## Meeting Overview The Bellingham City Council's Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee convened on the afternoon of February 23, 2026, in a hybrid format with members participating both in-person and remotely. Committee Chair Daniel Hammill was joined by fellow committee members Hollie Huffman and Edwin "Skip" Williams for what would prove to be a substantive session addressing three significant agenda items. The committee tackled complex issues ranging from a major county-wide justice infrastructure project to local civil rights policy. The meeting's centerpiece was an extensive briefing on the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center — a multi-hundred-million-dollar capital project facing serious budget constraints and requiring difficult decisions about scope and priorities. The session also addressed ongoing intergovernmental cooperation on racial equity work and concluded with consideration of a resolution responding to federal immigration enforcement concerns. The tone throughout was serious and collaborative, with committee members asking detailed questions and engaging in the kind of policy analysis that demonstrates the intersection of local governance with broader regional and national issues. This was clearly a working session where elected officials were grappling with real-world constraints while trying to maintain fidelity to community values and voter expectations. ## The Justice Center Budget Crisis Deputy County Executive Kayla Schat-Breteler delivered a comprehensive but sobering update on the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center, a project that has grown from an initial $155 million estimate to scenarios now ranging from $170 million to over $260 million. The presentation laid bare the difficult reality facing the project: construction costs have risen steeply since 2023, while sales tax revenue — the primary funding source — has stagnated dramatically. "Sales tax receipts in 2025 were down 9% from 2023 projections, and instead of a 4% sales tax growth rate, we're seeing about 1.5%," Schat-Breteler explained. "Which dramatically changes how much we can afford for this project." The county's approach has been to develop four different scenarios, all based on a 480-bed facility but with varying levels of programming, services, and operational sophistication. Scenario One, at $170 million, was described as essentially "a Skagit-like jail" — functional but bare bones, lacking adequate space for the programming, judicial operations, and therapeutic services that were central to the original vision. Scenario Four, approaching $260 million with the behavioral care center included, represents what Schat-Breteler called "a more holistic integrated justice model" with advanced behavioral health treatment and coordinated care. The challenge, as she framed it, is that "the priorities of the justice project in terms of an adequately sized facility to avoid booking restrictions, a therapeutic facility with adequate space for a high level of health care and programming service, as well as preservation of money for municipal needs and community-based behavioral health services are all competing for the same resources and putting pressure on one another." Council Member Williams pressed on the risks of underspending: "There's also a risk of underbuilding. If we underbuild, we may still have booking restrictions, which means that public safety is compromised. If we underbuild and build a facility, we might actually build a facility that's compromised, so it's actually more expensive to operate." The county has set an April deadline for decisions on scope and budget, with architectural design slated to begin in summer 2026. The project requires consensus among all Whatcom County cities through their interlocal agreements, making the decision-making process particularly complex. Mayor Kim Lund provided context on the evolution of thinking: "Scenario three and four are closest to what we envisioned when we were committing to building a new jail. But when we look at the math and the financial landscape of where we find ourselves today, those are numbers like those are costs that exceed the actual tax amount." Chair Hammill offered his assessment after hearing from colleagues: "What I heard after you left — you're referring to the finance advisory board meeting — what happened after there wasn't really a consensus, however one thing did bubble up to the top for me and that is the third scenario was the most reflective of what I heard what the voters wanted, what I've heard other council members ask for." ## Housing Configuration and Capacity Challenges A significant portion of the technical discussion centered on the complex relationship between bed count, housing configuration, and operational effectiveness. Schat-Breteler explained that simply having 480 beds doesn't guarantee 480 usable beds if the facility lacks flexibility in classification and housing arrangements. "If there's these dormitory, you know, 64-bed essentially bunking areas, if too many of the housing units are configured in that way, it can limit the ability to reach maximum capacity in the facility and utilize all the beds because you don't have as much flexibility from a classification perspective," she said. This technical detail illustrates the broader challenge: building a facility with operational flexibility requires more square footage and therefore costs significantly more. The scenarios showed dramatic differences in square footage per bed, ranging from basic configurations similar to existing facilities to nearly double the space in more sophisticated models. Council Member Huffman highlighted the importance of this flexibility: "The priority of flexibility is a really important one as I've come to understand that having that flexibility, particularly in current times, is best for the well-being and safety of both inmates as well as staff." The discussion also touched on broader systemic issues affecting jail capacity. Council Member Anderson raised the possibility of repurposing the existing work release facility for behavioral health services while incorporating work release into the main facility, but was told that retrofitting the work release building for healthcare standards could cost as much as new construction — around $25 million. ## Alternative Approaches and Long-term Thinking Council Member Cotton pushed the group to think beyond the immediate budget constraints: "Is there any discussion about at the moment we have to think of what are we going to live without? But in the ideal situation that we're looking at of providing these services and everything, has there been any discussions about well this is what we can afford now, but can we design this project in a way that it grows?" This question got to the heart of a strategic dilemma: should the project aim for a facility that can be expanded later, or focus on getting the core functions right within current budget constraints? Mayor Lund confirmed that the 480-bed number was chosen partly because the sheriff's office actually believes 600 beds will eventually be needed, and the facility is being designed with potential future expansion in mind. "The reason why that's possible is because we are building the physical structure in a way where we could potentially add on in a modular fashion in the future," Lund explained. However, this forward-thinking approach comes with its own costs — designing infrastructure to support future expansion means spending money now on capacity that won't be immediately utilized. Council Member Huffman offered a different perspective on reducing jail population: "If I was going to try to make that 480 number work, the main thing I would do is I would push for speedier trials. That's not the decision that county council is being asked to answer. But in terms of looking at what's actually driving this and therefore bed days and therefore the housing costs which are the most expensive to build and the most expensive to operate, I need to drive down jail population by expediting trials." This comment highlighted how the jail project intersects with broader criminal justice system challenges that extend beyond the county's direct control, including court scheduling, judicial resources, and legal processes. ## Racial Equity Commission Funding Partnership The committee's second item was more straightforward but reflected ongoing intergovernmental cooperation on social justice issues. Deputy Administrator Janice Keller presented a proposed interlocal agreement continuing the city's $100,000 annual contribution to the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission (WREC), which operates as a county advisory body. The funding arrangement has evolved over time, and as Deputy County Executive Schat-Breteler acknowledged when called upon to address questions, it has created an "uncomfortable aspect" where "the city [is] funding a county advisory board at a higher level than the county." The original three-year agreement split $600,000 equally between city and county, but in the fourth year, the county's contribution has dropped to $50,000 while the city maintains its $100,000 commitment. Council Member Williams, who serves as the city's representative to WREC, spoke positively about the commission's development: "The WREC is now becoming very operational and doing work in the community that's bearing fruit. It's too bad that in the initial stages the development of it wasn't quick enough to get it rolling sooner." Council Member Huffman expressed interest in getting an update from WREC: "I would be really interested in a presentation when the folks with the WREC are prepared to do that to see to get an update on what's been happening." The agreement represents a one-year commitment, with future funding to be revisited annually. Despite the funding imbalance, both jurisdictions remain committed to the commission's racial equity work, though the county acknowledged broader discussions about how to provide equitable support across its 54 advisory boards. ## Federal Immigration Enforcement Response The committee's final item was a resolution "reaffirming the City's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights and denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions that endanger public safety and violate individuals' constitutional rights in Bellingham and nationwide." This represented a direct response to what Council Member Williams characterized as "unprecedented and unlawful actions by the federal government in the context of immigration enforcement." Williams provided the background for the resolution, explaining that he and Chair Hammill felt "the council needed to take a position regarding the challenges that we as a city and community are facing with the current situation that we're facing regarding immigrant and civil rights." The resolution was framed not as partisan political positioning, but as a reaffirmation of constitutional principles and local values. Williams emphasized that the intent was to "reassure our community that in addressing this current atmosphere and these activities surfacing in our nation and in our community, that all branches of our municipal government are rowing in the same direction and organizationally will not waver in our commitment to protecting the human and civil rights of all our residents." The approach reflected Bellingham's history of taking stands on civil rights issues while grounding the position in constitutional law and public safety concerns rather than immigration policy per se. The resolution emphasizes rights such as "free speech, peaceful assembly, due process, and freedom from warrantless searches" that apply to all residents regardless of immigration status. Williams also expressed hope that the resolution might "set an example for our colleagues in the rest of the county to also take similar approaches to dealing with the current environment that we're having." ## Closing Observations The committee approved both the racial equity commission funding agreement and the immigration rights resolution without dissent, advancing them to the full council for consideration that evening. The justice center discussion, while not requiring a formal vote, provided valuable input that will inform ongoing negotiations among the various stakeholders. Chair Hammill's closing observations captured the fundamental tension facing the justice project: "We started at 155 and our lowest scenario that you presented here was 170 million would basically build us a monument to the past. It would be a box that people would go into and serve whatever time pre-trial or with their charges rather and then serve time upon conviction. That's not what my interpretation of what the voters voted for." The meeting highlighted how local government operates at the intersection of community values, fiscal reality, and complex intergovernmental relationships. Whether addressing a major regional infrastructure project, ongoing racial equity work, or responding to federal policy, the committee demonstrated the careful deliberation and collaborative approach that characterizes municipal governance at its best. As the justice center project moves toward its April deadline, the fundamental questions remain: How much therapeutic programming and operational flexibility can be preserved within budget constraints? Can the various jurisdictions reach consensus on a scaled-back but still meaningful approach? And how will the community's values and expectations be balanced against fiscal realities in a project that will define criminal justice infrastructure for decades to come? The committee's work on this February afternoon reflected both the complexity of these challenges and the thoughtful engagement that such decisions require. The conversation will continue in forums across Whatcom County as stakeholders work toward resolution of one of the region's most significant public investment decisions.

A structured study guide helping readers understand the meeting's content and context. ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham City Council's Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee met on February 23, 2026, chaired by Council Member Daniel Hammill with members Hollie Huffman and Edwin "Skip" Williams. The committee addressed three major items: an update on the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center planning, funding for the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission, and a resolution affirming immigrant and civil rights protections. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Progressive Design Build:** A construction approach where designers and contractors work together as a unified team from early planning stages, allowing for iterative refinement and guaranteed maximum pricing before construction begins. **Validation Phase:** The pre-design stage where key decisions about facility size, scope, location, budget, and programming are made before moving to architectural design. **Booking Restrictions:** When jails cannot accept new arrestees due to capacity constraints, potentially requiring early release of inmates or preventing law enforcement from booking suspects. **Housing Configuration/Classification:** The arrangement and types of jail beds (dormitory-style vs. individual cells) that affects flexibility in housing inmates based on gender, charge severity, and safety considerations. **Interlocal Agreement (ILA):** A legal contract between government entities (like counties and cities) that defines shared responsibilities, costs, and decision-making authority for joint projects. **Whatcom Racial Equity Commission (WREC):** A county advisory body established to address racial equity issues and help local governments create more inclusive communities. **Guaranteed Maximum Price:** A contract provision where the construction team commits to a maximum cost, providing budget certainty for the project. **Diversion Triage:** Assessment processes at jail intake to identify individuals who could be redirected to treatment or services instead of incarceration. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Daniel Hammill | Committee Chair, Bellingham City Council | | Hollie Huffman | Committee Member, Bellingham City Council | | Edwin "Skip" Williams | Committee Member, Bellingham City Council | | Kim Lund | Mayor of Bellingham | | Kayla Schott-Bresler | Deputy Executive, Whatcom County Executive's Office | | Janice Keller | Deputy Administrator, Bellingham Mayor's Office | | Lisa Stone | Council President (observing) | | Kelli Linville | Council Member (observing) | | Dan Cotton | Council Member (observing) | | Gene Knutson | Council Member (observing) | | Hannah Anderson | Council Member (observing) | ### Background Context The Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center represents a years-long effort to replace aging jail facilities and expand behavioral health services. Originally conceived as a $155 million project, costs have escalated significantly due to construction inflation and stagnant sales tax revenues that were expected to fund the project. The county and all municipal partners signed interlocal agreements committing to share costs, but the financial reality now requires difficult decisions about scope and priorities. The project reflects a broader community vision for "balanced incarceration" - addressing public safety needs while emphasizing rehabilitation, behavioral health treatment, and diversion programs. However, competing priorities including adequate facility capacity, therapeutic programming, and preservation of funding for community-based services are now in tension due to budget constraints. The Whatcom Racial Equity Commission emerged from collaborative city-county efforts to address systemic racial inequities. After initial joint funding, the county has reduced its financial commitment while the city maintains its support level, creating an awkward funding imbalance. ### What Happened — The Short Version Deputy County Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler presented four scenarios for the new jail facility, all based on 480 beds but ranging from $170 million (basic, "Skagit-like" facility) to over $270 million (full therapeutic model). The cheapest option would essentially be a "monument to the past" - a basic holding facility without adequate programming space or operational efficiency. Committee members expressed concerns about under-building, with several noting that inadequate investment could lead to higher operational costs and continued public safety problems. The committee unanimously approved continuing the city's $100,000 annual contribution to the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission, despite the county reducing its contribution to $50,000. Council members noted the awkwardness of the funding split but affirmed their commitment to racial equity work. The committee also approved a resolution reaffirming the city's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights, responding to federal immigration enforcement actions. Council Member Williams explained this was meant to reassure the community and demonstrate organizational unity in protecting residents' constitutional rights. ### What to Watch Next - April 2026: County Executive deadline for final decisions on jail facility scope and budget - Summer 2026: Target start date for architectural design phase (if decisions are made) - March 19, 2026: Second community engagement workshop in Lynden on the jail project - Next year: Renegotiation of WREC funding agreement - Full Council consideration of the immigrant rights resolution at the next regular meeting ---

**Q:** What is the current target number of beds for the new jail facility? **A:** 480 beds, though the sheriff prefers 600 beds and this number was chosen as a compromise starting point for scenario planning. **Q:** What was the original budget estimate for the jail and behavioral care center? **A:** $155 million, but costs have escalated significantly due to construction inflation and lower-than-expected sales tax revenues. **Q:** What is the cheapest scenario presented and why is it problematic? **A:** Scenario 1 at $170 million would create a basic "Skagit-like" facility without adequate programming space, flexibility, or operational efficiency - essentially a "monument to the past." **Q:** What is a progressive design build approach? **A:** A construction method where designers and contractors work together as a unified team from early stages, allowing iterative refinement and guaranteed maximum pricing. **Q:** When does the county executive want final decisions on scope and budget? **A:** By the end of April 2026, to allow architectural design to begin in summer 2026. **Q:** What is the current annual contribution split for the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission? **A:** Bellingham contributes $100,000 while Whatcom County contributes $50,000, creating an awkward funding imbalance. **Q:** What are booking restrictions? **A:** When jails cannot accept new arrestees due to capacity constraints, potentially requiring early release or preventing law enforcement from booking suspects. **Q:** What factors beyond bed count affect booking restrictions? **A:** Housing configuration/classification flexibility, crime and arrest rates, criminal justice decision-making, diversion programs, and court processing speed. **Q:** What is diversion triage in the jail context? **A:** Assessment processes at jail intake to identify individuals who could be redirected to treatment or community services instead of incarceration. **Q:** Why was the behavioral care center separated from the jail facility? **A:** Upon further reflection, officials decided an "out-of-custody" model in a separate facility on Division Street would better serve behavioral health needs. **Q:** What is housing configuration and why does it matter? **A:** The arrangement of jail beds (dormitory vs. individual cells) that affects flexibility in housing inmates based on gender, charge severity, and safety - more flexibility requires more square footage and cost. **Q:** What was the original three-year funding commitment for WREC? **A:** $600,000 total split equally between city and county ($300,000 each), but the county has tapered its contribution in the fourth year. **Q:** What drives the majority of jail bed days according to committee discussion? **A:** People with relatively serious crimes awaiting trial who stay for extended periods, though most jail admissions are short-term. **Q:** What solution was suggested to reduce jail population? **A:** Expediting trials to reduce the length of stay for pre-trial detainees, which would decrease overall bed day usage. **Q:** What is the main challenge facing the jail project now? **A:** Competing priorities of adequate capacity, therapeutic programming, and community service funding are all competing for the same limited financial resources. **Q:** Why did sales tax projections fall short? **A:** Original projections assumed 4% annual growth based on previous decade averages, but 2025 receipts were down 9% from 2023 projections with only 1.5% growth rate. **Q:** What was estimated cost to renovate the work release facility for behavioral health use? **A:** Approximately $25 million to bring the facility up to healthcare service standards, roughly equivalent to building new. **Q:** What is the current timeline if decisions are made by April? **A:** Architectural design would begin summer 2026, followed by construction phase with progressive design build approach. **Q:** How many advisory boards does Whatcom County have? **A:** Over 54 advisory boards, leading to discussions about more equitable funding and staffing approaches across all boards. **Q:** What was the committee's final vote on the immigrant rights resolution? **A:** Unanimous approval (3-0) to forward to full council for further discussion and consideration. ---