## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened at 1:05 PM on January 28, 2025, for a brief but substantive session focused entirely on the county's ambitious justice center project. Committee Chair Barry Buchanan presided over the hybrid meeting with fellow committee members Tyler Byrd and Jon Scanlon present, while other council members including Kaylee Galloway and Todd Donovan joined as observers. The sole agenda item was a presentation about the scope of work and contract for an owner's representative for the justice center—a critical step in advancing what represents one of the most significant capital projects in Whatcom County's recent history. With an original budget of $155 million and a complex mandate that includes both jail facilities and behavioral health services, the project has reached a point where outside expertise is essential to navigate the technical and political challenges ahead. ## Selecting Expert Guidance for a Complex Project Rob Ney, the county's Facilities Director, opened the presentation by explaining why the county needed to break from its usual practice of handling project management internally. "Due to the size and the scale and complexity of a project like this, nobody on my staff has that expertise for a jail," Ney told the committee. The county was seeking "a partner that has that expertise and not only incarceration, but also behavioral health." After conducting a formal Request for Qualifications process that drew four strong proposals, the county's selection committee—which included a council member—unanimously chose STV, a firm with extensive experience in justice and behavioral health facilities. "We overwhelmingly selected STV," Ney reported, emphasizing their proven track record and expertise with the state's Project Review Committee, which must approve alternative delivery methods for public projects. The decision to use a "progressive design build" approach rather than the traditional "design bid build" method represented a significant shift in how the county would manage this project. This methodology brings the contractor onto the team early in the process, potentially reducing costs and timeline risks, but it requires special approval from state oversight bodies. ## Financial Pressures and Political Promises The presentation quickly turned to more challenging terrain when Executive Office staff member Kayla Schott-Bresler addressed questions about project financing and the political commitments embedded in the voter-approved sales tax measure. The discussion revealed mounting pressure around a critical deadline: under the interlocal agreement with participating cities, 50% of the sales tax revenue must be directed toward services rather than capital costs by mid-2030. Council Member Donovan pressed for clarity on this timeline, noting that the "clock started" in July 2024 when sales tax collections began. With the county still working to determine final project costs, questions arose about whether the original $155 million budget would prove sufficient. "We had plans to issue bonds. We didn't issue bonds. I don't know why it's taking this long to have a needs assessment," Donovan observed, highlighting delays in the project timeline. Schott-Bresler acknowledged the complexity, explaining that "how much we spend on the project is a council decision" but that they would be meeting with bond advisors PFM in two weeks to discuss fiscal options. She indicated that even if costs escalated to $175 million, the 50-50 split between capital and services could still be achieved—though it would require extending the cities' financial commitments beyond the originally planned 54 months. ## Two Buildings, One Vision Clarification emerged about the project's physical scope during questioning from Council Member Donovan. Rather than a single facility, the justice center will consist of "two buildings"—the jail itself and a co-located behavioral care center designed as "a prosecutorial diversion facility" for low-level felonies. This structure reflects the voters' understanding of what they approved, though significant work remains to define the operational model for the behavioral health component. Tyler Byrd raised an important procurement question about whether the project would be sourced as one comprehensive undertaking or broken into smaller pieces. Ney indicated the county's preference for smaller contracts that would be more attractive to local contractors, noting that "the bondability for that could limit a lot of our contractor pool" if the entire project were bid as one massive contract. However, he emphasized that design work must be completed first to determine how the project might be segmented. ## The STV Team's Approach Ashley McLaren and Adam Johnson from STV provided the committee with an overview of their firm's extensive experience—over 500 justice and behavioral health facilities across 40 states—and outlined their specific approach to this project. McLaren, who has recent experience working in Whatcom County with both Lynden School District and Bellingham Public Schools, emphasized the critical importance of community engagement and stakeholder alignment. "We feel like that's a big component of this work and highly important," McLaren explained, describing how she would focus on ensuring council members "have everything you need to make informed decisions in a timely manner." Johnson, the project manager, highlighted his background on public projects in Snohomish and King counties, including recent work on the Mount Vernon Library Commons. The STV team outlined three primary areas of focus: supporting informed decision-making through organized communication plans; driving project success by defining scope, schedule, and budget; and building the right project team through strategic procurement. They emphasized their role in preparing for the Project Review Committee presentation while ensuring all stakeholders remain aligned throughout the process. ## Engagement and Communication Strategy When pressed about their community engagement approach, particularly regarding the Mount Vernon Library Commons project, Johnson described facilitating visioning exercises and conceptual design work with multiple stakeholder groups, then transitioning to more traditional project management during construction. McLaren expanded on this, explaining that communication strategies should be tailored to each project's needs and stakeholder requirements. "Every public entity, you want to look at your constituents and see what they require," McLaren said, describing options ranging from passive communication through websites and surveys to active engagement through workshops and meetings. She emphasized the importance of meeting people "where they already meet" rather than creating additional burdens on community members. ## A Packed Schedule Cuts Short The presentation concluded abruptly as Committee Chair Buchanan noted the packed schedule ahead, with the Committee of the Whole meeting waiting. The brief 32-minute session had covered substantial ground, but clearly much more discussion lies ahead as the county works through the complex financial, technical, and political challenges surrounding this major public investment. ## What's Ahead The justice center project now enters a critical phase with STV providing owner's representative services to guide the county through design development, budget refinement, and contractor selection. Key milestones include the needs assessment work expected by summer's end, ongoing negotiations with partner cities about financing timelines, and the crucial Project Review Committee presentation required for alternative delivery method approval. The meeting highlighted the delicate balance the county must strike between delivering on voter promises for both facility construction and expanded services while managing escalating costs and complex intergovernmental agreements. With the sales tax revenue clock ticking toward the 2030 deadline for the promised 50-50 split, every decision in the coming months will carry heightened significance for both the project's success and the county's credibility with voters and partner jurisdictions. As the committee adjourned at 1:37 PM, the stage was set for what promises to be an intensive period of planning, negotiation, and decision-making that will determine whether Whatcom County can deliver on one of the most ambitious public projects in its history.