modifications to the plan **Comment Documentation:** Chair Scanlon specifically directed council members to page 231 of the final report, which contains all public comments and explanations of how they were or were not incorporated into the plan update. ### Transparency and Access **Meeting Format:** Hybrid meeting allowing both in-person and remote participation via phone or online platform. **Documentation:** The meeting was recorded and transcribed, with full documentation of the discussion and amendment process. **Future Opportunities:** The item was being forwarded to the full County Council meeting that same evening, where additional public input opportunities would be available. ### Stakeholder Engagement Context **18-Month Process:** Sullivan emphasized this was the "last phase" of an 18-month update process, indicating extensive prior stakeholder engagement. **Inter-Departmental Coordination:** Multiple references were made to coordination between Health and Community Services, Planning and Development Services (PDS), and the County Prosecutor's Office in developing the resolution language. **Technical Nature:** The highly technical nature of coordinated water system planning likely limited direct public engagement, with most input coming through professional and institutional channels rather than individual community members. --- # Real Briefings — Module 4: Financial Impact & Budget Considerations ## Financial and Economic Analysis ### Direct Financial Impacts **No Direct Budget Allocation:** This resolution does not appropriate funds or create new budget line items. The Coordinated Water System Plan update represents completion of an existing planning process rather than authorization for new spending. **State Review Timeline:** The State Department of Health has 90 days to review and approve the plan, with a target of approval by the end of calendar year 2025. No fees or costs were discussed related to state review. ### Indirect Economic Implications **Development Planning Tool:** The water system plan serves as a foundational document for development decisions countywide. Chair Scanlon specifically noted the plan shows "how many additional hookups can occur within those areas" for various water associations, making it a key resource for economic development planning. **Infrastructure Investment Guidance:** By coordinating water system planning across jurisdictions, the plan helps ensure efficient use of public infrastructure investments and can guide future capital improvement decisions. ### Policy Cost Considerations **Urban Growth Area Planning:** The debate over how water service areas relate to UGA expansions has significant economic implications: - Restricting consideration of water infrastructure could lead to inefficient development patterns - Allowing water service as the sole justification for UGA expansion could encourage sprawl - The compromise language aims to balance efficient infrastructure use with controlled growth **Municipal Decision-Making:** Council Member Elenbaas expressed concern that overly restrictive language might discourage cities from extending water service outside current UGAs, potentially limiting service to areas with immediate public health or safety needs. ### Long-Term Economic Impact **Growth Management Efficiency:** By aligning water system planning with Growth Management Act principles, the resolution supports: - Compact, contiguous development patterns - Efficient use of existing infrastructure - Reduced sprawl and associated public service costs **Regional Coordination:** The coordinated approach to water system planning helps prevent duplicative infrastructure investments and supports regional economic development strategies. ### Budget Process Context **Committee Authority:** As a committee recommendation rather than final action, this item requires full County Council approval before taking effect. No emergency or special budget procedures were invoked. **Routine Planning Function:** The water system plan update represents routine compliance with state planning requirements rather than discretionary spending, fitting within existing department operational budgets. --- # Real Briefings — Module 5: Legal Framework & Compliance ## Legal and Regulatory Analysis ### Primary Legal Authority **State Mandate:** The Coordinated Water System Plan update is required by state law and must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Health for approval. This represents a mandatory compliance function rather than discretionary policy-making. **Growth Management Act Integration:** Council Member Galloway's amendments extensively referenced the Growth Management Act (GMA), specifically RCW 36.7a, which "directs the planning of urban growth and development to ensure orderly development, protect natural resources, and promote efficient use of public infrastructure and services." ### Legal Drafting Process **Prosecuting Attorney Involvement:** Environmental Health Manager Sullivan noted that "our PA, our PA prosecuting attorneys helped us draft this resolution in concert with PDS [Planning and Development Services]," indicating formal legal review of the original language. **Inter-Departmental Coordination:** The resolution was developed through collaboration between: - Health and Community Services - Planning and Development Services - County Prosecutor's Office ### Statutory Compliance Issues **Original Language Concerns:** The initial resolution language stating water service areas "shall not be utilized as justification for later expanding the Urban Growth Area" raised legal questions about compliance with GMA requirements for efficient infrastructure use. **Amendment Rationale:** Galloway's amendments addressed potential legal conflicts by: - Explicitly referencing GMA statutory requirements - Ensuring water infrastructure can be considered as "one of several types of factors" in UGA planning - Maintaining prohibition against water service as the "only factor justifying expansion" ### Growth Management Act Compliance **Required Considerations:** The amended resolution acknowledges that UGA designations must consider multiple GMA-mandated factors: - Population growth projections - Land availability - Zoning designations - Land capacity analysis - Transportation infrastructure - Environmental considerations **Legal Balance:** The amendments attempt to balance two potentially conflicting legal principles: - GMA requirement for efficient infrastructure use - GMA prohibition against development that encourages sprawl ### Procedural Requirements **Committee Process:** The item followed standard committee procedures: - Committee discussion and recommendation - Forward to full Council for final action - No special procedures or emergency provisions invoked **Public Notice:** Meeting was properly noticed with hybrid participation options and advance agenda publication. **Amendment Authority:** The committee had authority to recommend amendments to the resolution, with Council Member Galloway's substitute version properly introduced and adopted through committee motion. ### State Review Process **Department of Health Authority:** Once approved by County Council, the plan goes to the State Department of Health for final approval within 90 days. **Compliance Timeline:** The county aims for state approval by end of calendar year 2025, suggesting no legal deadlines are at immediate risk. --- # Real Briefings — Module 6: Political Dynamics & Voting Patterns ## Political Analysis and Council Dynamics ### Voting Alignment **Unanimous Committee Approval:** The final 3-0 vote to recommend Galloway's substitute resolution showed complete committee consensus, despite initial concerns about the original language. **Vote Breakdown:** - **Chair Jon Scanlon:** Yes - guided discussion efficiently given time constraints - **Council Member Mark Stremler:** Yes - participated but made minimal comments - **Council Member Ben Elenbaas:** Yes - initiated the amendment discussion with "shall not solely" language ### Policy Position Evolution **Initial Consensus Building:** Council Member Elenbaas raised the first substantive concern about overly restrictive language, suggesting "shall not solely" instead of absolute prohibition. This created opening for broader discussion. **Comprehensive Response:** Council Member Galloway (not a committee member but present) took Elenbaas's concern and developed comprehensive amendments that addressed multiple council members' interests in GMA alignment. **Quick Adaptation:** Despite limited meeting time, the committee quickly pivoted from the original resolution to supporting a significantly amended version, showing flexibility in policy development. ### Inter-Jurisdictional Considerations **Municipal Relations:** The discussion revealed concern about how restrictive county policy might affect municipal decision-making. Council Member Elenbaas specifically worried about creating disincentives for cities to extend water service where needed. **Regional Coordination:** The policy debate touched on fundamental questions about county versus municipal authority in growth management and infrastructure planning. ### Procedural Politics **Time Management:** Chair Scanlon repeatedly referenced time constraints, noting "we only had a few minutes" and "we have seven whole minutes." This created pressure for quick decision-making and limited detailed debate. **Deferred Deliberation:** The committee chose to recommend Galloway's amendments without extensive discussion, explicitly planning for fuller debate at the evening Council meeting. **Staff Coordination:** Deputy Executive Pennucci's offer to recirculate previous PDS analysis showed ongoing effort to provide council with technical support for policy decisions. ### Policy Philosophy Tensions **Development Control vs. Flexibility:** The amendment debate revealed underlying tension between: - Preventing sprawl through strict limitations on infrastructure-driven growth - Maintaining municipal flexibility to consider infrastructure in comprehensive planning **State vs. Local Authority:** Galloway's extensive GMA references positioned county policy within state planning mandates, potentially limiting local discretion while ensuring legal compliance. ### Strategic Positioning **Committee vs. Council:** By accepting amendments in committee, members positioned the item for smoother full Council consideration while allowing additional refinement if needed. **Legal Cover:** The extensive legal references in Galloway's amendments provided political cover for council members concerned about potential legal challenges to growth management decisions. **Stakeholder Management:** The policy approach attempted to balance competing interests: - Environmental advocates seeking growth controls - Municipal officials wanting planning flexibility - Development interests needing predictable rules --- # Real Briefings — Module 7: Implementation Timeline & Next Steps ## Implementation Plan and Follow-up Actions ### Immediate Next Steps **County Council Action - September 23, 2025 Evening:** The committee's recommendation advances to the full County Council meeting scheduled for the same evening. Council members will have opportunity for extended debate and potential further amendments. **Staff Tasks Before Council Meeting:** - Council staff to circulate Galloway's substitute resolution to all council members - Add the amended document to the evening's agenda - Potentially redistribute previous PDS analysis referenced by Deputy Executive Pennucci ### State Review Process **Submission Timeline:** If approved by full County Council, the resolution enables submission of the Coordinated Water System Plan to the Washington State Department of Health. **State Review Period:** - Department of Health has 90 days for review and approval - County target: approval by end of calendar year 2025 - No indication of potential complications or delays ### Documentation and Distribution **Final Plan Access:** Sue Sullivan noted the resolution links to the county website containing the final draft plan, ensuring public access to the complete document. **Public Comment Integration:** Page 231 of the final report contains all public comments and responses, providing transparency on how input was incorporated into the plan. ### Long-term Implementation Considerations **Growth Management Coordination:** The amended resolution creates framework for how water system planning coordinates with comprehensive plan updates and UGA decisions. This will require ongoing coordination between: - Health and Community Services (water system oversight) - Planning and Development Services (land use planning) - Municipal partners (UGA and development decisions) **Policy Application:** The resolution establishes principles that will guide future decisions about: - Municipal water service area expansions - UGA boundary amendments - Infrastructure investment priorities - Development approval processes ### Monitoring and Compliance **State Oversight:** Once approved by Department of Health, the plan becomes the official framework for coordinated water system management countywide. **Regional Coordination:** The Water Utility Coordinating Committee will continue oversight of plan implementation and future updates. ### Potential Challenges **Implementation Questions:** The compromise language about water service as "one of several factors" rather than prohibited consideration may require case-by-case interpretation in future UGA decisions. **Municipal Relations:** Counties and cities will need to navigate how the new policy framework applies to specific development proposals and infrastructure decisions. **Legal Interpretation:** The extensive GMA references in the amended resolution may require legal analysis as specific situations arise involving water service and growth management decisions. ### Future Planning Cycles **Plan Update Schedule:** Coordinated water system plans require periodic updates, suggesting this policy framework will guide future planning cycles. **Comprehensive Plan Integration:** The amendments explicitly tie water system planning to GMA compliance, creating ongoing coordination requirements during comprehensive plan updates. --- # Real Briefings — Module 8: Local Context & Broader Implications ## Regional and Statewide Context ### Whatcom County Growth Pressures **Development Context:** Chair Scanlon and Council Member Donovan's discussion referenced ongoing Committee of the Whole meetings where they're "looking at the individual city plans and then the UGA plans," indicating active county-wide growth management processes. **Specific Growth Areas:** Donovan specifically mentioned "spots like High Notes Corner and a few other places for some potential expansion of residential areas," showing concrete development pressure in unincorporated areas. **Infrastructure Capacity:** The water system plan provides data on "how many additional hookups can occur within those areas" for various water associations, directly informing growth capacity decisions. ### Statewide Growth Management Framework **Growth Management Act Implementation:** Washington's GMA requires counties to plan for orderly growth while protecting natural resources. Whatcom County's resolution amendments demonstrate how local jurisdictions balance state mandates with local conditions. **UGA Planning Challenges:** The tension between infrastructure availability and growth controls reflects broader statewide challenges in implementing GMA requirements across diverse local conditions. **Coordinated Planning:** The 18-month update process and multi-jurisdictional coordination exemplifies GMA requirements for regional cooperation in infrastructure and land use planning. ### Water Resource Management **Climate Considerations:** Sullivan noted that public comments focused heavily on climate issues, reflecting broader regional concerns about water supply reliability under changing conditions. **Regional Water Systems:** The coordinated approach across multiple water associations and jurisdictions addresses the reality that water resources and systems cross municipal boundaries. ### Policy Innovation and Legal Precedent **Balancing Act:** The committee's amendment process demonstrates how local governments adapt general state requirements to specific regional needs and political realities. **Legal Framework Development:** Galloway's extensive GMA references create a model for how other jurisdictions might align infrastructure planning with growth management requirements. **Inter-governmental Coordination:** The resolution establishes principles for county-municipal coordination that could influence how other regions handle similar water/growth planning integration. ### Broader Planning Implications **Infrastructure-Led vs. Policy-Led Growth:** The debate over water service as justification for UGA expansion reflects fundamental questions about whether infrastructure drives development or development drives infrastructure. **Regional Equity:** Water system coordination across jurisdictions addresses potential inequities where some areas might have better infrastructure access based on municipal boundaries rather than regional planning. **Environmental Protection:** The GMA references to environmental protection and controlled sprawl connect local water planning to broader regional environmental objectives. ### Economic Development Context **Development Predictability:** The resolution provides clearer framework for developers and municipalities understanding how water infrastructure relates to growth opportunities. **Investment Guidance:** Coordinated water planning helps guide public and private infrastructure investments by providing regional capacity data and policy framework. **Regional Competitiveness:** Efficient infrastructure coordination supports regional economic development by ensuring adequate utility services for growth while controlling sprawl costs. --- # Real Briefings — Module 9: Historical Context & Background Information ## Historical Development and Background ### Water System Planning Evolution **18-Month Development Process:** Environmental Health Manager Sue Sullivan emphasized this was "the last phase in the process of updating the Coordinated Water System Plan" after an extensive 18-month development process, indicating significant prior work and stakeholder engagement. **Previous Plan Cycles:** Coordinated water system plans represent ongoing state requirements, suggesting this is part of a regular planning cycle rather than a one-time effort. The update process builds on previous plans and regional coordination efforts. **Water Utility Coordinating Committee Role:** The committee met earlier in September 2025 to review public comment, demonstrating established inter-jurisdictional coordination mechanisms for water system planning. ### Growth Management History in Whatcom County **Comprehensive Plan Integration:** Council Member Donovan's questions about how the water plan "links to what we've been talking about in terms of the comp plan, particularly in terms of UGA expansions" suggests ongoing comprehensive plan update processes that have been under discussion. **Previous Council Discussions:** References to prior email exchanges between Council Member Scanlon and Planning and Development Services indicate this topic has been under consideration for some time, with technical questions previously addressed. **Committee of the Whole Context:** Mentions of ongoing Committee of the Whole meetings reviewing "individual city plans and then the UGA plans" suggest broader growth management planning processes currently underway countywide. ### Legal and Policy Framework Development **State Department of Health Oversight:** The requirement for state approval reflects Washington's centralized approach to water system regulation, balancing local control with state oversight of essential infrastructure. **Growth Management Act Implementation:** Council Member Galloway's extensive GMA references build on decades of Washington state growth management policy, adapting general requirements to specific local water planning needs. **Prosecuting Attorney Involvement:** The mention that county prosecuting attorneys "helped us draft this resolution in concert with PDS" indicates formal legal review processes for policy development. ### Regional Infrastructure Coordination **Multi-Jurisdictional Challenges:** The coordinated approach addresses historical challenges where water systems, municipal boundaries, and growth areas don't necessarily align, requiring regional cooperation. **Climate Adaptation:** Public comments focused on climate considerations reflect growing awareness of how climate change affects water system reliability and planning assumptions. ### Policy Development Patterns **Amendment Process:** The quick development of comprehensive amendments by Council Member Galloway suggests established processes for policy refinement and legal analysis within the council structure. **Technical-Political Balance:** The committee's handling of technical water planning alongside political concerns about municipal autonomy reflects ongoing tensions in regional governance. **Stakeholder Engagement:** The 18-month process and committee review of public comments demonstrates established procedures for public input on technical planning documents. ### Previous Policy Precedents **Water Service and Growth Planning:** The debate over whether water service should influence UGA decisions reflects broader policy discussions about infrastructure-led versus policy-led development that likely have precedents in previous county decisions. **Inter-Departmental Coordination:** The involvement of Health and Community Services, Planning and Development Services, and the Prosecutor's Office suggests established procedures for cross-departmental policy development. --- # Real Briefings — Module 10: Looking Forward & Policy Implications ## Future Policy Directions and Strategic Considerations ### Immediate Policy Applications **UGA Decision Framework:** The amended resolution establishes that water service infrastructure can be considered as "one of several factors" in future Urban Growth Area expansion decisions, providing clear guidance for upcoming comprehensive plan processes. **Municipal Coordination:** The policy framework will guide how counties and cities coordinate growth planning with infrastructure investments, particularly relevant as Whatcom County continues reviewing individual municipal comprehensive plans. **Development Review Process:** Future development applications in areas near UGA boundaries will be evaluated using the new framework that considers water service availability alongside other GMA-mandated factors. ### Long-term Strategic Implications **Climate Resilience:** The emphasis on climate considerations in public comments positions water system planning as a key tool for regional climate adaptation, potentially influencing future infrastructure investments and growth patterns. **Regional Growth Management:** The coordinated approach creates a model for how infrastructure planning can support broader regional growth management objectives while maintaining local flexibility. **Legal Precedent:** The extensive Growth Management Act integration may serve as a template for other jurisdictions balancing state planning mandates with local conditions. ### Emerging Policy Questions **Implementation Standards:** The compromise language about water service as one factor among many will require development of specific criteria and procedures for evaluating future UGA proposals. **Inter-jurisdictional Equity:** The coordinated approach may highlight disparities in water service capacity across different areas, potentially influencing future infrastructure investment priorities. **Development Timing:** The policy framework will affect how the timing of infrastructure development relates to land use approvals and growth management decisions. ### Economic Development Considerations **Investment Predictability:** The clearer policy framework provides more certainty for private development investments by establishing how water infrastructure relates to growth opportunities. **Public Infrastructure Planning:** Coordinated water planning supports more efficient public infrastructure investments by aligning utility development with planned growth areas. **Regional Competitiveness:** Effective infrastructure coordination enhances the region's ability to accommodate economic growth while managing environmental and fiscal impacts. ### Environmental and Social Implications **Sprawl Prevention:** The policy framework supports GMA goals of compact development while maintaining flexibility for addressing public health and safety needs through infrastructure extension. **Water Resource Protection:** Coordinated planning helps ensure sustainable use of regional water resources while supporting necessary growth and development. **Community Access:** The balance between growth control and infrastructure flexibility affects how different communities access essential water services. ### Governance Evolution **Multi-level Coordination:** The policy framework establishes principles for ongoing coordination between county, municipal, and state planning processes. **Adaptive Management:** The approach allows for policy refinement through future planning cycles while maintaining clear principles for infrastructure and growth coordination. **Democratic Participation:** The extensive public input process and transparent amendment procedures demonstrate evolving approaches to technical policy development with meaningful public engagement. ### Future Monitoring Needs **Implementation Tracking:** The county will need systems to monitor how the new policy framework affects actual UGA and development decisions. **Outcome Assessment:** Long-term evaluation of whether the balanced approach achieves both growth management and infrastructure efficiency objectives. **Regional Coordination:** Ongoing assessment of how well the coordinated approach serves different communities and jurisdictions across the region.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Public Works & Health Committee met on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, to review and recommend approval of a resolution related to the 2025 Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan update. The committee ultimately recommended approval of a substitute resolution with amendments that clarify how water service areas should be considered in urban growth area expansion decisions. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Coordinated Water System Plan:** A comprehensive planning document that coordinates water service among multiple water utilities in Whatcom County. This plan requires state approval and is updated periodically to ensure adequate water service for current and future development. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Geographic areas designated under Washington's Growth Management Act where urban development is intended to be concentrated over a 20-year period. These areas are meant to promote compact development while protecting rural areas. **Growth Management Act (GMA):** Washington state law that requires certain counties and cities to plan for orderly growth, protect natural resources, and ensure efficient use of public infrastructure including water systems. **Water Service Area:** Geographic areas where a municipality or water district provides water service. These boundaries may extend beyond urban growth areas in some cases. **Water Utility Coordinating Committee:** A committee that reviews public comments and changes to the Coordinated Water System Plan before it goes to the County Council for approval. **State Department of Health:** The state agency that must approve the Coordinated Water System Plan after County Council adoption. They have 90 days for their review process. **AB 2025-640:** The agenda bill number for the resolution relating to the water system plan update. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Jon Scanlon | Committee Chair | | Ben Elenbaas | Committee Member | | Mark Stremler | Committee Member | | Todd Donovan | Council Member (also present) | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member (also present) | | Sue Sullivan | Environmental Health Manager, Health and Community Services | | Aly Pennucci | Deputy Executive | ### Background Context This meeting represents the final local government step before the Coordinated Water System Plan goes to the state for approval. The plan has been in development for about 18 months and incorporates public comments, climate considerations, and data updates. The resolution also addresses how water service areas should be considered when making future urban growth area expansion decisions—a critical issue as the county updates its comprehensive plan under the Growth Management Act. The discussion revealed ongoing coordination challenges between water system planning and land use planning, particularly around how existing water infrastructure should influence future development patterns while still following Growth Management Act requirements for orderly, compact development. ### What Happened — The Short Version Sue Sullivan briefed the committee that this was the final step before sending the water plan to the state, noting that public comments had been incorporated and the Water Utility Coordinating Committee had completed their review. Council Member Elenbaas raised concerns about language that would completely prohibit using water service areas as justification for urban growth area expansion, preferring language that says they can't be the "sole" justification. Council Member Galloway presented a substitute resolution with additional "whereas" clauses that better align the resolution with Growth Management Act principles and modify the restrictive language about water service considerations. After discussion about balancing infrastructure considerations with comprehensive planning requirements, the committee voted 3-0 to recommend approval of Galloway's substitute resolution to the full Council. ### What to Watch Next - Full County Council consideration of the substitute resolution at their evening meeting - State Department of Health review and approval process (90 days) - Ongoing comprehensive plan discussions that will need to coordinate water system capacity with urban growth area designations - Future discussions about how water infrastructure should factor into land use planning decisions ---

**Q:** What is AB 2025-640? **A:** A resolution relating to the 2025 Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan update that was reviewed by the committee. **Q:** How long has the Coordinated Water System Plan update been in development? **A:** About 18 months according to Environmental Health Manager Sue Sullivan. **Q:** Who chairs the Public Works & Health Committee? **A:** Jon Scanlon serves as Committee Chair. **Q:** What was the main concern Council Member Elenbaas raised? **A:** He objected to language saying water service areas "shall not" be used as justification for urban growth area expansion, preferring "shall not solely" be used. **Q:** What agency must approve the water system plan after County Council adoption? **A:** The State Department of Health, which has 90 days for their review. **Q:** What did Council Member Galloway propose? **A:** A substitute resolution with additional "whereas" clauses aligning the resolution with Growth Management Act principles. **Q:** What vote did the committee take? **A:** They voted 3-0 to recommend approval of Galloway's substitute resolution to the full Council. **Q:** What page of the final report contains public comments and responses? **A:** Page 231, as noted by Committee Chair Scanlon. **Q:** What committee reviewed public comments before this meeting? **A:** The Water Utility Coordinating Committee met earlier in the month to review public comments. **Q:** What were the main types of public comments incorporated? **A:** Comments focused on climate considerations and additional data points for tables in the plan. **Q:** Who is Sue Sullivan? **A:** Environmental Health Manager with Whatcom County Health and Community Services. **Q:** What is a UGA? **A:** Urban Growth Area - geographic areas designated for concentrated urban development over a 20-year period. **Q:** When does the County hope to have state approval? **A:** By the end of the calendar year 2025. **Q:** What other council members were present besides committee members? **A:** Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, Barry Buchanan, and Kaylee Galloway. **Q:** What time did the meeting start and end? **A:** Started at 9:55 a.m. and adjourned at 10:10 a.m. **Q:** What is the Growth Management Act? **A:** Washington state law requiring counties to plan for orderly growth and efficient use of public infrastructure. **Q:** What was the committee's recommendation to full Council? **A:** To approve the substitute resolution with Galloway's amendments. **Q:** What happens next with this resolution? **A:** It goes to the full County Council for consideration at their evening meeting. **Q:** What was Deputy Executive Pennucci's role? **A:** She referenced previous responses to questions about coordinating water planning with comprehensive planning. **Q:** How many committee members voted for the substitute resolution? **A:** All three committee members (Scanlon, Stremler, and Elenbaas) voted yes. ---