Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

**Deputy Executive Shot Wrestler, on project values:** "We are continuing to demonstrate a strong commitment to building the behavioral care center concurrently with the new jail." **Treasurer Steve Oliver, on budget decision timing:** "We're really at a point where we need to kind of pick a number in regards to the level of capital expenditures that we think that we can comfortably take on." **Council Member Galloway, on revenue projections:** "I think we should be planning for a zero to 1% growth rather than three or more percent growth." **Council Member Scanlon, on interlocal concerns:** "The cities if they choose to could just continue to push and push and push to expand down the road and to me I feel like we need some type of upper limit there and currently it's not defined and I think that that puts County finances at risk." **Council Member Elenbaas, on borrowing capacity:** "When you go to a bank, when you go to buy a house, you get a pre-approval letter from the bank that

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026, at 11:21 AM in Council Chambers for a hybrid meeting. All seven council members were present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The meeting was called to order by Chair Barry Buchanan, and the session was focused entirely on one critical agenda item: an update from the Executive's Office on the Justice Project process, financial outlook, and timeline for delivery of additional reports. This was a pivotal meeting in the ongoing Justice Project deliberations, with county officials attempting to provide clarity on budget parameters, facility programming, and decision-making timelines as the project moves through what Deputy Executive Shot Wrestler described as a "validation phase." The Justice Project encompasses both a new county jail and a Behavioral Care Center, representing one of the most significant capital investments in Whatcom County's history. ## The Justice Project Update — Setting Budget Caps and Moving Forward Deputy Executive Shot Wrestler began the presentation with an acknowledgment of the extensive community engagement that has characterized the Justice Project process. "It feels like every other day I'm in a discussion around this project," Wrestler said. "And so it's really good to see how active the community is. I certainly feel like no one can say they're gonna be able to, they've missed the opportunity to weigh in or that they didn't know these decisions were occurring this spring." The deputy executive outlined several advisory groups continuing to provide input: the Finance and Facility Advisory Board, the IPRTF (Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force), J-POP (Justice Project Oversight Panel), and the JAW (Justice Advisory Workgroup). While no formal recommendations have emerged from these committees, Wrestler noted they are "certainly informing our work as we proceed during this validation phase." A significant development was the March 16th letter from Whatcom County city mayors, attached to the agenda bill, expressing willingness to extend their financial contributions to the project through 2035. This letter would prove crucial to the budget discussions that followed. ### Behavioral Care Center — Concurrent Development and Funding Updates Wrestler emphasized the executive's commitment to building the Behavioral Care Center concurrently with the new jail, describing it as "something we are choosing to do here locally" while the jail is "something we are required to do." The behavioral care center represents a 32-bed inpatient treatment facility designed to provide an alternative to incarceration for individuals with mental health and substance use disorders. A major financial development was the increased flexibility of existing state funding. "Our existing state allocation for the 23-hour Crisis Relief Center has been made more flexible and that $11.2 million can now be applied towards Behavioral Care Center capital costs," Wrestler announced. This represented a significant win for the county's lobbying efforts. Council Member Buchanan questioned why the state funding amount appeared to have decreased from a previously mentioned $14 million figure. Wrestler clarified: "We have 11.25 from the state. It was an 11.3 award and I believe $50,000 gets taken off for a management fee from the Department of Commerce. And then there's $3 million of local funding that's contributed by Whatcom County and the city of Bellingham. In addition to that, which is getting that $14 million." ### Jail Facility Values and Operational Priorities Wrestler outlined the executive's approach to jail facility planning, emphasizing improved access to services including "medical care and observation, behavioral health treatment, recreation, programming, modern design, and more." The deputy executive stressed that "data should guide project decisions on facility capacity, housing configuration, and specialized housing priorities" and that they should "honor our feedback from law enforcement agencies and cities." The philosophy of "building with the future in mind" was emphasized, with Wrestler acknowledging that this "has the potential to increase initial capital costs, but that we will thank ourselves later for those decisions." ## The Critical Reports — Behavioral Health Analysis and Jail Capacity Study Two major analytical reports were nearing completion. The behavioral health analysis, conducted by Aaron Persky and Associates, was delivered to the executive's office the morning of the meeting and was expected to be released publicly within a week. This report examines the service model for the behavioral care center, target populations, potential diversionary impacts, staffing models, cost estimates, and insurance reimbursement expectations. The jail capacity analysis was described as complete and ready for public release later that week. Wrestler noted this study "provides high level results that are largely aligned with the 2025 capacity study with multiple variables impacting capacity needs for the justice facility." However, the new study offers "more insights on potential impacts of diversion on jail capacity and also provides more data related to the type of charges and how that's impacting the population within the jail." Importantly, Wrestler clarified how this capacity study would be used in the design process: "The design build team is going to take this report and the projections, and they're going to inform the housing needs during the programming phase of the project. They are not going to say, hey, I read this report. It's recommending a bed count of this number or a capacity of this number, and directly translate that into the design." ## Financial Framework — The $225 Million Question The meeting's most significant discussion centered on establishing budget parameters. Jed Holmes, Public Affairs and Strategy Manager, provided an update on financial modeling work conducted with County Treasurer Steve Oliver and bond consultant PFM. Holmes noted the volatility in recent sales tax revenues: "Recent sales tax revenues have been all over the place, had great December revenues, January revenues were down." This volatility was creating anxiety about long-term revenue projections essential for debt planning. The preliminary budget cap under discussion was $225 million total — $205 million for the jail and $20 million for the behavioral care center. This ceiling was contingent on city agreement to extend their contributions through 2035, which could provide an additional $23-24 million to the project. Council Member Elenbaas sought clarification on the cities' financial commitment: "When you say they're willing to go out to 2035, how much of the total budget is that?" Holmes responded that extending city contributions at 75% of their collections for another five years would provide "in the realm, maybe an additional 23, $24 million to the project." ## The Treasurer's Perspective — Conservative Planning and Risk Management County Treasurer Steve Oliver provided the meeting's most direct assessment of the financial realities. "We're really at a point where we need to kind of pick a number in regards to the level of capital expenditures that we think that we can comfortably take on," Oliver said. The treasurer emphasized that setting a budget cap would help move the design process forward while also clarifying "what dollars are gonna be left for the community-based services piece of this project, which I think are probably, you know, just as important as actually constructing the jail itself." Oliver stressed the need for conservative planning given cost escalation concerns: "We all know that, you know, over, you know, however many years you want to look back, I mean, the, you know, the cost escalation of this project has been substantial." However, the treasurer also provided reassurance about the evolving nature of financial planning: "Even if there's a number that's chosen in the next few weeks, and then we find new state or federal money to help augment pieces of this project, the economy could go one way or the other way, you know, we're going to continue that modeling as we move down the road." When Council Member Elenbaas asked for a simplified explanation of borrowing capacity, comparing it to a home mortgage pre-approval, the treasurer confirmed that a $225 million capital budget "would certainly be living within our means." Holmes provided a helpful benchmark: "There's a pretty easy benchmark if if you could handle $6 million on let's say 6.3 in debt service you can borrow about 100 million so scale that up if you're around 12 you can almost get 200." ## Council Member Responses — Alignment and Concerns ### Support for Concurrent Development Council Member Galloway expressed support for the overall direction: "I support uh setting a budget cap that includes both the BCC and the jail build concurrently. I appreciate the city's willingness to extend their contributions to help us raise that cap." However, Galloway emphasized the need for conservative revenue projections: "I think we should be planning for a zero to 1% growth rather than three or more percent growth." She added that "plus or minus 200 million for the jail, plus or minus 20 to 25 for the behavioral care center seems like we have a good start." ### Capacity and Interlocal Agreement Concerns Council Member Scanlon raised important questions about the relationship between capacity planning and the interlocal agreement with cities. He expressed concern about provisions that could require jail expansion if capacity limits are reached: "If we reach capacity um for so long over so many periods so much time um the cities can then push the county to expand the jail which add costs us down the road." Scanlon worried about the open-ended nature of these requirements: "The cities if they choose to could just continue to push and push and push um to expand down the road um and to me I I I feel like we need some type of upper limit there um and currently it's not defined and I think that that puts County finances at risk." ### Understanding Operational Changes Scanlon also pressed for more information about how policing practices might change once a new jail opens: "I am interested in knowing. I think the community ought to know as well. You know, an opening day of a new jail or a few years down the road, what might look different? You know, which of the charges that they're maybe issuing citations on now for fines rather than um you know bringing someone in to have them booked and potentially end up in jail." This question highlighted ongoing uncertainty about how booking restrictions currently affecting law enforcement operations might change with expanded jail capacity. ### Conservative Revenue Assumptions Council Member Scanlon reinforced concerns about sales tax projections, noting that "folks who manage that fund at the programmatic level say their assumption is 0 to 1% growth for that fund." He referenced the county's Q4 financial report as evidence of ongoing "struggles with sales tax revenue." ## Facility Integration and Service Coordination Council Member Stremler asked about operational costs for the behavioral care center beyond Medicaid reimbursements, but Wrestler indicated that information would be available in the forthcoming behavioral health analysis. Stremler also sought clarity on how the new facility would relate to existing services: "How does the Ann Deacon Center and that facility there fit into the picture when the new care center is built?" Wrestler explained the different levels of care: The behavioral care center would provide "inpatient treatment" with stays of "30, 60, 90 days" for mental health disorders, substance use disorders, or co-occurring disorders. The Ann Deacon Center of Hope serves different populations — half providing medical detox services and half operating as a crisis stabilization unit with shorter lengths of stay. "We're imagining referrals and linkages between these facilities," Wrestler said, noting that co-location of different service types "has been seen as an advantageous plan" in other jurisdictions. ## Timeline Pressures and Information Needs As the meeting concluded, Chair Buchanan pressed for specific timelines on the critical reports council members need for decision-making. Wrestler provided concrete dates: "You'll have the jail capacity analysis by the end of this week you'll have the majority of the Behavioral Health analysis um by the end of next week." Council Member Galloway acknowledged the executive's desire for timely decisions while emphasizing the need for adequate information: "I would just hope that council members could be very clear with the executive's office on what other information is needed to make this decision, because they do believe that making this decision sooner than later is gonna be important to keep this project on time and hopefully under budget." ## Closing Thoughts — Interconnected Systems and Voter Commitments Council Member Rienstra concluded the substantive discussion by emphasizing the interconnected nature of the facilities: "I just keep hearing at times kind of the jail and behavioral health, like on opposite ends of the spectrum, but I'm encouraged to kind of hear the conversation move forward where we are all seemingly recognizing that they are interconnected and neither are optional." She referenced previous legislative work, noting that county ordinances and resolutions had established that "responsible stewardship of public funds, ensuring public safety and providing adequate countywide behavioral health services" are "inextricably linked" and "not oppositional polls." The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:43 AM, with council members heading to lunch before returning for a 1:30 PM Committee of the Whole meeting. As they filed out, there was brief discussion about the broader tax burden on residents, with one council member noting that "the more taxes we pull out of people's budgets" affects spending on "taxable items." ## What's Ahead — Decision Points and Community Impact This meeting represented a crucial moment in the Justice Project timeline, with county officials attempting to provide the analytical foundation and financial parameters necessary for final decision-making. The $225 million budget cap discussion, while preliminary, represents the clearest indication yet of the project's likely scope and cost. The forthcoming reports — the behavioral health analysis and jail capacity study — will provide the data foundation council members have been seeking. However, questions remain about how booking restriction policies might change, what operational costs will look like, and how to balance competing priorities within constrained budgets. The project's complexity is evident in the number of moving parts: state and federal funding opportunities, city contribution agreements, operational planning for both facilities, community-based services integration, and the ongoing challenge of making decisions with incomplete information while construction costs continue to escalate. With an "arbitrary deadline of end of April for a decision" looming, as Council Member Galloway characterized it, the county faces the challenge of making one of its largest capital investments ever while balancing fiscal responsibility, public safety needs, and voter commitments to both incarceration alternatives and jail modernization.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met on March 24, 2026, to receive an update on the Justice Project, which involves building a new jail and behavioral care center. Deputy Executive Shot Wrestler and Jed Holmes provided updates on community engagement, financial projections, and upcoming reports on jail capacity and behavioral health needs. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Justice Project:** Whatcom County's initiative to build a new jail facility and behavioral care center to replace aging infrastructure and improve behavioral health services. **Behavioral Care Center (BCC):** A proposed 32-bed inpatient treatment facility for mental health, substance use, and co-occurring disorders, designed to divert people from jail into appropriate clinical care. **23-Hour Crisis Relief Center:** A short-term outpatient facility where people can stay up to 23 hours for crisis intervention, different from longer-term inpatient treatment. **Interlocal Agreement:** A contract between Whatcom County and its cities where cities contribute 75% of their criminal justice sales tax collections to help fund the jail project. **Design-Build Team:** The contractors (led by STV) responsible for both designing and constructing the jail and behavioral care center facilities. **Ann Deacon Center of Hope:** An existing county facility that provides medical detox and crisis stabilization services, offering shorter-term care than the planned behavioral care center. **Classification:** The process of determining what type of housing and security level inmates need in jail based on their charges, risk level, and other factors. **Diversion Programs:** Services and interventions designed to redirect people away from jail and into treatment, housing, or other community-based services. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Barry Buchanan | Council Member, Committee Chair | | Shot Wrestler | Deputy Executive | | Jed Holmes | Public Affairs and Strategy Manager, Executive's Office | | Steve Oliver | Whatcom County Treasurer | | 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 This Justice Project has been years in the making as Whatcom County grapples with an aging jail facility and inadequate behavioral health services. The county passed a criminal justice sales tax in previous years to fund these improvements, with cities agreeing to contribute 75% of their collections. However, construction costs have escalated significantly, forcing difficult decisions about project scope and budget. The project represents a major shift in how the county approaches criminal justice, emphasizing treatment over incarceration where appropriate. The behavioral care center is particularly significant as a locally-driven pilot that goes beyond what counties are required to provide. Meanwhile, the jail component is necessary infrastructure that must be built to replace current facilities. Community engagement has been extensive, with advisory groups, public meetings, and city input all feeding into the decision-making process. The county is now at a critical juncture where budget caps must be set to allow the design team to move forward with detailed planning. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee received updates on three main areas. First, community engagement is active with advisory groups meeting regularly and public forums drawing large crowds. Second, two important reports are nearly complete: a behavioral health analysis that will detail operating costs and service models for the behavioral care center, and a jail capacity study that will inform how many beds and what types of housing are needed. Third, budget discussions are focusing on a total cap of $225 million for both facilities - $205 million for the jail and $20 million for the behavioral care center. This assumes cities will extend their funding contributions through 2035, providing an additional $23-24 million. County Treasurer Steve Oliver emphasized the need to pick a budget number soon so the design team can move forward, while acknowledging that projections will be refined over the coming year before actual borrowing begins. Several council members expressed support for the combined approach but stressed the need for conservative revenue projections given recent volatility in sales tax collections. ### What to Watch Next - Jail capacity analysis report expected to be released later this week - Behavioral health analysis report to be publicly released within 1-2 weeks - STV design team memo on scenario development recommendations coming this week - Council decision on budget cap expected by end of April to keep project on schedule ---

**Q:** What is the total budget cap being discussed for the Justice Project? **A:** $225 million total - $205 million for the jail and $20 million for the behavioral care center. **Q:** How much additional funding could cities provide by extending through 2035? **A:** An additional $23-24 million if cities extend their 75% contributions for another five years. **Q:** What is the current state allocation for the behavioral care center? **A:** $11.2 million (originally $11.3 million minus $50,000 management fee from Department of Commerce). **Q:** Who conducted the behavioral health analysis study? **A:** Aaron Persky and Associates. **Q:** How many beds is the behavioral care center planned to have? **A:** 32 beds for inpatient treatment. **Q:** What was the county's criminal justice sales tax revenue last year? **A:** Approximately $11.4 million including city contributions (county portion was about $7.5 million). **Q:** When do council members need to make a budget cap decision? **A:** By the end of April 2026 to keep the project on schedule. **Q:** What types of services will the Ann Deacon Center provide compared to the behavioral care center? **A:** Ann Deacon provides shorter-term detox and crisis stabilization, while the behavioral care center will provide longer-term inpatient treatment (30-90 days). **Q:** What is the design-build team called? **A:** STV is leading the design-build team. **Q:** How long might someone stay at the behavioral care center for treatment? **A:** 30 to 90 days for inpatient treatment of mental health, substance use, or co-occurring disorders. **Q:** What percentage of their criminal justice sales tax do cities currently contribute? **A:** 75% of their collections. **Q:** Who attended the Lynden community meeting? **A:** Over 100 community members plus several council members. **Q:** What is the simple borrowing capacity rule of thumb mentioned? **A:** If you can handle $6 million in debt service at 6.3% interest, you can borrow about $100 million. **Q:** What growth rate do some council members think should be used for sales tax projections? **A:** 0-1% growth rather than 3% or more. **Q:** What are the two main reports expected this week and next? **A:** Jail capacity analysis (this week) and behavioral health analysis (within 1-2 weeks). **Q:** What does "classification" mean in jail planning? **A:** Determining what type of housing and security level inmates need based on charges, risk, and other factors. **Q:** When will the county actually need to borrow money for construction? **A:** About a year from now. **Q:** What advisory groups are providing input on the Justice Project? **A:** Finance and Facility Advisory Board, IPRTF, J-POP, and JAW. **Q:** What concern did Council Member Scanlon raise about the interlocal agreement? **A:** That it allows cities to push for jail expansion if capacity is reached, with no upper limit on costs. **Q:** What does Deputy Executive Wrestler say is the most critical piece needed to move forward? **A:** Clear budget feedback from the council to guide the design team. ---