# Whatcom County Justice Center: The $200 Million Question ## Meeting Overview The Public Health, Safety, Justice and Equity Committee gathered on the afternoon of February 23, 2026, facing one of the most consequential decisions in Whatcom County's recent history. Committee Chair Dan Hammill was joined by council members Lisa Huffman and Hollis Williams for a meeting that would wrestle with fundamental questions about justice, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. The agenda carried three items, but it was the first—an update on planning for the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center—that dominated the discussion and revealed the stark financial realities confronting a project that began with high ideals but now faces hard choices. What started as a $155 million vision for a transformative justice facility has become a negotiation over what the community can afford and what it's willing to sacrifice. The other items—continuing funding for the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission and a resolution on immigrant rights—proceeded with less controversy but reflected the committee's broader commitment to equity and civil rights. The meeting captured a moment when abstract policy discussions meet concrete budget constraints, and when elected officials must choose between competing visions of public good. ## The Jail That Became Too Expensive: Four Scenarios, Hard Choices Deputy County Executive Kayla Shaughnessy-Brehler arrived with charts, numbers, and what she called "uncomfortable" realities. The project that voters approved has run headlong into construction cost inflation, stagnant sales tax revenue, and the harsh mathematics of municipal finance. "Construction costs have risen steeply since 2023. We have also seen sales tax revenue stagnated," Shaughnessy-Brehler explained, setting the stage for what would become a detailed examination of how dreams meet budgets. "Our initial projections for how we would fund this project were based on 4% sales tax escalation, which I believe was an average of the previous 10 years. But 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%." The numbers told a sobering story. The project had grown from $155 million to scenarios ranging from $170 million to over $250 million, each representing different levels of ambition and compromise. **Scenario One: The "Scagit Model" - $170 Million** This budget-driven approach would build what Shaughnessy-Brehler called "sort of a Scagit-like jail"—modern but basic, meeting minimum standards but falling short of the therapeutic, rehabilitative vision that had inspired the original ballot measure. "It's modern. It's in many ways improved upon what we have now, but it doesn't meet the priorities with respect to programming, housing classification, judicial space, and many of the things that we're looking for from this facility." **Scenario Two: Operational Adequacy - $200 Million** Adding $30 million would provide adequate administrative space for sheriff's office staff and targeted improvements to housing, kitchen, laundry, and judicial areas. This scenario began incorporating programming space within housing units rather than centralized locations, reducing operational friction and transportation costs. **Scenario Three: The Vision Approaches Reality - ~$230-250 Million** This scenario began to approximate what community members and officials had envisioned—significant buildout of operational improvements, better classification flexibility, and strengthened rehabilitative service delivery. Council Member Hammill would later identify this as "the most reflective of what I heard what the voters wanted." **Scenario Four: The Integrated Justice Model - $250+ Million** The most ambitious approach, featuring advanced behavioral health treatment focus, coordinated care, and operational efficiency improvements. It represented the fullest realization of the therapeutic, rehabilitation-focused facility the community had discussed. The presentation included a critical insight about jail design that would drive much of the subsequent discussion: housing configuration flexibility comes at a premium. "If we have sort of too many beds comingled in one area, it removes the flexibility for classification," Shaughnessy-Brehler explained. "That can be based on gender, it can be based on the severity of the charge, it can be based on whether two inmates can safely be housed together." This flexibility—essential for eliminating booking restrictions and ensuring safety—requires more square footage and dramatically increases costs. It's a perfect example of how operational needs conflict with budget constraints. ## Council Members Grapple With Impossible Choices The committee members' questions revealed different approaches to this dilemma, each reflecting broader philosophical differences about risk, investment, and public responsibility. **Council Member Huffman's Practical Inquiries** Huffman focused on operational details that might inform the decision. She asked about Scagit County's capacity utilization—if they're not operating at full capacity with 400 beds, what does that suggest about Whatcom's needs? She also probed the critical factor of average length of stay: "Is there talk of likelihood of improving length of jail stays? And I guess just what factor does that play?" Shaughnessy-Brehler acknowledged this as "a significant driver of jail capacity and the number of beds we need" but couldn't provide specific data, promising more information in coming weeks from their behavioral health analysis. **Council Member Williams and the Risk of Underspending** Williams presented perhaps the most provocative perspective of the afternoon, arguing that the greater risk lay not in spending too much, but too little: "There's a risk of overspending. Obviously, we don't have the money. The project can't be built. That's bad. But there's also a risk of underbuilding. If we underbuild, we may still have booking restrictions, which means that public safety is compromised in that way. If we underbuild and build a facility, we talked a lot about operational costs. We might actually build a facility that's compromised, so it's actually more expensive to operate." His argument continued: "If we underspend, then we also may not have the services that would start rehabilitation and recovery, help break the cycle of crime. So again, what we have now is jail doesn't actually improve public safety. It just warehouses people, but the crime continues when they're released." Williams's conclusion was striking: "I see enormous risks of underspending, too. And it seems like I'm more concerned about the risk of underspending because once you underspend, that's unavoidable. Whereas overspending, I'm hoping that we could figure out ways of funding this or sharing costs or looking for support." **Council Member Anderson's Creative Problem-Solving** Anderson brought practical experience to bear, asking whether the existing work-release facility could be repurposed for behavioral health services while work-release functions moved to the main jail. "I used to do GED testing in both the downtown jail and the work release. And the work release seems to model better for more of a dormitory style because that's kind of what they have down there." The idea had been considered but estimated at $25 million to bring the facility up to healthcare standards—roughly equivalent to new construction. ## Chairman Hammill: Fidelity to Voter Intent Committee Chair Hammill provided perhaps the most comprehensive response, grounding the discussion in democratic legitimacy and voter expectations: "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 charged with their charges rather and then serve time upon conviction. That's not what my interpretation of what the voters voted for." Hammill's interpretation was expansive: "My interpretation was that they were very interested in behavioral health services, diversion programs, prevention programs, and such. We've built several of those programs over the years. The LEAD program, GRACE, alternate response team, MCOT, have all played a big part and Deacon Center for Hope." But he also acknowledged the mathematical reality: "The third scenario was the most reflective of what I heard what the voters wanted, what I've heard other council members ask for. And what I heard the county executive say is what can we—when you look at that list there of all those different components of what affects the cost—what can you live without or what can we modify and change to reduce those costs? I think we're at that part of the conversation now. So no additive, rather we're in a subtractive environment here." This framing—moving from addition to subtraction—captured the essential challenge facing all stakeholders. ## Mayor Lund: The Reality Check Mayor Kim Lund provided crucial context about the design process and future expansion possibilities. She revealed that the 480-bed number was a compromise—the sheriff actually wants 600 beds—and that the facility is being designed for potential modular expansion. "Part of how we arrived at the 480 number was an analysis of potential needs for beds. That was the preliminary. I know that there's ongoing refinement to those numbers, but I believe if the sheriff was here right now, he would say that 600 is the number. He remains committed to that number." This revelation added another layer of complexity: even the current scenarios might not eliminate booking restrictions, and the community might face this same discussion again in 15-20 years. Lund also emphasized the time-sensitive nature of the decisions: "This is a very time-sensitive conversation. So we will be looking to get direction shortly so that we can prepare to move forward with the design build team." ## The Impossible Mathematics of Justice The presentation concluded with what Shaughnessy-Brehler called "policy dials"—the key decisions that would shape the final facility: **Budget Target:** The most urgent decision, needed to allow design work to proceed **Interlocal Agreement Renegotiation:** How long will cities contribute, and at what levels? **Community-Based Services:** How much revenue should be preserved for programs outside the facility? **Level of Service:** What capacity and programming quality is acceptable? The challenge, as Mayor Lund summarized it: "How do we realize something closer to the possibilities in scenario four or three with a scenario 2 price tag? And that is our challenge. And so how do we sharpen the pencils, really refine those scenarios and understand where we're going to pay to realize that vision to be morally ambitious and where we're prepared to give some based on the constraints that we have." The county executive had put it more bluntly at a recent meeting: "We all have to be prepared to come back at the next meeting about what we're going prepared to give because that's the reality." ## Council Member Cotton's Strategic Thinking As the discussion wound down, Council Member Cotton (participating though not a committee member) offered perhaps the most systematic analysis of the dilemma. His approach combined practical facility management with broader criminal justice reform: "When I look at these scenarios, scenario one is the one we can afford, but it doesn't meet our vision and it'll probably bite us in the back end in a lot of ways that will lead to greater expenses. So, we can afford it, but we shouldn't afford it. Scenario three is the one we want, I think. And I'd like to start by scenario three and then kind of subtract a little and see what I can live without. But I think in reality, I need to start with scenario two and maybe think about winnowing down scenario two." Cotton's analysis went deeper into operational costs: "I want to look at the rows. And I would have specific questions about the rows because not all those program square footages are the same. Which one of those has the greatest operational impacts? For example, housing, very large operational cost. Which one of those is actually pretty cheap to build? Not all square footages are built the same." Most significantly, Cotton identified what he saw as the real driver of jail capacity: length of stay for serious offenders awaiting trial. "The majority of people who go to the jail don't stay long, but the majority of the bed days are for those who stay there for a long time. Most of those are people who have relatively serious crimes that are waiting trial. So if I wanted to make a cheaper jail, what I would do is I would accelerate the time it takes to reach trial and get a final disposition in those court cases." This insight pointed toward solutions outside the facility itself—in court operations, case processing, and judicial efficiency. ## Consent Agenda & Routine Business: The Whatcom Racial Equity Commission After the intensive jail discussion, the committee turned to more straightforward business. The renewal of the interlocal agreement with Whatcom County to fund the Racial Equity Commission proceeded smoothly, though not without revealing questions about long-term sustainability. The city would continue contributing $100,000 for 2026, while the county contribution dropped to $50,000—an imbalance that raised eyebrows. Council President Stone noted "the awkwardness of the city funding a county advisory board at a higher level than the county." Deputy Administrator Janice Keller explained that this continued a three-year pattern but acknowledged the unusual funding split. When pressed, Shaughnessy-Brehler admitted the county's financial constraints: "When the city and county initially signed the interlocal agreement, it was a commitment of $600,000 for three years split equally between the city and the county. We're now in the fourth year of funding, and so the county has had to taper off financially a little bit." Council Member Williams, who serves as a liaison to the commission, supported the funding: "The WREC is now becoming very operational and doing work in the community that's bearing fruit. And it's too bad that in the initial stages the development of it wasn't quick enough to get it rolling sooner." The motion passed unanimously, but the discussion highlighted ongoing questions about sustainable funding for regional equity initiatives. ## Resolution on Immigration Enforcement: Standing for Constitutional Rights 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." Council Member Williams provided the background for this resolution, explaining it as a response to "the challenges that we as a city and community are facing with the current situation regarding immigrant and civil rights." Williams emphasized the resolution's grounding in the city's historical commitment: "We wanted to address the steps that we're currently taking and for the future consider taking to resist the actions being done by the current federal administration regarding immigrant enforcement and other civil and constitutional rights to reassure our community." The resolution aimed to demonstrate institutional unity: "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 so that we can remain a welcoming city for all." Williams also hoped 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." The motion passed unanimously without debate, reflecting the committee's clear consensus on civil rights protection even as it struggled with the complexities of criminal justice infrastructure. ## What's Ahead: April Deadline Looms As the meeting concluded, the weight of the decisions ahead was palpable. The county executive has set an end-of-April deadline for scope and budget decisions. Multiple stakeholder groups—the Finance and Facility Advisory Board, Justice Project Oversight Group, small city councils, and the county council—must reach consensus on a path forward. The challenge is unprecedented: How do you build a facility that serves the community's justice values while respecting fiscal constraints? How do you balance the immediate need to replace an inadequate jail with long-term vision for therapeutic, rehabilitative justice? The answers will shape not just the physical structure that houses Whatcom County's justice system, but the community's approach to incarceration, rehabilitation, and public safety for decades to come. The committee's discussion revealed the depth of the challenge and the complexity of the choices ahead. As Chair Hammill noted, they're now in a "subtractive environment"—not adding to the vision, but deciding what they can live without. The next few months will test whether the community can find consensus on what justice looks like when filtered through the hard realities of municipal finance. The stakes extend beyond Whatcom County. Communities across the region face similar choices as they grapple with aging infrastructure, rising costs, and evolving understanding of what justice systems should accomplish. The decisions made here will reverberate as a model—or cautionary tale—for others facing the same impossible mathematics of building justice in an era of constrained resources and unlimited need.