The Sedro‑Woolley City Council spent substantial time on Oct. 22 discussing a draft interlocal agreement (ILA) proposed by the Northstar collaborative, which would formally align several Skagit County cities and the county on a nonbinding framework for regional housing and permitting coordination.

Councilwoman Kesty read a prepared statement and said she would "respectfully decline participation in the interlocal agreement at this time," arguing that changing zoning without a "comprehensive community‑focused plan" could cause unintended consequences and that some partner jurisdictions face budget deficits that make financial collaboration risky. Kesty also voiced concern that the group’s work might lead to proposals the council would be asked to accept without broad local input.

City Attorney Nikki Thompson told the council the ILA language does not delegate legislative authority to another entity and that "all funding, policy and contractual decisions remain solely with each party’s legislative authority." Thompson and other supporters said the agreement is intentionally nonbinding and designed primarily to present unified priorities to state legislators and agencies; they said coordinated legislative requests can carry more weight in Olympia than individual municipal appeals.

Other council members were split. Councilman Lavaca and other supporters said a united regional voice can help secure grant and state funding for homelessness, housing and services; they framed the ILA as a tool to present unified funding requests rather than a mechanism to transfer decision‑making authority. Opponents pointed to figures cited during the meeting — speakers mentioned reported shortfalls for Mount Vernon (about $6 million) and Anacortes (about $9 million), and referenced county budget shortfall figures in the high‑teens millions — and argued that those fiscal pressures counseled caution before entering a new regional compact.

Councilman Anderson asked how the ILA would operate in practice and whether it simply created a forum for mayors and staff to develop proposals to bring back to individual councils. Supporters reiterated that final decisions would remain with each jurisdiction.

The council did not reach consensus or vote on the draft ILA at the meeting. Multiple members requested more information: some asked for the expired prior agreement referenced at the meeting, others asked staff to provide clearer examples of the ILA's bindingness and a list of any potential fiscal commitments. Councilmembers said they would review attorney comments and the versions submitted to other cities before any final action.

Ending — Next steps: The ILA will return to council after legal review and when staff can provide comparative materials showing what obligations (if any) would attach, and which actions would still require council approval.