# Whatcom County Criminal Justice Committee Charts Justice Project's Path Forward ## Meeting Overview On a crisp April morning in 2026, the Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened for what would prove to be a pivotal discussion in the county's decade-long Justice Project journey. Council Members Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Jon Scanlon, Mark Stremler, Elizabeth Boyle, and Jessica Rienstra gathered in council chambers, with Kaylee Galloway participating remotely before departing for another commitment. The agenda, consolidated from three separate items into a comprehensive Justice Project discussion, would address the validation process, financial framework, behavioral health analysis, and jail population forecasting that would inform a critical budget cap decision. The stakes were clear: after years of planning and community engagement, the county needed to establish concrete parameters for its ambitious Justice Project, which envisions building both a new county jail and a behavioral care center while fulfilling commitments to community-based services. With sales tax revenues flowing but costs escalating, the committee would grapple with fundamental questions about capacity, funding, and the balance between incarceration and treatment. What made this meeting particularly significant was the convergence of multiple expert analyses — from jail population forecasting to behavioral health service demand — that would inform Chair Buchanan's forthcoming resolution on budget caps. The committee would hear from statisticians, architects, and policy experts who had spent months analyzing Whatcom County's unique needs and circumstances. ## EMS Board Membership Restructuring Before diving into the Justice Project discussion, the committee first addressed proposed changes to the Emergency Medical Services Oversight Board structure. Council Member Galloway, who had to leave early for another panel, presented her revised ordinance to modify the membership composition of both the EMS Oversight Board and the EMS Technical Advisory Board. The discussion revealed different approaches to community representation. The original proposal from the EMS office maintained separate positions for a general community member and specific seats for EMS/fire personnel or community members reflecting diverse perspectives. Galloway's alternative would have consolidated these into a broader category with more flexible qualifications including labor representatives and service providers. Council Member Elenbaas initially supported Galloway's approach, stating "I support the changes that Councilmember Galloway proposed." However, as the discussion progressed, concerns emerged about maintaining clear representation categories. Council Member Scanlon raised the fundamental question about the community-at-large position: "Is there generally an idea here that the community member at large spot is kind of like a taxpayer oversight kind of spot here? Because a lot of the other positions here have a stake in the system in some sense and in a professional sense." Galloway confirmed this interpretation: "This position has not had any specific requirements or qualifications other than those imposed under our 2.03 advisory groups code. So I'll be on my blanking on that. But yeah, this position is meant to be broad." This led to a motion by Scanlon to retain the original structure with separate positions for the community member at large and the specialized EMS/fire representation. Executive Sidhu supported this approach, explaining the importance of defined categories: "As time goes by, the council changed, executive, mayor, and five years from now when they interpret, if you combine everything into one, it becomes different. But if you define the budget person, the EMS person, this person, it retains that idea." The committee ultimately approved Scanlon's amendment by a vote of 5-1, with Rienstra dissenting, maintaining the separate categories while ensuring joint appointment language was included. The main motion to approve the revised substitute ordinance as amended then passed by the same margin. ## Justice Project Validation and Framework Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bressler opened the Justice Project discussion by outlining the administration's values and approach, emphasizing their commitment to building the behavioral care center simultaneously with the new jail. "One of our commitments is to build the behavioral care center at the same time as the new county jail," she stated, explaining that this means "ensuring adequate budget authority for this facility, leveraging state and federal funding where possible and dedicating our staff time to pursuing that funding." The administration highlighted significant progress on non-incarceral investments in 2026, including the upcoming launch of Medicaid reentry services in July, the addition of 24/7 nursing in the county jail, and securing $3.6 million in Trueblood settlement funds for supportive housing. They also noted success in obtaining $11.2 million in state funding for the Behavioral Care Center. Project Director Adam Johnson from STV presented a candid assessment of the validation process, acknowledging delays caused by repeated scenario development. "What we found was this is going to cause delays in the project," Johnson explained. "We kept being asked to look at different scenarios and different options and sort of spin our wheels a lot during this section here." Johnson proposed a different path forward: establishing a clear budget cap to provide parameters for the design-build team to proceed with programming. "What we're proposing here is a better path forward that we feel for the project starts with establishing a clear budget cap to work with within," he said, explaining that this would allow for programming within defined parameters while still providing multiple check-in points for council input. Council Member Scanlon questioned the timeline, asking about opportunities for budget adjustments if the direction wasn't acceptable to council. Johnson confirmed that the draft jail program stage in May and the operational costs analysis in June would be key decision points. "Those are the two really big touch points that would be up for evaluation," he noted. The conversation revealed tensions between the need for concrete planning parameters and council's desire for continued oversight. Council Member Elenbaas expressed frustration with the scenario approach: "I think my main concern is there's a lot of just like, here's the number and this is what we think is good. And here's the a million page report that supports that. I would love to see... a real fancy diagram... that addresses the concern... give us some fancy diagrams, flow diagrams of if this, then that, how 480 is going to put us in a position for the long term where we will not have booking restrictions." ## Financial Framework and Revenue Constraints Jed Holmes from the executive's office presented the financial analysis that would underpin budget cap decisions. Working with financial consultant PFM, the administration had updated projections based on March market conditions, arriving at a more conservative estimate of $214 million in available funding. "We looked at some updated numbers from PFM that they produced based on market conditions in March. Those were a little bit more pessimistic due to market fluctuations," Holmes explained. The analysis incorporated various risk mitigation strategies including revenue stabilization accounts, fixing city contributions for ten years, and maintaining conservative growth assumptions. The Finance and Facility Advisory Board, after robust discussion, had recommended a budget cap of $225 million for construction — $205 million for the jail and $20 million for the behavioral care center. This recommendation reflected careful consideration of financial risks and the need to balance competing priorities. Holmes presented scenarios showing that even with conservative projections, the county could potentially achieve the 50/50 split between jail construction and community-based services that had been a key commitment to voters. "If things revert to the historical norm, you know, we get to maybe 52%" for community-based services over the life of the tax, he noted. However, this triggered significant discussion about the original commitments made to voters. Council Member Scanlon pressed on the language in both the county ordinance and interlocal agreement regarding achieving a 50/50 split four to six years after the tax began. "To me, some of the read on the ordinance is a little soft. It says the executive shall endeavor to... it lists out a number of things, including achieving a 50/50 split for every new tax dollar four to six years after the start of the tax." Chair Buchanan indicated that getting back to that original commitment was "a big goal" in his forthcoming resolution, noting he was trying to find a "sweet spot" that would balance all the competing factors. Council Member Elenbaas offered a different perspective, arguing against being constrained by percentage splits: "I find it incredibly troubling that we're still talking about 50/50... all 50/50 does is focus on an outcome of constraining the plan on either side. Instead of focusing on the outcome that we want and then executing that plan in a way that we can get the outcome that we need." Elenbaas elaborated on his preferred approach: "I wish we could frame this conversation around this is the plan that we have. These are the pieces of infrastructure that we feel we need to execute the plan... We've been authorized this tax and now we're gonna spend it in a way that we can execute this plan appropriately." ## Behavioral Health Service Analysis Erin Persky, leading a team of justice system experts, presented findings from their 12-week analysis of behavioral health service needs for the proposed Behavioral Care Center. The study examined demand for crisis relief services, co-occurring disorder treatment, and psychiatric urgent care. Persky's team recommended a 22-space Crisis Relief Center serving an estimated 35 patients per day on average, with peak occupancy of about 22 at one time. "We recommend 22 spaces, that it would be licensed as a crisis relief center. Staffing would be just under 40 FTEs, and we're looking at an operating cost of $7.3 million annually," she reported. For the co-occurring disorder facility, they recommended 32 beds in two 16-bed units, with potential expansion to 48 beds by 2045. The analysis also suggested integrating psychiatric urgent care functions into the Crisis Relief Center rather than creating a separate facility. However, Persky delivered sobering news about funding challenges: "Cost reimbursement is very unclear at this time. And we are looking at potentially a big swing in what the operating gap is and what the county will need to do in sort of searching for payers and funding to fill that gap." The most concerning finding was uncertainty about whether Medicare and private insurance would pay for Crisis Relief Center services. "Of highest concern, especially for the CRC, is whether or not Medicare and private insurance are going to pay at all for CRC services," Persky warned. Council Member Elenbaas captured the financial reality bluntly: "When I sit up here and type in my calculator, just like the initial quick crude math, the cost per bed per day is mind-blowing. And it's unfortunate... Maybe that's what this costs, but that's incredibly unfortunate that it is that expensive." Deputy Executive Schott-Bressler acknowledged the funding challenge, stating that the county wasn't prepared to absorb a $5 million annual operating gap. The administration's proposal was to build both facilities but only license and operate the co-occurring disorder facility initially, bringing the Crisis Relief Center online once funding issues were resolved. Council Member Scanlon pressed for a backup plan given the funding uncertainties, to which Schott-Bressler responded that they would need either more certainty about insurance reimbursement or state action on proposed funding solutions. The discussion also touched on utilization questions. Council Member Elenbaas asked whether these facilities would achieve full utilization without legal compulsion, referencing experiences where people offered help "walked back into the woods" rather than accept services. Persky assured the committee that national models showed strong utilization: "I'm confident that you would have clientele in that facility every day." ## Jail Population Forecasting Dr. Patrick Jablonski, a statistician with 25 years of experience in criminal justice forecasting, presented perhaps the most detailed analysis the committee had seen. Using over a decade of line-by-line custody data, Jablonski had constructed sophisticated mathematical models projecting jail population needs. His analysis revealed significant changes in the jail population composition since 2014. While total bookings had decreased and booking restrictions were in place, the people remaining in jail were those facing more serious charges who stayed longer. "The majority plurality of your jail's population are charged with very significant offenses. In fact, it's the first six rows at the table are individuals facing felonies," Jablonski reported. Key factors driving population included an increase in bookings to 14 per day in 2025 (up 25% from 2024) and an average length of stay that had stabilized around 24-25 days after significant COVID-related fluctuations. Notably, adding a judge had helped reduce average length of stay by 18%, demonstrating the impact of improved case processing. Jablonski's primary forecast projected a 25-year population of 514 people, requiring 604 beds when accounting for peaking factors and classification needs. However, he emphasized the uncertainty around booking levels once capacity became available: "The great unknown essentially is what will happen when booking caps are completely reduced and there's capacity available in the system." To address this uncertainty, Jablonski presented scenarios ranging from 20.5 bookings per day (primary forecast) to 26 bookings per day (upper scenario). The upper scenario would require 764 beds to house a population of 650. Council Member Scanlon inquired about the model's flexibility for policy scenario testing, particularly regarding potential state Supreme Court changes to bail rules. "Are there ways is this contract written away where we can use the back end of this modeling system to say, what would it look like with this?" Scanlon asked, referencing how policy changes could dramatically impact population projections. Jablonski's presentation included important caveats about forecasting limitations, using a memorable analogy of a Florida hurricane that made an unprecedented U-turn. "If there is a major change in public policy or alterations in laws or another pandemic, then really what I'm about to tell you is essentially going to be rendered inaccurate," he warned. Council Member Rienstra appreciated the granular analysis, particularly the finding that adding judicial capacity directly correlated with shorter stays. She also raised questions about electronic home monitoring populations and whether the forecast assumed those individuals would move into the physical jail facility. Council Member Elenbaas offered broader observations about the modeling work: "This is an awesome presentation, really super interesting, thought provoking, love to have like the model to plug and play with." However, he also noted concerns about variables like outstanding warrants and how eliminating booking restrictions might affect enforcement patterns. ## The Path Forward The meeting concluded with Chair Buchanan indicating that he would present a resolution the following week establishing budget parameters for the Justice Project. This resolution would attempt to balance the various analyses presented while working toward the original commitments made to voters about community-based services. The complexity of the task ahead was evident. The committee had received detailed analyses showing significant demand for behavioral health services but uncertain funding streams, jail population projections ranging from 604 to 764 beds depending on policy decisions, and financial constraints that would require difficult trade-offs between facility capacity and community service commitments. Several themes emerged from the extensive presentations and discussions: **Capacity Planning Challenges**: The uncertainty about booking patterns once restrictions are lifted created wide ranges in facility needs, from the primary forecast of 604 beds to upper scenarios requiring 764 beds. **Funding Realities**: Both capital construction costs and ongoing operational expenses presented significant challenges, particularly for behavioral health services where reimbursement mechanisms remain unclear. **Policy Integration**: The analyses demonstrated how seemingly technical decisions about facility design intersected with broader policy questions about criminal justice reform, diversion programs, and community-based services. **Community Commitments**: The tension between honoring voter expectations about the 50/50 split and responding to technical analyses about actual needs remained unresolved. As the meeting adjourned, it was clear that the following week's resolution would need to synthesize these complex and sometimes competing considerations into concrete budget parameters that could guide the design-build process forward. The decade-long journey toward replacing Whatcom County's aging jail and building comprehensive behavioral health infrastructure was entering a critical phase where vision would need to meet fiscal reality. The committee members departed with substantial new information to digest, knowing that their next decisions would shape not only the physical infrastructure but also the county's approach to criminal justice and behavioral health for decades to come. The challenge ahead was translating complex technical analyses into policy decisions that would serve both public safety and community treatment needs while remaining financially sustainable.