Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

Whatcom County's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee received a sobering presentation about the Justice Project's mounting financial challenges, with construction cost estimates ranging from $170 million to $370 million — far exceeding the original $155 million projection. The single-item meeting, featuring Deputy Executive Kayla Sharp-Bressler and STV's Adam Johnson, laid out four scenarios for jail design, each with 480 beds but dramatically different costs and functionality. The presentation revealed that sales tax revenues have fallen far short of projections, growing at only 1.5% annually instead of the projected 4%, while construction costs have risen steeply over the past three years. This funding gap is forcing difficult decisions about core project commitments, including adequate jail capacity to eliminate booking restrictions, preserving money for community-based services, and maintaining the 50-50 split between incarceration and behavioral health funding. Council members expressed deep concern about the scenarios presented. Council Member Galloway called scenarios impractical and said she felt "panicked" about making decisions in two months without workable options. Council Member Ben Elenbaas challenged the 50-50 funding model, arguing that without adequate jail capacity for accountability, the behavioral health investments won't be effective. Council Member Jessica Rienstra countered that behavioral health programs have proven track records of reducing recidivism and jail populations. The committee revealed fundamental disagreements about project priorities — whether to prioritize bed count or behavioral health capacity, how to balance fiscal responsibility with therapeutic goals, and whether the 50-50 funding commitment should be maintained. With an April deadline for scope and budget decisions, the project team must negotiate with city partners who fund 75% of the project through sales tax contributions, potentially requiring amendments to the 2024 interlocal agreement.

No formal votes were taken at this presentation-only meeting. The agenda item AB 2026-095 was marked as "PRESENTED" in the action summary. The executive has set an April deadline for council direction on scope and budget to keep the project on schedule for summer 2026 design work. Key upcoming decisions identified include: determining the project's budget ceiling, establishing priorities for spending within that cap (bed count versus housing configuration versus programming space), and potentially reopening the interlocal agreement with cities regarding funding commitments and timelines.

**Kayla Sharp-Bressler, on project challenges:** "Where we stand today, we're nearly three years down the road from where we started when this ballot measure was conceived, and construction costs have risen steeply, while sales tax revenues have stagnated." **Council Member Galloway, on the timeline:** "So I guess this is where I'm feeling is a little bit panicked because I realize we need decisions in two months from now and I'm not sure that I feel like we have workable scenarios at this point." **Council Member Elenbaas, on accountability:** "There always has to be some form of, you know, I always tell people, dogs, kids, and horses crave discipline. And so there's always a little bit of accountability that needs to be had in order for the compassionate part to work." **Council Member Elenbaas, on funding priorities:** "I think if we can deliver an outcome where we are truly healing people with the behavioral health section, they'll forgive us if we spend 60-40 or 70-30." **Council Member Rienstra, on fiscal responsibility:** "I want to push back against this idea that we have to either be fiscally responsible or like morally ambitious or like compassion is here and responsibility is here. I think it's our moral imperative to be very good stewards of our taxpayer dollars." **Adam Johnson, on Scenario 1 limitations:** "It eliminates about 75% of the housing for anybody that has mobility issues because they can't go up the stairs. They can't get on the second bunk because everything is a double bed bunk."

# Real Briefings — Whatcom County Justice Project: Budget Reality and Design Dilemmas ## Meeting Overview On a cloudy February afternoon, the Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened for what would become a sobering presentation about one of the county's most ambitious and expensive projects in decades. The hybrid meeting, running from 1:10 PM to nearly 2:00 PM, brought together all seven council members to hear from the county's justice project team about where things stand with the proposed new jail and behavioral care center. Deputy Executive Kayla Sharp-Bressler and STV project director Adam Johnson delivered a presentation that laid bare the financial and design challenges facing what was originally envisioned as a $155 million project. With cost escalation pushing potential scenarios into the $300-400 million range and sales tax revenue falling far short of projections, the meeting revealed a project at a critical crossroads. The committee had to grapple with fundamental questions about what kind of facility they could actually afford to build and whether the original 50-50 split between jail construction and community-based services was still viable. The presentation focused on four different design scenarios for a 480-bed jail, ranging from a bare-bones $170 million "scenario one" that project leaders acknowledged was functionally inadequate, to a $370 million "scenario four" that would provide comprehensive programming but at a cost that appeared beyond reach. As council members wrestled with these options, deeper philosophical tensions emerged about accountability versus compassion, fiscal responsibility versus moral obligation, and how to maintain public trust while navigating difficult financial realities. ## The Justice Project Validation Crisis Sharp-Bressler opened with what she called "the bad news show here," outlining how the justice facility project had encountered severe financial headwinds since its conception three years ago. The numbers painted a stark picture: while the original sales tax projections anticipated 4% growth annually, actual growth had been closer to 1.5%, with 2025 receipts running 9% below initial projections—not year-over-year decline, but 9% lower than what planners expected when they structured the funding agreements. "We are nearly three years down the road from where we started when this ballot measure was conceived, and construction costs have risen steeply, while sales tax revenues have stagnated," Sharp-Bressler told the committee. The original interlocal agreement outlined a $155 million capital budget, with cities committed to contributing 75% of their sales tax revenue for the first four to six years. But those commitments, she explained, were now "competing against each other for these limited resources." The validation phase—the period where decisions about size, scope, location, budget, and programming are made—was supposed to conclude by the end of April to keep the project on track for summer 2026 design work. Sharp-Bressler emphasized this was the critical decision-making window: "Once we get into design, certainly there's going to be a lot more smaller decisions, but when we think about what does our community care about for this project, what have we been talking about for the last decade or more, this late winter spring period is the time where those decisions are going to be made." The project had made some progress, reaching consensus on co-locating a behavioral care center with crisis services at the Division Street Behavioral Health Campus. But the jail component remained in flux, with an initial capacity needs assessment from summer 2025 suggesting 480 beds for opening day, while Sheriff opinions pointed toward 600 beds to accommodate future growth. The executive had directed the design team to use 480 beds as a fixed variable for developing scenarios, though Sharp-Bressler acknowledged this was meant as "a starting place for discussion" rather than a final decision. ## Four Scenarios: From Inadequate to Unaffordable Project director Adam Johnson walked the committee through four distinct design scenarios, all based on the 480-bed baseline but varying dramatically in square footage, functionality, and cost. The scenarios revealed how housing configuration—not just bed count—would fundamentally shape both the facility's effectiveness and its price tag. Scenario One represented what Johnson called "backing into" a $170 million budget. This bare-bones approach would pack 480 beds into just 66,000 square feet of housing space, relying heavily on 64-bed dormitory units with double bunk beds. "It eliminates about 75% of the housing for anybody that has mobility issues because they can't go up the stairs," Johnson explained. "They can't get on the second bunk because everything is a double bed bunk." The scenario also presented serious classification challenges: "It also presents challenges for getting 64 people in one room that all get along together." Beyond housing, Scenario One cut corners throughout the facility. Administrative space would be limited to 3,000 square feet—"not enough for the current staff," Johnson noted. The facility would have only one physical courtroom, matching what the county currently operates and perpetuating existing court bottlenecks. There would be no warehouse space and no recreational or programming areas near the housing units, requiring constant inmate transport for any activities. "All that's in a separate wing somewhere away from where all the inmates are located," Johnson explained. "And so you're having to transport everybody for rec time, for visitation, professional visitation, for any program, for anything that happens outside of where the inmates are sleeping or spending their daytime." This would make operations "very operationally inefficient" and potentially less safe due to increased inmate movement. Scenario Two attempted to address the most glaring deficiencies of Scenario One with minimal additional investment. It expanded housing to provide better classification options, added a second physical courtroom plus two virtual courtrooms, increased administrative space to 6,000 square feet to accommodate current staff, and included basic warehouse space. While still cramped, it would at least function as a jail. Scenario Three moved toward what Johnson characterized as a more mixed housing approach, incorporating 16-bed single units alongside dormitory housing and adding shared recreational and programming space between housing units. This configuration would provide "a lot more classification flexibility within the housing" and begin to address some operational efficiency concerns. Scenario Four, at approximately $370 million, represented the high-end option where programming spaces, recreational areas, and support services would be integrated throughout the housing areas. "Operationally, that can be much more efficient," Johnson said. "There's also, tends to be safer because you're transporting inmates less." But at nearly double the cost of Scenario One, it appeared financially out of reach. ## The Classification and Safety Dilemma Johnson's presentation highlighted how design choices would impact daily operations and safety. The committee learned that housing configuration directly affected the jail's ability to safely house its population. Large dormitory units might maximize bed count per square foot, but they created serious management challenges. "It presents a number of classification issues where you don't have that ability to separate folks from one another," Johnson explained about the 64-bed dormitories in Scenario One. The jail would struggle to safely house inmates with different security levels, medical needs, or interpersonal conflicts in such large open units. The technical details revealed deeper policy questions. If the jail couldn't safely fill its dormitory beds due to classification requirements, what was the actual functional capacity? Council Member Galloway later picked up on this point: "If I'm hearing from our operators that they can't fill a 64-bed dormitory because of inmate dynamics, then to me a 64-bed dormitory should be off the table." Johnson emphasized that the scenarios weren't all-or-nothing propositions: "There's different levers that we can push and pull on here that we can pull into these different conversations. Everything is just a matter of square feet, though, too, at the end of the day." But he also noted that some elements were interconnected—housing decisions affected operational costs, booking restrictions, and supervision models. ## Council Grapples With Fundamental Questions The presentation opened a floodgate of council concerns and competing priorities. Council Member Galloway expressed feeling "a little bit panicked" about needing decisions in two months without what she saw as workable scenarios. She advocated for staying in the $150-175 million range and emphasized the importance of preserving funding for community-based services: "I think if we only get a jail out of this whole thing, the community is going to be super disappointed with us." Council Member Elenbaas took a different approach, questioning the rigid 50-50 split between jail construction and behavioral health programs that had been a cornerstone of the project's political appeal. "I think we need to have a serious conversation about the 50-50 funding model because in order to deliver what we said we're going to deliver to the people, I think the people are more worried about outcomes than they are about 50%, 50%," he argued. Drawing on his legal background, Elenbaas compared the jail to adjudication in civil disputes: "The other things fail when you don't have the threat of going to jail as an option." He suggested that without adequate jail capacity to provide accountability, community-based programs would lose their effectiveness. "My concern is that if this jail... without the jail component, you do not have any of that accountability that enables the other 50% of this to work." Council Member Boyle offered a different perspective, suggesting the committee should prioritize behavioral health care and then determine how many beds could be afforded: "I think it'd be interesting to go back and choose a variety of scenarios that focused first on behavioral health care and then said, how many beds can we afford in those scenarios? But establish care first and then think about the number of beds." Council Member Rienstra pushed back against framing the choice as compassion versus responsibility: "I want to push back against this idea that we have to either be fiscally responsible or like morally ambitious... I think it's our moral imperative to be very good stewards of our taxpayer dollars." She cited studies from Texas and Florida showing how behavioral health programs reduced recidivism rates and overall inmate populations. ## Budget Reality and Municipal Partnership Challenges The presentation revealed the complex web of relationships and commitments underlying the project's financing. Cities had agreed to contribute 75% of their sales tax revenue for the first four to six years, but Sharp-Bressler indicated that negotiations with municipal partners would be necessary as costs escalated. "It's likely that we will have to crack open the interlocal agreement that was signed in 2024 as we think about project cost escalation," she told the committee. Key variables in those negotiations would include the length of city contributions, the amount preserved for community-based services, and how much cities were willing to extend their commitment timeline. Council Member Stremler expressed frustration with trying to evaluate scenarios without knowing the budget ceiling: "I find it challenging to really start looking at these scenarios when we haven't been given like a final lid as far as budget." He wanted more clarity about the maximum amount available before considering design alternatives. The financing challenges extended beyond municipal negotiations. Sharp-Bressler noted that the project team wasn't yet at the stage where they could get a guaranteed maximum price from their general contractor, adding uncertainty to all cost projections. They also faced risks around future cost escalation, actual sales tax receipts over the bond's life, and the county's interest rate when borrowing. ## Operational Costs and Long-Term Implications While the presentation focused primarily on capital construction costs, council members recognized that operational expenses would be a major ongoing concern. Johnson noted that bed count was "a significant driver of both the capital construction costs as well as the operational costs that both the county and the cities will incur in the future." This raised questions about the true cost of different scenarios over the facility's lifetime. A larger jail with more specialized housing might cost more upfront but could prove more efficient to operate. Conversely, a minimal facility might save on construction but create ongoing operational inefficiencies. Council Member Scanlon questioned whether the jail capacity analysis adequately considered all factors beyond population growth. The current jail population report showed 326 people in the system, with 271 in the jail and work center and others on electronic home detention. He wondered whether moving to 480 beds meant that everyone currently released would be incarcerated: "I don't know if that's appropriate for a lot of those folks." The capacity question connected to broader policy goals around booking restrictions. The county had committed to eliminating booking restrictions—the practice of releasing low-level offenders due to space constraints—as a key promise to municipal funders. But council members wanted more specificity about what booking restrictions would look like in different scenarios and how that matched the interlocal agreement's commitments. ## The Courts Connection and System Integration Sheriff Donnelly, attending as an observer, made a crucial point in the meeting's final minutes about the interconnected nature of the criminal justice system. While police bring people to jail, "the courts are the ones that determines how long they stay in jail and if they get out of jail," he noted. The presentation had focused heavily on jail design and capacity, but the courts component was equally important. Current bottlenecks with just one physical courtroom contributed to longer stays and higher populations. Scenario Two would add a second physical courtroom plus virtual court capabilities, but even that might not fully address the processing needs. This highlighted how the jail project connected to broader criminal justice reforms and system capacity. The Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF) had been working on diversion programs and court efficiency, but those efforts needed to be coordinated with facility planning to ensure the whole system worked effectively. ## Next Steps and April Deadline Sharp-Bressler outlined an ambitious timeline for reaching consensus by the end of April. The project team would work on refining behavioral health and diversion analysis, updating scenarios based on feedback from various advisory bodies, and developing operational cost estimates for different options. "Ultimately, what we really need to move forward is what is our budget target here, so that really is what is the council's appetite for spending on this project, and what are the cities willing to offer," Sharp-Bressler explained. The team also needed policy direction on prioritization within whatever budget ceiling emerged: "As we think about bed count, housing configuration, programming space, healthcare spaces, where do the priorities lie so we can appropriately configure the scenarios." The next eight weeks would involve extensive consultation with the Justice Advisory Workgroup, Finance and Facility Advisory Board, IPRTF, public workshops, and city councils. "Our goal is to try to get to some consensus with city leaders prior to the county council making a decision on budget, so we have some guidance to inform that decision," Sharp-Bressler said. The stakes were high, with Council Member Elenbaas warning about the consequences of failure: "If we don't deliver on this one because of the longstanding mistrust we've had in the community over the 04 tax up until now, that we might be cooked with public trust into the future." ## Closing: More Questions Than Answers The meeting adjourned at 1:58 PM with more questions than answers, but a clearer understanding of the difficult choices ahead. Committee Chair Buchanan agreed to expand future meeting times to allow for more deliberation, recognizing that the complexity of the decisions required more than the abbreviated session format. Council members had identified several areas needing additional information: detailed operational cost projections, refined capacity analysis considering current population trends, exploration of cost-reduction strategies through construction methods or materials, and clearer definition of booking restriction policies under different scenarios. The philosophical tensions surfaced during the meeting—between adequate capacity and affordable cost, between facility focus and community programs, between fiscal prudence and ambitious goals—would need resolution in the coming weeks. As the project moved toward its April deadline, the committee faced the challenge of balancing competing commitments while maintaining the public trust that had made the original ballot measure possible. The justice project represented more than just a construction decision; it embodied the community's values about criminal justice, behavioral health, and public safety. The scenarios on the table would determine not just the physical structure of a new jail, but the practical implementation of those values for decades to come.