Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee advanced a critical decision on the county's behavioral care center, voting 6-1 to proceed with an out-of-custody model at the Division Street campus. This decision represents a significant shift from the original in-custody treatment concept and positions the facility as a preventive healthcare intervention rather than a corrections-based program. The committee also received a comprehensive update on the Justice Center project, now entering its "validation phase" where design scenarios will be tested with clear cost and schedule implications. The Joint Action Working Group (JAW) will begin meeting this week to refine options before bringing them to the Finance and Advisory Board and ultimately to the full Council for policy decisions by late February. Council Member Ben Elenbaas cast the sole dissenting vote on the behavioral care center motion, stating he wanted to see "the entire plan" before committing to the direction. The decision comes as the county seeks $11 million in state funding this legislative session to support construction of the 32-bed facility, with additional funding from opioid settlement funds and the two-tenths justice sales tax. The behavioral care center will provide inpatient treatment for mental health and substance use disorders, serving individuals at multiple points in the criminal justice continuum — from pre-arrest prevention through post-conviction diversion. The facility is designed to prioritize treatment over incarceration while preserving public safety and reducing costs in the criminal legal system.

**AB 2026-038 - Behavioral Care Center Model and Location** - **Motion:** Proceed with design for an out-of-custody behavioral care center, newly constructed at Division Street Campus - **Vote:** 6-1 (Yes: Rienstra, Scanlon, Stremler, Boyle, Buchanan, Galloway; No: Elenbaas) - **Staff Recommendation:** Aligned with Council action - **Specifics:** 32-bed facility (16 mental health, 16 substance use disorder), estimated 40,000 square feet, with expansion capability - **Funding:** $11 million state funding sought, $3 million opioid settlement funds, remainder from two-tenths justice sales tax **AB 2026-095 - Justice Center Update** - **Action:** Presentation received, no vote required - **Key Information:** Project entering validation phase with Joint Action Working Group meetings beginning January 28, 2026 - **Timeline:** Scenario packages to Council by late February 2026, policy decisions through May 2026

**Barry Buchanan, on staff decision-making:** "I think everything should be on the table. And the will of the council isn't known until the council votes on something." **Kayleigh Galloway, on treatment approach:** "I want to support the out-of-custody, off-site, at the Division Street. I want to support that. And for the record, say that doesn't get us off the hook for much-needed specialized care in custody in the jail." **Ben Elenbaas, on his opposition:** "I don't know that I want to vote yes on this, but I also don't know that I want to vote no on this yet. So I think I'm going to vote no only because I want more of like the entire plan in front of me before I'm just like, yes, this is a great idea." **Hannah Fisk, on model differences:** "When we talk about the BCC and we talk about in custody or out of custody, that's the same population. So if we were to go in custody, those are people that have been deemed, they could also be served in an out of custody treatment. So it's the same population, except for out of custody, we could serve more." **Kayla Schott-Bressler, on project timeline:** "We are not putting a shovel in the ground tomorrow, right? We need direction in order to move the project forward. If through the behavioral health analysis, this jail capacity update, any other work we are doing presents information that we think would inform this decision, potentially change the decision, or cause us to want to have another discussion, we will absolutely bring that back." **Ashley McLaren, on validation process:** "You will not be asked to review just a stack of drawings. They will be given scenarios with an understanding of both construction, operational, and other cost implications."

# Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice Committee Advances Justice Center Plans ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met on January 27, 2026, in a hybrid format to receive updates on two critical components of the county's justice reform initiative: the main Justice Center project and the Behavioral Care Center. Committee Chair Barry Buchanan presided over the meeting with all seven council members present except Ben Elenbaas, who attended but ultimately voted against the key decision of the day. The session focused on project validation processes for the jail facility and culminated in a 6-1 vote to locate the new Behavioral Care Center at the Division Street Campus as an out-of-custody facility. The meeting represented a significant milestone in the county's multi-year effort to modernize its criminal justice infrastructure, with staff emphasizing that the committee was entering a crucial decision-making phase that would determine the scope, design, and budget for both facilities through early summer 2026. ## Justice Center Project Validation Process Ashley McClaren and Adam Johnson from STV, the project's owner representative firm, walked the committee through what they termed the "validation phase" of the Justice Center project. This phase represents a structured process to test various scenarios and understand trade-offs before moving into schematic design. "We are, again, this is going to seem like we're going back a long ways, but really just in this year, we're through procurement and into validation work," McClaren explained. "So, now we, the county, has a design builder under contract. They've been mobilized." The validation process will present council members with what McClaren called "scenarios with an understanding of both construction, operational, and other cost implications" rather than asking them "to review just a stack of drawings." The approach is designed to help decision-makers understand how different choices affect not just programming but also costs and schedules. Key accomplishments in 2025 included completing the Project Review Committee approval for alternative delivery methods, selecting and mobilizing the design-builder, conducting jail capacity analysis and behavioral health studies, identifying wetland mitigation sites, and establishing project controls and governance structures. Council Member Jon Scanlon pressed for details on the jail capacity analysis, particularly around "rated versus non-rated beds" and whether the data reflected local conditions versus national averages. "To me, it seemed like at that point in time, our discussion about rated beds or non-rated beds or general population versus specialized beds didn't necessarily match the data," Scanlon said, referencing earlier conversations from the summer. Johnson responded that they are "in the process of refining that jail capacity analysis that takes a lot of that into consideration" and expected to receive updated behavioral health analysis by the end of the week. This analysis would inform decisions about the "classification that's going to really dive into those numbers on male-female population classification" and "minimum, medium, maximum security of the behavioral health needs of the population." Hannah Fisk from Health and Community Services added that multiple diversion programs are being developed "running in parallel with the justice project" that could further impact jail capacity needs. ## Joint Action Workgroup Process A central element of the validation approach involves Joint Action Workgroup (JAW) meetings designed to shape scenarios before bringing them to broader decision-making bodies. "These are working sessions where these scenarios are shaped," McClaren explained. "The idea is that instead of having to, you know, wait for a council meeting or a FAB meeting, we can be doing the work in between those meetings, but it's well informed." Committee Chair Buchanan, who participates in both the JAW and Finance and Facility Advisory Board (FAB), noted that "the FAB has been a good experience" with "very pointed conversations" but anticipated the JAW would create "a better process to be able to process quicker decisions." The process flows from JAW scenario development to FAB financial review and then to council for "policy level direction and alignment." As McClaren put it: "We feel like, especially with the JAW group, and, you know, kind of this going in steps that we're avoiding rework." Council Member Jessica Rienstra requested that when scenarios are presented, she'd like to "at least see a list of those differentials that had been ruled out just for my own decision-making purposes." Scanlon emphasized a broader principle: "I think everything should be on the table. And the will of the council isn't known until the council votes on something." He expressed frustration with situations where staff might rule out options by assuming "we don't think the will of council is there." ## Community Engagement Timeline Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler outlined community engagement plans, emphasizing that "from now until early summer really is the decision-making process around the scope and budget for this project." The county plans two community engagement sessions, with the first tentatively scheduled for mid-March in Lynden, along with monthly justice project newsletters and presentations to various municipal governments. The committee will receive a briefing package in late February, followed by what McClaren described as a "long purple line" on the schedule representing policy discussions through May. "We look to better, you know, every day or meeting that we can shrink that will only be better for the project both in, you know, budget and schedule," McClaren noted, while acknowledging the current timeline allows for incremental information sharing and public conversations. ## Behavioral Care Center Decision The committee's major action item involved deciding on the model and location for the proposed Behavioral Care Center, a 32-bed inpatient treatment facility designed to divert individuals with behavioral health needs from the traditional jail system. Schott-Bresler emphasized that while they sought direction to move forward with project scoping, "a shovel's not going in the ground tomorrow." If new information emerges that might inform or change the decision, "we will absolutely bring that back," she assured the committee. The debate centered on two fundamental questions: whether the facility should operate in-custody or out-of-custody, and whether it should be located at the Division Street Behavioral Health Campus or co-located with the new jail at La Bounty. Hannah Fisk from Health and Community Services explained the evolution from an originally envisioned in-custody model to the recommended out-of-custody approach. The in-custody model would have provided "this perceived higher level of safety because you have corrections officers inside the unit," but came with significant drawbacks. "When you have in-custody, you lose flexibility," Fisk explained. "It's dependent upon in-custody status, not dependent on clinical treatment. So you no longer can be there as long as you clinically need treatment. So if you need treatment for 60 days, but you are set to be released at 12, you stop treatment at 12 days." Additionally, reimbursement models become problematic in custody due to federal Medicaid restrictions, while "out of custody, we have available reimbursement models." The out-of-custody model also allows intervention at earlier points in the criminal justice process. "If you go out of custody, it can be preventative," Fisk noted. "So it could be, yes, you didn't have any criminal activity. You've never been arrested. Two, you've been arrested and released. Two, you've been charged or you've been convicted." ## Site Selection Considerations Three sites were evaluated: rebuilding the existing work release center at Division Street, new construction at Division Street, or new construction at La Bounty near the jail. The cost estimates ranged significantly, with new construction at Division Street appearing most cost-effective at roughly $38-40 million compared to $45-50 million at La Bounty. The work release center option presented the greatest uncertainty. "Once you start opening it up, we're not quite sure what that looks like," Schott-Bresler explained, noting concerns about adapting a building "that wasn't purpose built to be a healthcare treatment center." Schedule considerations also favored the Division Street options. If the work center were selected, construction would have to wait until the jail was completed and the building vacated. With new construction at either Division Street or La Bounty, work could proceed concurrently with jail construction. Adam Johnson from STV noted that Division Street offered faster construction timelines due to "easier foundations, less mitigation work to complete" compared to La Bounty. The policy question ultimately came down to proximity preferences. "From a policy perspective, it's really about whether you want this facility located near other treatment facilities or whether you want it located near the jail," Schott-Bresler summarized. ## Jail Services Discussion Council Member Kayleigh Galloway raised critical questions about maintaining behavioral health services within the jail itself, referencing a letter from the prosecutor's office supporting the off-site concept "on the condition that the new jail adequately accommodate the same services in custody." Fisk clarified that the Behavioral Care Center would provide "an inpatient treatment model" with "specific residential treatment license" while services in the jail would likely be "an outpatient model, whether that's intensive outpatient, more like once a week." The in-jail services could be delivered in housing units with "service providers to go in and run their programming" or in shared spaces where individuals are "escorted to another location in the facility to receive that treatment and then they're escorted back to their housing unit." Galloway emphasized this as a "yes and" situation: "I want to support the out-of-custody, off-site, at the Division Street. And for the record, say that doesn't get us off the hook for much-needed specialized care in custody in the jail." She stressed the importance of designing "a jail that's more therapeutic and focused on sort of the correction and recovery and restoration of a human than the punishment of one" and ensuring different types of beds are properly accounted for since "General POP is not going to be the same as a specialized healthcare bed or treatment bed." ## Transfer and Operations Details Chief Corrections Deputy Caleb Erickson addressed concerns about how individuals would transition from jail to the Behavioral Care Center. Rather than simply releasing someone and hoping they show up, "if somebody is left in custody until their release is conditioned on them being received in the Behavioral Care Center, corrections staff can make that transport, affect that transport so it's a secure transport and they're in custody all the way up until the point where they are received into the Behavioral Care Center." This approach ensures "people truly ensure that they're received in the Behavioral Care Center" and addresses what Erickson called "a fairly significant gap." The facility size remains under analysis. While the proposal assumes 32 beds (two 16-bed units to comply with federal Medicaid restrictions), the behavioral health analysis will determine if that's appropriate. Council Member Elizabeth Boyle asked about expansion potential beyond 32 beds, and Johnson confirmed "there is definitely more potential for expansion if we built new on that vacant property." Buchanan advocated for designing expansion capability from the outset, referencing past mistakes: "I hope that we don't build this in a way that it cannot have a second story put on it. That's what we did with the Ann Deacon. You cannot put a second story on that." However, Johnson suggested horizontal expansion would be preferable: "It would be easier for us to build horizontal. It's awfully hard to build on top of an occupied building." ## Financing Structure The Behavioral Care Center would be financed through multiple sources: $11 million in state funding, $3 million from county and city opioid settlement funds, with the remainder funded by the two-tenths justice sales tax. Jed Holmes from the executive's office explained they've submitted requests to the state Department of Commerce and legislature to expand the scope of an existing $23 million crisis center allocation to cover the Behavioral Care Center services. Council Member Scanlon asked about operational contracts, learning this would require a separate bid process rather than expanding current jail health services contracts. ## The Final Vote Chair Buchanan moved "that we proceed with design for an out-of-custody behavioral care center to be newly constructed at the Division Street Campus." The motion was seconded by Scanlon. During final discussion, Council Member Ben Elenbaas expressed ambivalence: "I don't know that I want to vote yes on this, but I also don't know that I want to vote no on this yet. So I think I'm going to vote no only because I want more of like the entire plan in front of me before I'm just like, yes, this is a great idea." The final vote was 6-1, with Elenbaas as the sole dissenting vote. The motion directs staff to proceed with design work for a new out-of-custody behavioral care center at the Division Street Campus, marking a significant step forward in Whatcom County's justice reform efforts. ## Looking Ahead The meeting concluded with clear next steps: the JAW group would begin scenario development work immediately, with the first meeting scheduled for the following day. The committee expects to receive comprehensive briefing materials in late February, launching what could be several months of policy discussions about the final scope and budget for both the Justice Center and Behavioral Care Center. As McClaren noted, the validation phase represents the critical period where "those decision-making points will come to view" - decisions that will shape Whatcom County's criminal justice infrastructure for decades to come.

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CJS-2026-01-27 ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met to receive updates on the county's Justice Project and make a critical decision about the proposed Behavioral Care Center. The committee approved moving forward with an out-of-custody model for the behavioral care center to be built at the Division Street Campus. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Behavioral Care Center (BCC):** A proposed 32-bed inpatient treatment facility designed to prioritize treatment over incarceration while preserving public safety. It would serve people with mental health and substance use disorders who are involved in the criminal justice system. **In-custody vs. Out-of-custody:** Two different models for the behavioral care center. In-custody means patients remain under corrections supervision while receiving treatment; out-of-custody means they are released from jail to receive treatment as civilians. **Validation Phase:** A structured process in the Justice Project where different scenarios are tested to understand cost and schedule impacts before making final design decisions. It helps decision-makers see trade-offs between different options. **Joint Action Working Group (JAW):** A new working group that will shape scenarios and test options between formal meetings, designed to speed up decision-making by having informed discussions before bringing items to committees and council. **Sequential Intercept Model (SIM):** A framework that identifies points where people with mental health and substance use issues can be diverted from the criminal justice system into treatment and services. **IMD Rule:** Institute for Mental Disease federal regulation that restricts Medicaid reimbursement for facilities over 16 beds, which is why treatment facilities are often built in 16-bed increments. **Finance and Facility Advisory Board (FAB):** A board that reviews financial and facility aspects of the Justice Project before recommendations go to the full council. **Division Street Campus:** The location of existing behavioral health facilities where the county is proposing to build the new Behavioral Care Center, allowing for co-location of services. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Barry Buchanan | Committee Chair, County Council Member | | Ashley McClaran | Project Manager, STV (design-build contractor) | | Adam Johnson | Project Director, STV | | Kayla Schott-Bresler | Deputy Executive, Whatcom County | | Hannah Fisk | Special Projects Manager, Health and Community Services | | Jed Holmes | Executive's Office | | Rob Nye | Administrative Services Department Facilities | | Caleb Erickson | Chief Corrections Deputy, Sheriff's Office | | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member | | Jessica Rienstra | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | ### Background Context Whatcom County is in the midst of planning a major justice facility project that includes a new jail and behavioral care center. This project emerged from recognition that the current jail is inadequate and that many people in the criminal justice system need mental health and substance abuse treatment rather than traditional incarceration. The Behavioral Care Center represents a shift toward treating underlying causes of criminal behavior rather than just punishment. The decision between in-custody and out-of-custody models reflects different philosophies about how to balance public safety with effective treatment. The out-of-custody model allows for more flexibility, better reimbursement options, and serves people at earlier intervention points before they're deeply involved in the criminal system. The broader Justice Project has been years in development, with extensive community input and study. The county is now moving from planning into the validation phase, where specific scenarios will be tested and refined before final decisions are made about design and budget. ### What Happened — The Short Version The meeting had two main parts. First, the design-build team gave an update on where the Justice Project stands. They explained they're moving into a "validation phase" where they'll test different scenarios to understand costs and trade-offs. A new working group will help shape these scenarios before they come to the full council for decisions. Second, the committee made a major decision about the Behavioral Care Center. After months of study, they voted 6-1 to proceed with an "out-of-custody" model, meaning people would be released from jail to receive treatment rather than staying in custody. They also chose to build it at the Division Street Campus where other behavioral health services are located, rather than next to the new jail. The discussion revealed that this decision doesn't eliminate the need for behavioral health services inside the jail itself — those are separate services for people who remain in custody. Council members emphasized they want to make sure the jail is designed with adequate space and capability for in-custody treatment as well. ### What to Watch Next - The Joint Action Working Group's first meeting was scheduled for January 28, 2026 - A refined scenario package will come to the Finance and Facility Advisory Board for review - The full council will receive a briefing package by the end of February 2026 with policy decisions to be made through May - Community engagement sessions are planned for mid-March, possibly in Lynden ---

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CJS-2026-01-27 **Q:** What was the main decision made at this meeting? **A:** The committee voted 6-1 to proceed with an out-of-custody Behavioral Care Center to be newly constructed at the Division Street Campus. **Q:** Who was the only council member to vote against the Behavioral Care Center motion? **A:** Ben Elenbaas voted no, stating he wanted to see more of the entire plan before making a decision. **Q:** What is the "validation phase" of the Justice Project? **A:** A structured process where different scenarios are tested to understand cost, schedule, and program impacts before making final design decisions. **Q:** What is the capacity of the proposed Behavioral Care Center? **A:** At least 32 beds (two 16-bed units), with potential for expansion based on the behavioral health analysis being completed. **Q:** Why are behavioral health facilities often built in 16-bed increments? **A:** Due to the federal IMD rule that restricts Medicaid reimbursement for facilities over 16 beds, discouraging mass institutionalization. **Q:** What is the difference between in-custody and out-of-custody models for the BCC? **A:** In-custody keeps patients under corrections supervision while receiving treatment; out-of-custody releases them from jail to receive treatment as civilians. **Q:** Where will funding come from for the Behavioral Care Center? **A:** $11 million in hoped-for state funding, $3 million from county and city opioid settlement funds, with the remainder from the two-tenths justice sales tax. **Q:** What is the Joint Action Working Group (JAW)? **A:** A working group that will shape scenarios and test options between formal meetings to speed up decision-making on the Justice Project. **Q:** Why did the committee choose the Division Street Campus over the La Bounty site? **A:** Division Street allows co-location with existing behavioral health services and has unanimous support from work groups and staff. **Q:** What are the three site options that were considered for the BCC? **A:** Rebuild at the work release center at Division, new construction at Division, and new construction at La Bounty. **Q:** Who is STV in this project? **A:** The Justice Center Owner's Representative and design-build contractor for the county's Justice Project. **Q:** What happens when someone is transferred from jail to the Behavioral Care Center? **A:** Corrections staff will transport them securely while they remain in custody until received at the BCC, ensuring they actually arrive for treatment. **Q:** What is the timeline for the next major decision point on the Justice Project? **A:** The council will receive a briefing package by the end of February 2026, with policy decisions to be made through May. **Q:** What services besides inpatient treatment might be offered at the BCC? **A:** Crisis relief services and potentially psychiatric urgent care services, co-located with the inpatient treatment beds. **Q:** What was Ashley McClaran's role at the meeting? **A:** Project Manager with STV presenting the Justice Project update and explaining the validation phase process. **Q:** What is the Sequential Intercept Model mentioned in the meeting? **A:** A framework that identifies points where people with behavioral health issues can be diverted from the criminal justice system into treatment. **Q:** Will there still be behavioral health services in the new jail? **A:** Yes, the BCC serves a specific population for inpatient treatment, but the jail will still need outpatient behavioral health services for other inmates. **Q:** What is the estimated cost range shown for the different BCC site options? **A:** The presentation showed rough order of magnitude costs, with new construction at Division being faster to build than other options. **Q:** When is the next community engagement session planned? **A:** Mid-March, possibly in Lynden, with additional outreach to community groups being planned. ---