Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee held its first meeting of 2026, focusing primarily on establishing committee leadership and advancing the long-awaited Behavioral Care Center project. In a brief 35-minute session, the committee appointed Barry Buchanan as chair and Elizabeth Boyle and Mark Stremler as vice chairs, then received a comprehensive update on the Behavioral Care Center planning process. The Behavioral Care Center discussion dominated the meeting, as staff presented three location options with significant policy implications. The facility, a cornerstone of the Justice Project Implementation Plan, is designed to prioritize treatment over incarceration while maintaining public safety. Staff recommended proceeding with an out-of-custody model at the Division Street campus through new construction, estimating costs between $15-20 million depending on location and configuration. Committee members expressed strong support for the Division Street new construction option, citing the ability to open the facility sooner and integrate it with existing behavioral health services. The timing question proved critical — the work release center renovation option would delay opening until after the new jail comes online, potentially pushing the facility's availability back significantly. Three key decisions await the full Council in two weeks: affirming the out-of-custody model recommended by advisory committees, selecting between Division Street and LaBounty sites, and potentially amending interlocal agreements with cities that reference co-location with the jail. The Finance and Facility Advisory Board will weigh in on location recommendations at their January 22nd meeting.

**AB2026-005: Committee Leadership Election** - Vote: Buchanan elected chair 5-2 over Stremler (Buchanan: Boyle, Buchanan, Galloway, Rienstra, Scanlon; Stremler: Elenbaas, Stremler) - Vote: Boyle and Stremler appointed vice chairs 7-0 - Staff recommendation: N/A (election process) - Council action: Established committee leadership for 2026 **AB2026-015: JPOP Term Lengths** - Vote: 7-0 to establish four-year staggered terms for Justice Project Oversight and Planning Committee members - Staff recommendation: Aligned with Council action to follow IPRTF guidelines - Council action: Set consistent term structure matching other advisory bodies - Practical impact: Provides stability for justice project oversight **AB2025-873: Behavioral Care Center Model (Discussion Only)** - No formal vote taken (discussion item) - Staff recommendation: Out-of-custody model at Division Street new construction site - Next steps: Council decision requested January 27th on custody model and location - Key details: $15-20M estimated cost, 30-90 day treatment capacity, crisis stabilization services

**Kayla Schott-Bresler, on the facility's purpose:** "This is really a facility that is a high priority in the Justice Project Implementation Plan, and it is designed to prioritize treatment over incarceration while preserving public safety and reducing costs in the criminal legal system." **Council Member Scanlon, on timing priorities:** "I really want to see if we can get this done as soon as possible. And that seems to me the one, or I mean, there is the idea of LaBounty potentially coming online same time or prior to the jail opening, but I think that would be so helpful for our community to be able to open sooner rather than later." **Council Member Rienstra, on data-driven decision making:** "I mean, if we're looking at the investment in behavioral health as a preventative measure for incarceration, being able to open that and not having to wait and postpone that would allow us to start that work sooner." **Kayla Schott-Bresler, on financial sustainability:** "There was basically next to no Medicaid or private insurance reimbursement if we operate an in-custody facility." **County Executive Satpal Sidhu, on campus vision:** "One of the concepts which has been thought about for several years is to create Division street as a mental health, behavioral health campus. You know, like rehab needs and pharmacy and many other services. That way, one-stop shop type of thing." **Council Member Rienstra, on access barriers:** "We also see that the distance to a facility oftentimes decreases the utilization of mental health there, and there are obviously digital options, but there are also barriers around that."

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CJS-2026-01-13 # Leading Through Crisis: A New Committee Charts Course for Behavioral Health Reform The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened for the first time in 2026 on Tuesday afternoon, January 13th, in the hybrid chambers at the County Courthouse. What began as routine organizational business quickly evolved into a substantive discussion about one of the region's most pressing challenges: how to treat mental illness and addiction without defaulting to incarceration. All seven council members were present for this inaugural meeting of the year: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The meeting would run just 36 minutes, but the decisions made and discussions held would shape the county's approach to criminal justice reform for years to come. ## New Leadership and a Surprising Twist The meeting's first order of business was selecting committee leadership, but what seemed like a foregone conclusion quickly became contested. Council Member Barry Buchanan had self-nominated for chair, and with no other declared candidates, the path appeared clear. Then Council Member Ben Elenbaas threw a curveball. "I'd like to nominate Council Member Strimler for reasons I gave prior," Elenbaas said. "I don't believe he's chaired a committee yet, and I think it's nice to divvy that up." The nomination created an unexpected contest between Buchanan and Mark Stremler. When the clerk called the roll, the results were decisive: Buchanan prevailed 5-2, with Boyle, Galloway, Rienstra, and Scanlon joining Buchanan in supporting his candidacy, while only Elenbaas and Stremler voted for the challenger. In a gracious move that would set the tone for collaborative leadership, Stremler immediately expressed interest in serving as vice chair. Council Member Scanlon had initially been nominated for vice chair but withdrew his name, allowing Boyle and Stremler to serve together in that role. The motion to appoint both as vice chairs passed unanimously. ## The Behavioral Care Center: Treatment Over Incarceration The meat of the meeting focused on the Behavioral Care Center, a cornerstone facility in the county's Justice Project Implementation Plan. Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler, joined by project manager Adam Johnson from STV and Hannah Fisk from Whatcom County Health and Community Services, presented a comprehensive overview of where the project stands. "This is really a facility that is a high priority in the Justice Project Implementation Plan, and it is designed to prioritize treatment over incarceration while preserving public safety and reducing costs in the criminal legal system," Schott-Bresler explained. The facility represents a fundamental shift in how Whatcom County approaches individuals whose mental illness or substance use disorder drives their involvement with law enforcement. Instead of cycling them through jail, the center would provide clinical treatment in a therapeutic environment. The proposed center would offer three co-located services: co-occurring inpatient treatment for 30 to 90 days, crisis relief licensure allowing people to stay up to 23 hours and 59 minutes for immediate stabilization, and psychiatric urgent care with better reimbursement rates than the crisis relief model. ## The Custody Question: A Clear Direction Emerges One of the most significant decisions facing the committee was whether the facility should operate as an "in-custody" or "out-of-custody" model. The Behavioral Care Center workgroup, which spent six months analyzing options, came down decisively on the out-of-custody approach. The reasoning was compelling: in-custody facilities receive virtually no Medicaid or private insurance reimbursement, creating unsustainable operating costs. More fundamentally, the stigma of incarceration conflicts with the therapeutic goals of treatment. "The stigma of sort of being incarcerated when what you really need is treatment didn't seem aligned with our overall goals for the Justice Project to avoid incarceration unless absolutely necessary," Schott-Bresler noted. The out-of-custody model also allows for intervention before booking — catching people earlier in the criminal justice process when treatment can be most effective. ## Three Sites, Three Philosophies The location decision proved more complex, with three options on the table, each reflecting different priorities and trade-offs. The first option would remodel the existing work center at the Division Street Campus. This has the advantage of using existing infrastructure, but comes with significant drawbacks: the industrial character of the building, stigma from its association with the jail, and most critically, construction couldn't begin until the new jail opens because current occupants would need to be relocated. "This would delay the opening of the Behavioral Care Center substantially if the work center remodel site is selected," Schott-Bresler warned. The second option calls for new construction at Division Street, on the parcel originally slated for crisis relief center construction. This would allow building a healthcare facility from the ground up with better control over design and feel, though at somewhat higher cost than remodeling. The third option is new construction at the LaBounty site near the planned jail. This is the most expensive option but offers the greatest flexibility in layout and design. Cost estimates ranged from roughly $15-20 million for remodeling the work center to $25-30 million for new construction at LaBounty, with Division Street new construction falling in between. ## Timeline Tensions and Policy Priorities Adam Johnson from STV explained that schedule differences between sites are driven by practical construction realities. The LaBounty site requires more extensive site work and deeper foundations due to soil conditions, plus potential wetland mitigation that could add costs and delays. For committee members, the timing question proved decisive. Council Member Jon Scanlon captured the sentiment: "I really want to see if we can get this done as soon as possible. And that seems to me the one...that would be so helpful for our community to be able to open sooner rather than later." Council Member Jessica Rienstra agreed, emphasizing the policy implications: "I mean, if we're looking at the investment in behavioral health as a preventative measure for incarceration, being able to open that and not having to wait and postpone that would allow us to start that work sooner." The conversation revealed deeper questions about the facility's role. Should it primarily serve people discharged from jail, supporting the criminal justice diversion mission? Or should it be part of a broader behavioral health campus serving anyone in the community who needs these services? County Executive Satpal Sidhu offered a compelling vision: creating Division Street as a comprehensive "mental health, behavioral health campus" — a one-stop shop for rehabilitation, pharmacy services, and other behavioral health needs. ## Implementation Challenges and Next Steps Several practical questions emerged during discussion. Council Member Mark Stremler asked about the interlocal agreements with cities, which currently reference co-location with the jail. Schott-Bresler acknowledged this would require amendment if the Division Street location is chosen, but suggested the cities have been part of transparent discussions and this isn't expected to be a major sticking point. The question of how people would transition from custody to treatment also arose. Council Member Scanlon noted the need to hear from the prosecutor's office about how they would utilize the facility and what mechanisms exist for moving people out of custody into treatment. The committee received assurance that even with an out-of-custody behavioral care center, the jail itself would maintain its own behavioral health services for individuals who cannot safely be released or don't qualify for diversion programs. ## Looking Forward: Decisions Ahead The presentation concluded with a clear ask: in two weeks' time, the committee should affirm the recommendation for an out-of-custody model and consider the staff recommendation for Division Street location, pending input from the Finance and Facility Advisory Board. Several pieces of analysis are still in progress, including a comprehensive behavioral health study examining operational costs, specialized housing within the jail, and statistical modeling of the facility's effectiveness as a prosecutorial diversion tool. The county is also working on legislative advocacy to gain flexibility in existing crisis relief center appropriations to fund this co-located facility model. ## Justice Project Oversight: Establishing Continuity The meeting's final item addressed governance continuity for the Justice Project Oversight and Planning Committee (JPOP). The initial appointments to this oversight body included staggered two- and three-year terms, but the county had never established standard term lengths for future appointments. Council Member Buchanan moved to align JPOP terms with those of the Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force — four-year staggered terms. The motion passed unanimously, ensuring consistent oversight of the justice reform projects over time. ## A Vision Taking Shape As the meeting adjourned at 1:36 p.m., the outlines of a new approach to criminal justice were coming into focus. Rather than a facility tucked away next to the jail, the committee appeared to be coalescing around a vision of behavioral health care integrated into a broader campus of services — treatment that doesn't look or feel like punishment. The Division Street location offers proximity to other behavioral health services, earlier intervention possibilities, and faster implementation. For a community grappling with mental health crises, addiction, and homelessness, the difference between opening this facility in 2028 versus 2030 could be measured in hundreds of lives diverted from the criminal justice system into healing. Council Member Rienstra perhaps captured the moment best: "That does seem like what fits the kind of the goals and the science." In a policy area too often driven by political rhetoric and moral panic, Whatcom County appears to be choosing evidence and compassion as its guide. The next meeting promises to be pivotal, with formal decisions expected on both the custody model and location. The Finance and Facility Advisory Board will weigh in on January 22nd, and the prosecutor's office will present their approach to using the facility for diversion programs. After years of planning and analysis, the Behavioral Care Center is moving from concept to reality — a tangible step toward treating addiction and mental illness as public health challenges rather than criminal justice problems.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CJS-2026-01-13 ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met on January 13, 2026, to elect committee leadership and receive a detailed presentation on the proposed Behavioral Care Center. The meeting focused on key decisions about whether the facility should be an in-custody or out-of-custody model and where it should be located. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Behavioral Care Center (BCC):** A proposed treatment facility designed to prioritize treatment over incarceration for people whose mental illness or substance use disorder drives their legal involvement. It would offer co-occurring inpatient treatment, crisis relief services, and psychiatric urgent care. **Out-of-custody facility:** A treatment center where individuals are not technically incarcerated while receiving services, allowing for Medicaid and insurance reimbursement and reducing stigma associated with jail-based treatment. **In-custody facility:** A treatment center located within or connected to jail facilities where individuals remain technically incarcerated during treatment, which limits insurance reimbursement options. **Co-occurring inpatient treatment:** Licensed treatment for individuals suffering from both mental illness and substance use disorders, typically lasting 30-90 days with established reimbursement models. **Crisis relief licensure:** A newer Washington State license allowing 24-hour outpatient facilities where people can stay up to 23 hours and 59 minutes for immediate stabilization, though financial viability is questionable. **Psychiatric urgent care:** An alternative licensing model that covers similar needs as crisis relief but with better insurance reimbursement rates. **Justice Project Implementation Plan:** Whatcom County's comprehensive plan for justice system reform that prioritized the Behavioral Care Center as a key facility. **Sequential intercept model:** A framework for intervening at various points in the criminal justice process to divert people with mental illness away from incarceration and toward treatment. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Barry Buchanan | County Council Member, elected Committee Chair | | Elizabeth Boyle | County Council Member, elected Vice Chair | | Mark Strimler | County Council Member, elected Vice Chair | | Ben Elenbaas | County Council Member | | Kaylee Galloway | County Council Member | | Jessica Rienstra | County Council Member | | John Scanlon | County Council Member | | Kayla Schott-Bresler | Deputy County Executive | | Hannah Fisk | Whatcom County Health and Community Services Project Manager | | Adam Johnson | Project Manager from STV (owner's representative) | | Satpal Sidhu | Whatcom County Executive | | Jill Nixon | Council Office staff | ### Background Context The Behavioral Care Center has been a high priority in Whatcom County's Justice Project Implementation Plan, designed to address the intersection of mental health, substance abuse, and criminal justice involvement. The facility represents a significant shift toward treatment-based rather than punishment-based responses to behavioral health crises. A Behavioral Care Center workgroup spent six months analyzing different models and made key recommendations about the facility's design and operation. The group included diverse perspectives from health care, criminal justice, and law enforcement, reflecting the complex coordination needed for this type of facility. The project faces important policy decisions about custody status and location that will affect both operations and community acceptance. The timing of these decisions is crucial because they impact when the facility can open and begin serving the community's needs. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee started by electing Barry Buchanan as chair after he defeated Mark Strimler in a 5-2 vote. They then elected Elizabeth Boyle and Mark Strimler as vice chairs unanimously. The main business was a presentation by Deputy County Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler on the Behavioral Care Center planning process. She explained that the workgroup recommends an out-of-custody model because in-custody facilities can't receive Medicaid reimbursement and carry stigma that conflicts with treatment goals. Three location options were presented: remodeling the existing work center at Division Street, building new at Division Street, or building new at La Bounty (near the planned jail). The Division Street new construction option emerged as the staff recommendation because it can open sooner and connects to other behavioral health services. The committee concluded by unanimously approving four-year staggered terms for Justice Project Oversight and Planning Committee members, following the same structure as other county advisory bodies. ### What to Watch Next • January 22nd Finance and Facility Advisory Board meeting will make a location recommendation • January 27th special County Council meeting to make final decisions on custody model and location • Upcoming presentations from the Prosecutor's Office on how they would use the facility for diversion programs ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CJS-2026-01-13 **Q:** Who was elected chair of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee? **A:** Barry Buchanan was elected chair, defeating Mark Strimler in a 5-2 vote. **Q:** Who are the two vice chairs of the committee? **A:** Elizabeth Boyle and Mark Strimler were unanimously elected as vice chairs. **Q:** What is the main purpose of the proposed Behavioral Care Center? **A:** To prioritize treatment over incarceration for people whose mental illness or substance use disorder drives their legal involvement while preserving public safety. **Q:** What are the three services proposed for the Behavioral Care Center? **A:** Co-occurring inpatient treatment, crisis relief services, and psychiatric urgent care (replacing crisis relief due to better reimbursement). **Q:** Why did the workgroup recommend an out-of-custody model over in-custody? **A:** In-custody facilities receive almost no Medicaid reimbursement, carry treatment stigma, and don't allow intervention before booking. **Q:** What are the three location options being considered? **A:** Remodeling the work center at Division Street, new construction at Division Street, or new construction at La Bounty. **Q:** Which location option is the staff recommendation? **A:** New construction at Division Street, because it can open sooner and connects to other behavioral health services. **Q:** What's the main disadvantage of the work center remodel option? **A:** Construction cannot begin until the new jail opens, substantially delaying the Behavioral Care Center opening. **Q:** Why is the La Bounty site more expensive? **A:** It requires more site work, deeper foundations due to poor soils, and potentially more wetland mitigation. **Q:** What makes the psychiatric urgent care license preferable to crisis relief? **A:** It has better insurance reimbursement rates while covering similar patient needs. **Q:** Who led the Behavioral Care Center workgroup process? **A:** Hannah Fisk from Whatcom County Health and Community Services did the majority of the work. **Q:** What is the Justice Project Implementation Plan? **A:** Whatcom County's comprehensive plan for justice system reform that identified the Behavioral Care Center as a high priority facility. **Q:** What does "sequential intercept model" mean? **A:** A framework for intervening at various points in the criminal justice process to divert people toward treatment instead of incarceration. **Q:** What term length was approved for JPOP members? **A:** Four-year staggered terms, following the same structure as the IPRTF. **Q:** When will the Council make final decisions on the Behavioral Care Center? **A:** At a special meeting on January 27th, after receiving the Finance and Facility Advisory Board recommendation. **Q:** What agreement might need amendment based on location decisions? **A:** The interlocal agreement with cities that refers to co-location with the jail. **Q:** Who represents STV as the project's owner representative? **A:** Adam Johnson serves as Project Director with STV. **Q:** What additional analysis is being prepared for the Council? **A:** A behavioral health analysis looking at operational costs, specialized jail housing, and statistical effectiveness for reducing jail capacity. **Q:** What happens to people who don't qualify for out-of-custody treatment? **A:** They would receive behavioral health care within the jail itself, as separate services are required by law. **Q:** What advocacy work is ongoing related to the project? **A:** Seeking legislative flexibility to use existing crisis relief center appropriations for this co-located facility. ---