Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

Real Briefings | Whatcom County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

MEETING METADATA

• Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2026
• Body: Whatcom County Council — Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee
• Meeting Type: Committee — Special Presentation
• Time: 1:10 PM – 1:58 PM (approximately 48 minutes)
• Location: Council Chambers, Whatcom County Courthouse, 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 105, Bellingham, WA 98225 — Hybrid format (in-person + remote via Zoom)
• Members Present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan (Chair), Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, Mark Stremler — all 7 members present
• Staff Present: Kayla Sharp-Bressler (Deputy Executive, Whatcom County); Adam Johnson (Project Director, STV — Justice Center Owner's Representative)
• Agenda Bills / Action Items: AB 2026-095 — Presentation from the Justice Center Owner's Representative, STV, regarding the Whatcom County Justice Project (presented for information; no vote taken)
• Next Meeting: Not formally announced; Chair committed to expanding deliberation time at future committee meetings
• Source Documents Used: Transcript (.txt/SRT), Agenda (PDF), Action Summary (PDF). No Staff Packet, Minutes, Study Guide, Flash Cards, or Quiz were available for this processing run.

Section 1: Executive Summary

The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened on February 24, 2026 for a single-item session: a presentation by STV, the county's Owner's Representative for the Whatcom County Justice Project, on the status of jail facility design scenarios. No votes were taken. The meeting was purely informational, intended to introduce the committee to four design-and-cost scenarios for a new county jail and to formally launch the policy deliberation that must produce a decision on scope and budget by end of April 2026.

The central message from Deputy Executive Kayla Sharp-Bressler and STV Project Director Adam Johnson was stark: the project faces a serious financial squeeze. Construction costs have escalated significantly since the project was conceived, while sales tax revenues — the primary funding mechanism — have grown at roughly one-third the projected rate. The original capital budget assumed 4% annual sales tax growth and a $155 million construction envelope. Current estimates show actual growth near 1.5%, 2025 receipts running 9% below 2023 projections, and construction costs ranging from approximately $170 million for the most basic functional scenario up to $370 million for the most comprehensive. The county must now decide which of its original commitments — adequate bed capacity, elimination of booking restrictions, funding for community-based services, and construction of a modern therapeutic facility — can be honored within a constrained budget.

Four design scenarios were presented, all anchored to 480 beds as a fixed planning variable derived from a summer 2025 jail capacity analysis. Scenario 1, at approximately $170 million, was widely characterized as functionally deficient. Scenario 4, at approximately $370 million, represents the most comprehensive design. Scenarios 2 and 3 represent intermediate options with progressively improved housing classification, courtroom capacity, programming space, and administrative capacity.

Council members responded with a mix of concern and competing priorities. Several — notably Galloway, Stremler, and Scanlon — said they cannot meaningfully evaluate the scenarios without a firm budget ceiling. Elenbaas argued that an adequately-sized jail is a precondition for behavioral health and diversion programs to succeed, and urged willingness to revisit the 50-50 funding split between jail and community services. Boyle countered that the council made a promise to voters to prioritize care, suggesting the design process start with behavioral health capacity and work backward to beds. Rienstra cited studies from Bexar County, Texas and Miami-Dade County, Florida showing that robust behavioral health programming reduces recidivism and jail population, framing behavioral health investment as both morally and fiscally responsible. Scanlon questioned the 480-bed figure itself, noting the current jail population is 326.

The meeting ended without resolution or formal direction. Committee Chair Buchanan committed to increasing deliberation time at future meetings. The project team has approximately two months to prepare refined scenarios, operational cost estimates, and updated behavioral health analysis before the end-of-April decision deadline.

Section 2: Key Decisions & Actions

AB 2026-095 — Whatcom County Justice Project: Design Scenario Presentation

• Action taken: Presented for information only. No vote taken.
• Presenting staff: Deputy Executive Kayla Sharp-Bressler and STV Project Director Adam Johnson
• Content: Introduction to four jail design scenarios ranging from ~$170M to ~$370M; all scenarios anchored to 480 beds as a fixed variable
• Outcome: No policy direction provided. Committee Chair committed to more deliberation time at future meetings.
• Significance: Formally launched the policy deliberation phase. April 2026 deadline for budget and scope direction was established as the governing timeline.

No additional action items or votes were taken at this meeting.

Section 3: Policy Discussions

The Whatcom County Justice Project — Financial Squeeze and Design Scenarios

The Whatcom County Justice Project is a multi-year initiative to replace the county's aging jail and co-locate a new Behavioral Care Center (BCC) at the Division Street Behavioral Health Campus. The project is funded primarily through a voter-approved sales tax and governed by interlocal agreements between Whatcom County and its partner cities. The county is in the "validation phase," determining size, scope, location, budget, and programming before architectural design begins. The goal is to reach a scope-and-budget decision by end of April 2026 to enable a summer 2026 start of design.

The Financial Problem

Deputy Executive Kayla Sharp-Bressler opened by laying out the fiscal pressure confronting the project. The original interlocal agreement was structured around a $155 million capital budget and 4% annual sales tax growth, based on the prior 10-year average and developed with city partners and financial consultant PFM. In practice, sales tax growth has averaged approximately 1.5%, and 2025 receipts were 9% below 2023 projections — not a year-over-year decline but a shortfall against the projections used to structure the revenue-sharing arrangements. Simultaneously, construction costs have escalated well beyond the original envelope. The project is now nearly three years from its inception, a period during which both input costs and interest rate environments have shifted.

The result is that several core commitments made to voters and partner cities are now competing against each other for the same constrained funds: (1) adequate bed capacity to eliminate booking restrictions; (2) allowing cities to retain a share of their sales tax revenues after the construction contribution period; (3) preserving funds for community-based incarceration prevention services; and (4) building a jail that is modern and therapeutic rather than merely functional.

The Four Scenarios

STV Project Director Adam Johnson presented four design scenarios, all fixed at 480 beds. The 480-bed figure comes from a summer 2025 jail capacity analysis predicting opening-day need at that level. The county sheriff has separately advocated for 600 beds; earlier planning discussions referenced a range of 440–520. The executive directed use of 480 as the fixed variable to enable direct cost comparisons across scenarios.

Scenario 1 backs into a $170 million budget. At 480 beds, this produces approximately 66,000 square feet of housing, primarily large 64-bed dormitory units with double bunk beds. Johnson characterized this scenario as functionally deficient: only one physical courtroom (the same bottleneck the current facility has); insufficient administrative space for current staff (3,000 sq ft vs. the 6,000 sq ft needed); no warehouse; no program or recreational space integrated near housing (all activities require transporting inmates to separate wings). The 64-bed dormitory format creates safety and classification problems — approximately 75% of housing is inaccessible to individuals with mobility issues, and large shared dorms make population management difficult.

Scenario 2 makes targeted investments above Scenario 1 to reach basic functionality: two physical courtrooms plus two virtual courtrooms; adequate administrative space; a warehouse. Johnson described it as "a functioning jail," though still constrained in housing quality and program integration.

Scenario 3 adds a more diverse housing mix, incorporating 16-bed single-cell pod units alongside larger dormitory units, creating greater classification flexibility. Recreational and program spaces are partially integrated within housing areas, improving operational efficiency and reducing inmate transport.

Scenario 4, at approximately $370 million with 120,000 square feet of housing (roughly double Scenario 1), represents the most comprehensive design. Program spaces, recreational areas, and services are co-located with housing pods. Johnson described this as operationally more efficient and potentially safer due to reduced inmate transport. The cost baseline used is $875 per square foot in 2025 dollars, with escalation factored to construction midpoint.

Johnson noted that the scenarios are not entirely modular — some features are interconnected. Housing configuration affects operational costs, booking restrictions, and supervision models in ways that make simple line-item trading difficult.

Policy Levers and Next Steps

Sharp-Bressler outlined the decisions needed before the project can move forward: the council's total spending appetite; what cities will contribute and for how long (including a possible extension from 2030 to 2035); how much revenue to reserve for community services; the prioritization of facility features; and the county's risk tolerance on cost escalation, interest rates, and future sales tax performance. Negotiations with the cities are active and the 2024 interlocal agreement may need to be reopened.

Council Responses

Council member responses reflected genuinely divergent views on both process and priorities:

Galloway expressed alarm at the cost figures, said her preference would be the $150–175 million range (noting even that appears unavailable in the current scenarios), questioned whether 64-bed dormitories can be taken seriously given operator concerns, emphasized that voter commitments to care, diversion, healthcare in jail, and reentry must be preserved, and warned that delivering only a jail would disappoint the community. She requested more time to deliberate and a clearer picture of what can actually be built within the county's revenue capacity.

Elenbaas framed an adequately-sized jail as the foundation that makes behavioral health and diversion programs work — without the credible accountability a jail provides, he argued, diversion and treatment alternatives lose their leverage. He pointed to COVID, the Blake decision, and periods of court dysfunction as evidence that removing accountability worsened outcomes, not improved them. He opened the question of whether the 50-50 funding split should be revisited, suggested behavioral health could be funded through grants and other sources in ways a jail cannot, and expressed concern that failure to deliver on this project would permanently damage public trust given the history of failed attempts since the 2004 tax.

Boyle suggested an alternative design approach: fix behavioral health care capacity first as the primary planning variable, then see how many beds the remaining budget supports. She argued the current scenario structure implicitly prioritizes beds over care.

Rienstra challenged the framing of fiscal responsibility versus compassion. She cited data from Bexar County, Texas, where behavioral health interventions reduced recidivism from 75% to 20%, and from Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the inmate population dropped 31% following expanded behavioral health programming. Her argument: investing in behavioral health is not just the compassionate choice — it demonstrably reduces future jail population and operating costs, meaning the connection between behavioral health investment and required jail size should be explicitly modeled in the scenarios.

Scanlon expressed ongoing skepticism about the 480-bed figure, noting the current total population is 326 (with 271 held between the jail and work center). He questioned whether 480 beds would simply incarcerate individuals currently being released, and whether that is appropriate. He reiterated concerns about the capacity model being overly reliant on population growth projections rather than detailed case-by-case analysis. He also raised the possibility of adding capacity to the Behavioral Care Center and asked what construction cost-reduction strategies — materials, methods — are being actively explored.

Stremler said he cannot evaluate the scenarios without a firm total budget ceiling and asked for that information before additional scenario analysis proceeds.

Buchanan acknowledged the presentation-to-deliberation time imbalance was a problem and committed to increasing time at future meetings.

Section 4: Stakeholder Positions

Kayla Sharp-Bressler (Deputy Executive, Whatcom County): Presented the project's financial challenges and the four design scenarios. Set the April 2026 deadline as necessary for schedule preservation. Committed to returning with updated behavioral health and diversion analysis, refined scenarios, operational cost estimates, and specialized housing recommendations. Did not express a preference among scenarios. Acknowledged the interlocal agreement may need to be reopened.

Adam Johnson (Project Director, STV): Presented technical details of the four scenarios, explaining the engineering rationale for each. Noted that housing configuration affects multiple downstream factors (operational costs, booking restrictions, supervision model) in interconnected ways. Used the Skagit County jail as a cost-per-square-foot benchmark.

Council Member Kaylee Galloway: Opposed to 64-bed dormitory units; skeptical the current scenarios reflect a workable financial reality; prioritizes preserving voter commitments to care, diversion, and reentry over maximizing bed count; wants substantially more deliberation time; not yet comfortable with the current state of information.

Council Member Ben Elenbaas: Prioritizes adequate jail capacity as foundational to making behavioral health and diversion work; open to revisiting the 50-50 funding split in favor of a larger jail share; argues behavioral health can be funded through alternative sources; expresses concern that failed delivery would permanently damage public trust.

Council Member Elizabeth Boyle: Wants care and behavioral health to be the primary planning variable, with bed count as the residual; believes the current scenario structure subordinates care to beds.

Council Member Jessica Rienstra: Argues fiscal responsibility and behavioral health investment are complementary, not competing; cites evidence that behavioral health programs reduce recidivism and jail population, with implications for long-term facility size and cost; wants this connection explicitly modeled.

Council Member Jon Scanlon: Skeptical of the 480-bed capacity figure; notes current population is well below 480; wants more detailed capacity analysis; interested in exploring expanded BCC capacity and construction cost-reduction strategies.

Council Member Mark Stremler: Needs a firm total budget ceiling before evaluating scenarios; frustrated by the absence of a definitive maximum figure.

Council Member Barry Buchanan (Chair): Committed to increasing committee deliberation time at future meetings; primarily facilitated the discussion; acknowledged the presentation-to-deliberation ratio at this meeting was imbalanced.

Section 5: Notable Quotes

Kayla Sharp-Bressler, on competing project commitments: "Many of the core commitments for this project are competing against each other for these limited resources."

Kayla Sharp-Bressler, on the decision timeline: "Our hope is to get to scope and budget by the end of April so we can start architectural design in summer of 2026 and keep this project on track from a schedule perspective."

Kayla Sharp-Bressler, on sales tax underperformance: "In 2025, we saw sales tax receipts down 9% from 2023 projections."

Council Member Galloway, on the budget numbers: "When these budget numbers came back, I think my jaw was on the floor a little bit. I think I would feel a lot more comfortable in a sort of 150 to 175 million dollar range for construction costs. I think that is not really even an option on this scenario."

Council Member Galloway, on functional beds vs. total beds: "I'm getting less caught up in the like number of jail beds and more caught up in the like how many of these beds are functional beds. So 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."

Council Member Galloway, on voter commitments: "I think those were commitments we made to the voters when we embarked upon this journey. I think it is the reason why this was successful and 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, on accountability and behavioral health: "Without the jail component, you do not have any of that accountability that enables the other 50% of this to work."

Council Member Elenbaas, on the 50-50 split: "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 Boyle, on scenario design priorities: "It feels like right now we're squeezing care to be secondary to the beds. And I'd like to see care prioritized."

Council Member Rienstra, on fiscal responsibility vs. compassion: "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."

Council Member Rienstra, on evidence from other jurisdictions: "In Miami-Dade County in Florida, their inmate population dropped 31 percent."

Council Member Scanlon, on the capacity figure: "The jail population report that we got this week was total population is 326 people. That's 271 people between the jail and the work center. So I'm wondering about what does that 480 number look like now?"

Council Member Stremler, on needing a budget ceiling: "If you're going to go buy a car, you probably need how much money you have to buy a car."

Section 6: What's Next

Project team deliverables (next several weeks):

• Updated behavioral health and diversion analysis for public distribution
• Refined design scenarios incorporating committee feedback
• High-level operational cost estimates for each scenario
• Recommendations on specialized housing needs within the facility

Public engagement:

• Community Workshop #2: March 19, 2026 at Linden City Hall Chambers

City negotiations:

• Active negotiations with partner cities on contribution period extension (2030 → 2035)
• Possible reopening of 2024 interlocal agreement to address cost escalation

Decision deadline:

• End of April 2026: County Council must provide direction on scope and budget to preserve summer 2026 start of architectural design

Committee process:

• Chair Buchanan committed to increasing deliberation time at upcoming Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee meetings

Advisory body engagement (next 8 weeks):

• Finance and Facility Advisory Board (FAB/FFAB)
• Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF)
• Justice Advisory Working group (JAW)
• Bellingham City Council (presentation already occurred)
• Small Cities Partnership (presentation already occurred)

Section 7: What Changed

Prior to this meeting, the committee had not formally been presented with the four design scenarios or the specific construction cost figures. This meeting established several new reference points and shifted the project's deliberative status:

• Cost range now on record: The $170M–$370M range is formally before the committee. The original $155M capital budget figure from the interlocal agreement is clearly superseded.
• Sales tax shortfall quantified: The 9%-below-2023-projections shortfall in 2025 and the ~1.5% actual growth rate versus the projected 4% were stated publicly before the committee.
• Scenario 1 effectively disqualified: Multiple council members and the project team characterized Scenario 1 as functionally inadequate. Chair Buchanan and others indicated any solution would need to fall at Scenario 2 or above.
• 50-50 funding split formally questioned: Council Member Elenbaas explicitly opened the question of whether the 50-50 split between jail and community services needs renegotiation — the first formal raising of this question in this committee.
• April 2026 deadline established as firm: The executive's April deadline for budget and scope direction was affirmed before the full committee.
• Committee deliberation process to change: Chair Buchanan acknowledged the current format is insufficient and committed to substantially more time at future meetings.

No policy direction was given, no scenarios were approved or eliminated by committee action, and no votes were taken. The meeting moved the project from pre-deliberation to active deliberation status.

Section 8: HubSpot Blog Tags

PUBLIC TAGS:

• criminal-justice
• whatcom-county-jail
• whatcom-county-council
• justice-project
• behavioral-health
• committee-meeting

DATA TAGS:

• person-kayla-sharp-bressler
• person-adam-johnson
• person-barry-buchanan
• person-kaylee-galloway
• person-ben-elenbaas
• person-jessica-rienstra
• person-jon-scanlon
• person-mark-stremler
• person-elizabeth-boyle
• entity-whatcom-county
• entity-stv
• entity-whatcom-county-justice-project
• entity-finance-facility-advisory-board
• entity-iprtf
• entity-incarceration-prevention-reduction-task-force
• topic-jail-design-scenarios
• topic-sales-tax-revenue
• topic-booking-restrictions
• topic-interlocal-agreement
• topic-behavioral-care-center
• topic-incarceration-prevention
• topic-recidivism
• topic-jail-capacity