Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

**Jake Wiebusch, on probation department transparency:** "We are not a voluntary service. We don't always, everyone coming to us isn't thrilled to be there, and we just wanted to break down those walls and those barriers, any kind of resistance that might be there by being, again, transparent as possible." **Jed Holmes, on economic projection failures:** "Our projections were, you know, pretty far off. Two factors have been undercutting the assumptions made during that initial planning process. High inflation has significantly increased construction costs, and economic stagnation or that slowdown of sales tax growth has been impacting not only the amount of money that we've collected today, but also our comfort with predicting future revenue." **Scott Korthuis, on accountability and consequences:** "I would argue long and hard, given the choice, people don't do the right thing, especially if there's no consequence. And we have a lot of people that can do things without consequence, a

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened on Tuesday morning, March 10th, 2026, in council chambers for a hybrid meeting that would prove both informative and contentious. Committee Chair Barry Buchanan led the session with all seven council members present: Elizabeth Boyle, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The meeting's two agenda items—a routine annual report from District Court Probation and a critical discussion about Justice Project finances—would reveal the complex tensions surrounding Whatcom County's ambitious plan to build both a new jail and behavioral health center. What began as a straightforward budget discussion evolved into a passionate debate about incarceration philosophy, community safety, and how to balance accountability with rehabilitation in a time of fiscal constraints. The stakes could not be higher: with construction costs soaring due to inflation and sales tax revenue falling short of projections, the county faces difficult decisions about how much to spend on what may be the largest public works project in its history. ## District Court Probation Annual Report Jake Wiebusch, administrator with District Court and Probation, opened the meeting with his department's annual update, delivering a comprehensive overview of an operation that quietly serves as a cornerstone of the county's criminal justice system. Speaking confidently from prepared remarks, Wiebusch painted a picture of a department managing increasing complexity with limited resources. "We receive all court referred clients, adult clients, both pretrial and post conviction for misdemeanor charges out of district court, out of the cities of Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Linden, and Sue Mass municipal courts," Wiebusch explained, noting the department's 25-plus-year relationships with these jurisdictions. The numbers he presented were striking: approximately 2,100 individuals under monitoring at any given time, with 1,700 on active supervision and the remainder on record-checks-only status having completed their conditions. The department's growth trajectory concerned Wiebusch. "We've continued coming out of COVID. We're seeing at least a 5% increase on referrals. Last year, I reported about a 10% increase from the year prior, and we're continuing to see that grow. This last year for 2025, we saw an additional 7%." More troubling, he noted, was the increasing complexity of cases: "We're not seeing that first time offender like maybe 10 years ago. We are now consistently receiving individuals with more complex dynamic issues such as dual diagnosis, higher risk factors, and including those DV cases." With eleven probation officers managing these caseloads, Wiebusch emphasized the specialized expertise his staff brings. "We have trained chemical dependency professionals as probation officers. We have probation officers who are certified to teach domestic violence treatment," he said. This internal capacity has proven crucial as community resources have dwindled. The department operates specialized units reflecting the nature of their caseload: general DUI supervision handling the bulk of cases, a pre-trial unit for pending cases, a high-risk domestic violence unit with "intense reporting requirements," behavioral health caseloads requiring "warm handoffs to providers in the community," and mental health court participation. Each requires different approaches and contact frequencies, with general caseloads around 200 individuals per officer while mental health court cases average about 30. Wiebusch highlighted innovative programming the department has developed to fill community gaps. The Domestic Violence Perpetrator Opportunity for Treatment (DV POTS) program, funded by both county and City of Bellingham, has served 108 individuals but faces provider shortages. "We have a very small base of providers. I think we're down to one here in our community. So we've struggled with maintaining that relationship and we're having to go outside of our community to have a provider." When Councilman Scanlon asked about programs from other counties that might benefit Whatcom County, Wiebusch identified mental health evaluations as a critical need: "There's a significant need there. And the amount of time it takes when court ordered to get one of those, it's frustrating." Councilmember Rienstra's questions about caseload sizes revealed concerning staffing ratios. With 200 cases per officer for general supervision, Wiebusch acknowledged they're "a little bit above, I think, national standards," though he promised to provide specific comparative data later. ## Justice Project Budget Crisis and Funding Scenarios The meeting's second item transformed the chamber into a forum for fundamental debates about criminal justice philosophy and fiscal responsibility. Jed Holmes from the Executive's Office delivered a sobering assessment of the Justice Project's financial challenges, setting the stage for what would become an hour of intense discussion. Holmes began with stark numbers illustrating how dramatically circumstances had changed since the original planning. Sales tax projections had assumed 5% growth in 2024 and 4% annually thereafter, but reality delivered harsh corrections. While county general fund sales tax had risen 12% annually from 2020 to 2023, it plummeted to just 1% growth thereafter. "Our projections were, you know, pretty far off," Holmes admitted. Two factors had undermined the original assumptions: "High inflation has significantly increased construction costs, which you saw in the presentation two weeks ago, and economic stagnation or that slowdown of sales tax growth has been impacting not only the amount of money that we've collected today, but also our comfort with predicting future revenue." Holmes presented three funding scenarios, each carrying different trade-offs. The baseline scenario, built into the current interlocal agreement capping county debt service at $6.6 million annually with city contributions through 2030, would provide approximately $165 million for capital construction. A second scenario maximizing debt while maintaining the current city contribution timeline could raise about $200 million. The most aggressive option, extending city contributions through 2035 and maximizing county borrowing, could generate roughly $224 million. But these scenarios came with significant opportunity costs. Holmes revealed the harsh arithmetic of borrowing more upfront: the baseline scenario would leave $87 million over 15 years for community-based programs, while the maximum debt scenario would provide only $36 million—a reduction of nearly 60%. Kayla Schott-Bresler from the Executive's Office emphasized the urgency of decision-making while acknowledging the complexity of choices ahead. "A council decision on the budget will be needed in the near future," she said, noting the executive's preference for direction by end of April to keep the project on schedule. When Committee Chair Buchanan asked about additional information coming before the budget decision, Schott-Bresler outlined an ambitious deliverables schedule: a behavioral health analysis examining services within both jail and behavioral care center, a refined jail capacity analysis using sheriff's office data, updated facility scenarios, and operational cost modeling. All would arrive by early April. ## The Cities' Perspective: Mayor Korthuis Speaks The meeting took an unexpected turn when Councilmember Elenbaas, noting Lynden Mayor Scott Korthuis in the gallery, asked if the committee would allow him to speak. What followed was perhaps the most revealing exchange of the morning, as Korthuis laid out the cities' position with characteristic bluntness. "We're working on a letter to send to you as the council to address the concerns that the cities might have as we move forward," Korthuis began, outlining three key criteria for continued city funding: adequate capacity to avoid booking restrictions, inclusion of the behavioral health center, and operational efficiency to control ongoing costs. "We just don't want to see booking restrictions. That was in our earlier letter. And we're going to reemphasize that again, that when this thing opens, we don't want to have booking restrictions," he stated emphatically. "And it's pretty critical for the cities. And that's why we're committing all the dollars we're doing is that we want enough capacity so that we can put certain people in jail and keep them there." But Korthuis also acknowledged the delicate balance required: "We also recognize that we need a facility that encourages diversion rather than incarceration. And part of that is the behavioral health center. So we can't lose sight of the fact that we're going to need a behavioral health center." His most urgent message concerned time and money: "A $200 million project at 4% inflation, that's 8 million a year that goes up or 6 to $700,000 a month. So every two months you're losing 1.5 million in buying power. And so if we drag our feet, we just get less facilities in the end." When pressed by Councilmember Elenbaas about mechanisms to ensure no booking restrictions, Korthuis admitted significant uncertainty: "There's a lot of hope in our mechanism." His hope centered on potential state or federal funding for the behavioral health center, which could free up local funds for additional jail capacity. Elenbaas delivered a pointed warning based on his council experience: "My advice to you is with my experience as a council member, don't rely on hope. It'll bite you, guaranteed." ## Philosophical Divides on Justice and Capacity The discussion revealed deep philosophical divisions among council members about the proper balance between incarceration and treatment. Councilmember Galloway articulated a framework emphasizing fiscal responsibility and comprehensive planning: "Whatever we set our cap at, it needs to be within our financial means. I don't want to overextend our county. I also am hard set on thinking that whatever our budget cap is needs to include the construction of the behavioral care center." Galloway also pushed for broader thinking about county spending: "Every time we're spending a dollar on housing, we need to be thinking about how does this impact the justice system. Every time we're spending a dollar on child care, how is that impacting? Every time we spend a dollar in behavioral health, how is that impacting?" Councilmember Stremler questioned the adequacy of a 480-bed facility, asking whether the cities had reacted to landing on what he termed "a 2030 plan. Hopefully we even have the doors open by then." Korthuis's response was direct: "Yeah, the reaction is that's probably not enough capacity." When Stremler asked how to determine adequate sizing to avoid booking restrictions, Schott-Bresler acknowledged fundamental uncertainty: "We unfortunately can't predict the future, control the weather, as you'll see in the jail capacity analysis that's coming from these statisticians. That's like one of their highlights. Like we can't control the weather. We don't know what is going to happen." ## The Accountability Versus Treatment Debate The meeting's most passionate exchanges centered on competing visions of criminal justice. Councilmember Elenbaas delivered an impassioned defense of adequate jail capacity, rejecting what he saw as false narratives about the purpose of incarceration. "We sit up here and act like we're, you know, that homelessness in itself is a crime. But I think the reality of the situation is that we were painting a false narrative," he said, before pivoting to his core argument: "Without the accountability of a jail, it won't matter how much money we spend on everything else if we don't have that. That's why I firmly believe we need to build the right size jail. Because I think we've seen what happens in the community when we aren't able to hold people accountable." Elenbaas also challenged assumptions about diversion effectiveness: "There's this thought out there that 100% of the people that go through the county jail could be served by the diversion. And I think the reality of it is, is there's only a small portion, like what's the average day in our county jail? Two days. How much, how, you know, somewhere around that one to two day range. So like how many services can you render in two days realistically?" Mayor Korthuis supported this perspective with concrete examples: "I have good ones in Lynden where people were arrested, brought to the jail, let out the next day and the next day did the exact same thing without consequence. And so I agree with you. I think there are many that would say given the choice, people will do the right thing. I would argue long and hard, given the choice, people don't do the right thing, especially if there's no consequence." ## The Treatment and Care Perspective Councilmember Boyle offered a counterpoint emphasizing treatment and care over incarceration capacity: "When I think of, you said right-sized for the number of people in there, I wanna say, what's our behavioral care? What's the right-sized behavioral care approach? And so that's what's, when I think about the vision, the community I want for future generations, it's one that really prioritizes care so that the jail population decreases." Drawing on personal experience, Boyle continued: "When I think of the folks that I've worked around that have come out of jail and they've shared with me what was meaningful for them to choose a healthier path, housing. peer support, behavioral care, and it was transformational for them. I want to make sure their voices are heard here." Councilmember Rienstra supported this perspective with data and national examples: "We do know nationally in different states and the different counties that these community services, re-entry programs, deflection, diversion, behavioral health services do decrease recidivism, do decrease the access that people utilize our local jails. Again, I think I brought them up before, but there's some pretty phenomenal studies in Bear County in Texas and in Miami-Dade County in Florida with some very encouraging numbers." She also emphasized cost efficiency: "With the $200 per day per person to incarcerate, that's about $73,000 per year. If we're looking at permanent supportive housing programs, that's about $25,000 per year. So if we're truly looking at efficiency and we want to make sure we're keeping costs down, really looking across the board at, if somebody is needing certain services, you know, doing something that is three times the cost because it makes us feel safer versus actually creating a safer community." ## The Funding Strategy Debate As the meeting neared its end, Councilmember Elenbaas delivered perhaps the most provocative argument of the day about funding strategy. He argued that using sales tax revenue to build the jail was not only practical but strategically necessary for implementing the broader community vision. "The reality of this situation is that we can't go out and get a grant to build a jail as easily as we can go out and get a grant to fund everything else," he stated. "And so if we were really looking at this, how do we execute this plan that the community provided to us, the most responsible thing for us to do is to use the money that's coming in on the tax to build the right size jail so that we can fully utilize the behavioral health side of it." He continued with increasing passion: "You use the tax revenue, build the jail as much as you need to have the right size jail and from there you still execute your plan you just seek other funding and it's going to be way more feasible to seek the other funding in the form of those dollars being used for the behavioral health side of things than it would be to use it on a jail there's there's absolutely no place I can fathom where we could write a grant to to build you know that constitutionally mandated structure." Elenbaas concluded by rejecting what he saw as false choices: "I really hate it when we start painting these pictures like well this side wants to lock everybody up and this side want you know doesn't want to lock anybody up because that's not really the issue. The issue is how do we fund the entire plan?" ## Closing Tensions and Unresolved Questions As Committee Chair Buchanan called time on the extended discussion, fundamental questions remained unresolved. The committee faces an April deadline for budget decisions with significant information still pending—behavioral health analysis, refined jail capacity study, updated scenarios, and operational cost modeling. Mayor Korthuis delivered a final plea for urgency: "I encourage you as a very difficult decision is coming." His words captured the weight of choices ahead: balancing fiscal responsibility with public safety needs, treatment with accountability, community vision with political reality. The meeting adjourned at 11:02 a.m. after 67 minutes of discussion that revealed the profound challenges facing Whatcom County's leadership. With every month of delay costing hundreds of thousands in purchasing power and philosophical divisions clearly drawn, the next few weeks will test whether compromise is possible on one of the most consequential decisions in the county's history. The path forward remains unclear, but the stakes are now fully apparent: the Justice Project represents not just a construction decision, but a defining choice about what kind of community Whatcom County wants to become.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met on March 10, 2026, to receive an annual report from District Court Probation and discuss critical financial and policy decisions regarding the Justice Project—the county's planned new jail and behavioral health center that will cost between $165-224 million. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Justice Project:** Whatcom County's plan to build a new jail and behavioral health center to replace aging facilities, funded by a public safety sales tax approved by voters. **Interlocal Agreement (ILA):** A contract between Whatcom County and seven cities (Bellingham, Lynden, Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Sumas, and Sumas) that defines how much each jurisdiction contributes to the Justice Project and for how long. **Booking Restrictions:** Policies that limit jail admissions when capacity is reached, often meaning law enforcement must release arrestees who would otherwise be held. **Behavioral Health Center:** A planned treatment facility that would provide mental health and substance abuse services as an alternative to incarceration for some individuals. **Deferred Prosecution:** A legal option allowing certain defendants to receive treatment instead of going to trial, typically used for DUI and domestic violence cases. **District Court Probation:** County department that monitors about 2,100 individuals on pretrial release or post-conviction supervision, primarily for DUI and domestic violence cases. **Work Center:** An existing county facility that could potentially be used as temporary jail capacity while planning the new facility. **Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF):** A community group focused on reducing jail population through diversion programs and community-based services. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Barry Buchanan | Committee Chair | | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member | | Jessica Rienstra | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Jake Wiebusch | District Court Administrator | | Jed Holmes | County Executive's Office | | Kayla Schott-Bresler | County Executive's Office | | Scott Korthuis | Mayor of Lynden, representing small cities | ### Background Context Whatcom County voters approved a public safety sales tax to fund a new jail and behavioral health center, recognizing that the current jail is overcrowded and aging. The project was initially estimated at $155 million, but inflation and construction cost increases have pushed potential costs to $200+ million. This has created tension between building adequate jail capacity to avoid booking restrictions (a key demand from cities) and funding community-based behavioral health services that could reduce the need for incarceration. The cities contribute 75% of their municipal sales tax revenue to the project for the first 4-6 years, and their continued cooperation is essential. However, economic conditions have made revenue projections less reliable, forcing difficult decisions about borrowing, facility size, and service priorities. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee received an annual update showing that District Court Probation is managing increasing caseloads (7% growth in 2025) with more complex cases, while providing innovative programs like domestic violence treatment groups and electronic monitoring. The department monitors about 2,100 people with 11 probation officers, slightly above national standards for caseload size. The main discussion focused on Justice Project financing. Staff presented three funding scenarios ranging from $165-224 million for construction, depending on how much the county borrows and whether cities extend their contributions beyond the initial 4-6 year period. Mayor Korthuis indicated cities are willing to contribute for up to 10 years total, but want guarantees the jail will be large enough to avoid booking restrictions and efficient to operate. Council members expressed different priorities—some emphasized jail capacity and accountability, others stressed behavioral health services and diversion programs. No decisions were made, but the Executive's Office said a budget decision is needed by end of April to keep the project on schedule. ### What to Watch Next - Cities will send a formal letter outlining their conditions for extending financial contributions - Multiple studies will be released by end of March: behavioral health analysis, refined jail capacity study, and updated construction scenarios - Council must decide on a budget cap by end of April 2026 - Negotiations on a revised interlocal agreement between county and cities ---

**Q:** How many people does District Court Probation monitor at any given time? **A:** About 2,100 individuals, with 1,700 on active supervision and 400 on inactive status (record checks only). **Q:** What was the percentage increase in probation referrals in 2025? **A:** 7% increase, continuing a trend of at least 5% annual growth since COVID. **Q:** How many probation officers does the department have? **A:** 11 total probation officers plus a probation manager and lead probation officer. **Q:** What are the three main budget scenarios presented for the Justice Project? **A:** $165 million (baseline), $200 million (maximize debt, no city extension), and $224 million (maximize debt with city extension to 2035). **Q:** What is the current cap on county's annual debt service in the interlocal agreement? **A:** $6.6 million per year after the initial 4-6 year period. **Q:** Which mayor spoke at the meeting and what city does he represent? **A:** Scott Korthuis, Mayor of Lynden, speaking for the small cities. **Q:** What percentage of their municipal sales tax do cities contribute to the Justice Project? **A:** 75% of municipal sales tax revenue for the first 4-6 years. **Q:** What happens to community-based services funding under the maximum debt scenario? **A:** It drops from $87 million to $36 million over 15 years—a reduction of more than 50%. **Q:** What is the cost per day to house someone in jail versus behavioral health treatment? **A:** Jail costs about $200 per day, while behavioral health treatment costs $600-800 per day. **Q:** When does the Executive's Office need a budget decision? **A:** By the end of April 2026 to keep the project on schedule. **Q:** What are the two main types of cases probation handles? **A:** Alcohol/drug offenses (including DUI and deferred prosecutions) and domestic violence cases. **Q:** How much buying power does the project lose per month due to inflation? **A:** $600,000-700,000 per month based on 4% annual inflation on a $200 million project. **Q:** What facility could potentially provide temporary jail capacity? **A:** The county's existing work center. **Q:** What specialized caseloads does probation operate? **A:** General DUI, pretrial unit, high-risk domestic violence, behavioral health, and mental health court caseloads. **Q:** What is the average caseload size for general probation officers? **A:** Around 200 cases per officer, which is above national standards. **Q:** What is the main concern cities have about jail capacity? **A:** Avoiding booking restrictions that would prevent them from incarcerating certain offenders. **Q:** How many people work at the Ann Deacon behavioral health facility mentioned? **A:** About 55 staff members across both sides of the facility. **Q:** What is booking restrictions and why do cities oppose them? **A:** Policies limiting jail admissions when capacity is reached; cities oppose because they want to ensure certain offenders can be held accountable through incarceration. ---