Whatcom County

Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

COUNTY COURTHOUSE

311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105

Bellingham, WA 98225-4038

(360) 778-5010

Committee Minutes - Final

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

1 PM

Hybrid Meeting - Council Chambers

HYBRID MEETING - ADJOURNS BY 2:00 P.M. (PARTICIPATE IN-PERSON, SEE

REMOTE JOIN INSTRUCTIONS AT www.whatcomcounty.us/joinvirtualcouncil, OR

CALL 360.778.5010)

COUNCILMEMBERS

Elizabeth Boyle

Barry Buchanan

Ben Elenbaas

Kaylee Galloway

Jessica Rienstra

Jon Scanlon

Mark Stremler

CLERK OF THE COUNCIL

Cathy Halka, AICP, CMC

Call To Order

Roll Call

Committee Chair Barry Buchanan called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m.

in a hybrid meeting.

7 -

Present:

Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica

Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler

Announcements

Committee Discussion and Recommendation to Council

AB2026-291

Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code Section 5.04.080, Emergency Medical

Services (EMS) Oversight Board, and Section 5.04.085, EMS Technical Advisory

Board, to change the membership of the EMS Oversight Board and the EMS

Technical Advisory Board

Debbie Arthur, Executive’s Office, referred to the Revised Substitute

Ordinance as amended in Council 4.14.2026 and stated stakeholders feel

like the language in section C (1)(b)(x) of Exhibit A needs to have some

clarification. She stated this is in regards to the levy only so the countywide

fire should probably not be part of this code. Stakeholders would also like

to understand how performance would be audited and know up front what is

being measured.

Galloway moved and Scanlon seconded that the SUBSTITUTE Ordinance be

RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION.

Galloway spoke about the independent external review and stated she has

since communicated with the stakeholders about how it is becoming the

new normal with County funds as the County seeks to improve systems of

transparency and accountability with constituencies, but in no way would

her amendment have interest in scope creep with fire districts and others

who have independently-elected people who have fiduciary responsibility

over their own taxing districts. She stated it would probably be good to

strike “fire and.” She stated she very specifically wanted the EMS Oversight

Board (EOB) to retain the internal oversight, which is why the amendment

focuses on external evaluation, and wanted to provide some discretion to

the EOB to set the process and timeline.

Arthur stated they definitely do not want fire in the language, and asked if

establishing a process and timeline would be within the EOB, with

consultation with the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) or if it would only be

within the EOB.

Galloway stated the interest was having this element be added to the levy

service plan.

Galloway moved to amend section C (1)(b)(x) of Exhibit A of the revised

substitute ordinance as revised in Council on 4.14.2026, to strike "fire and"

so that it reads:

Establishing a process and timeline for an independent external

review and evaluation of the EMS Levy, EMS Levy Plan, and the

countywide EMS system.

The motion was seconded by Scanlon.

The motion to amend carried by the following vote:

Aye: 7 - Galloway, Rienstra, Scanlon, Stremler, Boyle, Buchanan, and

Elenbaas

Nay: 0

Elenbaas discussed the motion to adopt the substitute as just amended,

wanting to make sure they are not spending where they do not need to

spend, and a desire to hear from the chiefs.

Hank Maleng, Fire Chief, stated they feel that the oversight board and

Council are the ones that are doing the oversight, along with the State

Auditor, and they wonder if they really need to spend more money on a

separate audit.

Elenbaas stated they spend a lot of money for very little value and he does

not want to put a system in place that does that systematically for no reason.

If it is needed, they could call for an audit.

Elenbaas moved to amend to delete section C (1)(b)(x) of Exhibit A and

the preceding "and."

The motion was seconded by Scanlon.

Maleng answered if the State audit is specific to the EMS levy and he spoke

about the fire districts audits and that they include auditing allocation

money that they receive.

Rienstra asked if these programs could be audited under the performance

audit ordinance.

Satpal Sidhu, County Executive, stated the Council can define what they

would like or look at a department in any given year and that can be done in

the regular process.

Elenbaas’ motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Rienstra, Scanlon, Stremler, Buchanan, and Elenbaas

Nay: 1 - Galloway

Out of the Meeting: 1 - Boyle

Galloway's motion that the SUBSTITUTE Ordinance be RECOMMENDED

FOR ADOPTION WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT(S) carried by the

following vote:

7 - Boyle, Buchanan, Elenbaas, Galloway, Rienstra, Scanlon, and Stremler

Aye:

Nay:

MOTION 1

Motion approved to amend the Revised Substitute Ordinance as Amended in Council 4.14.26, section C (1)(b)(x) of

Exhibit A to strike “fire and” so that it reads:

Establishing a process and timeline for an independent external review and evaluation of the EMS Levy, EMS Levy

Plan, and the countywide EMS

MOTION 2

Motion approved to amend the Revised Substitute Ordinance as Amended in Council 4.14.26 to delete the previously

amended section C (1)(b)(x) of Exhibit A and the preceding "and."

AB2026-340

Resolution establishing a preliminary planning budget cap, affirming governing

commitments, and providing recommendations to the administration from the

Whatcom County Council on the capital construction of the Whatcom County Jail and

Behavioral Care Center

Buchanan referred to the memo (on file) and stated it is laid out in chunks,

so he would like to go through it in pieces. He stated the first piece is

talking about the recommendation for the planning ceiling to be $205

million for the jail and $34 million for the behavioral care center. He

invited Chief Erickson to speak about the programming process. Then

subsequent speakers spoke on different parts of the memo.

Caleb Erickson, Sheriff's Office, stated programming is a process in which

you work with a consultant to define exactly what the needs are for the

construction project, and he spoke about this county’s programming efforts.

He stated the design-build team has told us that the average cost per square

foot for the whole facility is $875 which would give them roughly 150,000

square feet using the $205 million proposed in this resolution. They then

look at what they can fit into that and what elements should be cut back in

order to meet the square footage target.

Scanlon asked if they should be thinking of separating out the level of

service for people that are in the jail for short periods of time and that not

providing the same level of service like they would for people who would

be there longer might be a way to reduce cost.

Erickson answered and spoke about the challenges of that.

The following people spoke about the financing side:

Kayla Schott-Bresler, Executive's Office

Satpal Sidhu, County Executive

Schott-Bresler stated the executive and the Finnane and Facilities Advisory

Board (FFAB) have been talking about a budget ceiling in the range of $215

to $225 million for the total project which is the range they feel

comfortable with.

Councilmembers and the speakers discussed if the proposed budget ceiling

($205 million) includes both hard and soft costs, that Buchanan came to a

conclusion that he agrees with the FFAB’s assessment, that the $205

million includes hard and soft costs from the executive’s team’s

perspective, and how the executive’s team would implement the resolution.

Schott-Bresler stated they would bring back a draft jail program sometime

in late May to talk with the Council about how the budget and scope are

aligning, they would then start looking at operation costs around

mid-summer, they would have a third community engagement session in

July to talk about where they are at in the process, and then present a final

jail program report to the Council at their August Council meeting for a

decision.

Buchanan stated, once the programming is done, the Council will do a

workshop outside of a regular Council meeting day so they can really digest

it.

Schott-Bresler answered what a timeline would be for potentially having a

new interlocal agreement with the cities, and stated they do not have a time

for that but they would be working over the summer to renegotiate it.

Sidhu stated the interlocal is not a linear process, and though what happens

with this resolution will set the stage, there are no guarantees that there will

be a new interlocal. He urged the councilmembers to read the letters from

the mayors with a keen interest because it is very important that we bring

and keep community together.

Elenbaas spoke about his concerns with the resolution. He stated the cities

are giving on what they were promised because of pressures that they are

seeing today that were not there then. He would like to see the third "Be it

Further Resolved" statement (that talks about the 50 percent investment

commitment) go away because he thinks the Council also needs to give a

little bit, not because they are going back on their word to the voters, but

because they are dealing with things that were not present two or three years

ago. He feels like language like this is setting the stage for them to

continually delay on executing this project.

Elenbaas moved to recommend approval of the substitute resolution.

The motion was seconded by Boyle.

Scanlon spoke about the 50/50 language and asked what voters think they

voted on. He stated there are two 50/50 scenarios and he would like to

know what this resolution assumes. One is 50/50 which he reads (from the

voter’s pamphlet in 2023) to be over the length of time of the tax (which is

multiple decades), the other is in the ordinance that the Council passed in

2023 and in the interlocal, and is the idea that after the first four to six

years of the tax, 50 percent of every new tax dollar would be split between

the debt service and services.

Buchanan answered what his intention was in this resolution, and stated the

intention is to form a workgroup to figure that out and to clarify it. The

workgroup’s job would be to analyze it and come up with some

understanding of it.

Scanlon spoke about the two scenarios.

Buchanan stated he does not want the public to think the Council is just

skipping over what they think was promised.

Elenbaas moved to delete the second to last "Be it Further Resolved"

(starting with "that the Whatcom County Council affirms the minimum 50%

investment commitment…") language.

The motion was seconded by Stremler.

Elenbaas spoke about his motion and that it is time for them to act and that

this language will keep them from moving forward in a productive fashion,

executing the plan that the public asked them to do.

Councilmembers discussed not questioning intent, that the resolution is just

saying they have to keep up with behavioral care while they proceed with

this project, that by deleting the language they will be able to lead and

execute the project in the best manner possible, that taking away the 50

percent and saying it is not important has the risk of degrading trust, that

waiting on workgroups can be taking away the decision-making of elected

officials, that the 50/50 concept was not just for behavioral care but was for

the other 14 projects in the implementation plan other than the jail, that

they should keep the language so they can work on the second bullet point

around the average daily population and length of stay reduction, that the

intent was for the Council to get more information and data, and that the

Council's next step is to review all the programming.

The motion failed by the following vote:

Aye: 2 - Stremler and Elenbaas

Nay: 5 - Boyle, Buchanan, Galloway, Rienstra, and Scanlon

Elenbaas moved to amend the first bullet point of the second to last “Be it

Further Resolved” statement to strike the FFAB and community members

so that it reads:

In coordination with the IPRTF/Law and Justice Council (LJC) and

with subject matter expertise in behavioral health, housing, and

public finance as well as individuals with lived experience of

incarceration, charged with developing a minimum of two financially

viable pathways to achieve the 50% floor under current and

projected market conditions (considering city contribution terms,

revenue growth assumptions, project phasing, bond timing, and the

role of excess revenue above conservative baselines), and to report

those pathways to the County Council no later than October 2026;

and

The motion was seconded by Stremler.

Elenbaas stated he does not want to keep adding more committees and

meetings or a longer timeframe than what they need.

Councilmembers discussed the motion and how it is worded grammatically.

They concurred to edit the language so that it would read:

Request the IPRTF/Law and Justice Council (LJC) to develop a

minimum of two financially viable pathways to achieve the 50%

floor under current and projected market conditions (considering

city contribution terms, revenue growth assumptions, project

phasing, bond timing, and the role of excess revenue above

conservative baselines), and to report those pathways to the County

Council no later than October 2026; and

Schott-Bresler stated she likes the idea of consolidating with committees

they have, but the Executive’s Office will be entering into interlocal

negotiations with the cities over the summer and they would like to stay in

contact as they are engaged in that conversation. They are happy to

coordinate with the IPRTF leadership, but their office plans to renegotiate

the interlocal as also indicated in the Council resolution.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 6 - Boyle, Buchanan, Elenbaas, Galloway, Scanlon, and Stremler

Nay: 1 - Rienstra

Elenbaas stated the resolution uses language like “floor” and “minimum” in

regards to the 50 percent, and he thinks that strict interpretation of 50/50 is

hindering their ability to move forward and execute the plan that this

community has designed. He would like to phrase it less strictly like “50

percent goal” or “50 percent intent.”

Councilmembers discussed being clear on the 50/50 so that they are all on

the same page or leaving leeway to be able to adapt while moving forward

with a goal in mind.

Scanlon moved to amend to add language after "50% floor" (in the first

bullet point of the same “Be it Further Resolved” statement) and insert

"over the course of time of the tax and after the first four to six years of

sales tax revenue.”

The motion was seconded by Rienstra.

Councilmembers discussed the motion and that the intent is to create

clarity for the IPRTF and LJC, that the interlocal agreement provides clarity

that it is specifically referring to no later than 2030 for the minimum of 50

percent of the tax, Buchanan’s intent to have to workgroup decide which

track they should follow, and the feeling that the Council is ceding too

much of its budget authority by creating workgroups.

Schott-Bresler urged the Council to leave some room here for the

interlocal negotiations and spoke about how they would read the language.

Sidhu stated the more prescriptive they become, the more difficult it

becomes to carry it out.

Scanlon stated this gets to the trust issue with the community, so he thinks

they need to be clear.

Buchanan stated that is what he hopes this workgroup can come up with, and

he has asked for more than one path.

Scanlon withdrew his motion to amend and councilmembers continued to

discuss it.

Buchanan stated the resolution is establishing a budget to move the project

forward, and that is the operative piece. The other things are here so they

can figure out things they are having community issues over. It is not trying

to bend over for one side or the other, but shows that the Council wants to

be fully informed to aid them in making their decision. He read through the

changes to the resolution proposed by legal.

Steve Oliver, County Treasurer, spoke about his take on the budget cap

being presented in the resolution. He stated what they are asking the

Council to do is just provide some policy guidance so they can focus the

financial modeling and development of financing strategies on a target, and

having that $205 million starting point is very important to the process right

now. He stated we need the cities’ support and we are going to have to give

something, along with the cities, to make this work financially. We are in a

really good place to move this thing forward right now in a really good

direction, and he thinks if we do that, a lot of the questions that are being

discussed today will get answered over the summer. He would encourage

the Council to promote some stability and sustainability in their

decision-making. Find agreement where they can because having a strong

voice from the top will be huge for this organization to be able to

successfully implement this project.

Scanlon stated booking restrictions are a big part of the interlocal

agreement and there is no definition. If they do not have that, the cities can

continue to push the county to expand the jail.

Scanlon moved to add a third bullet point to the second to last “Be it

Further Resolved” statement which reads:

Direct the IPRTF/LJC to present to the County Council, County

Executive, and the cities definitions regarding booking restrictions.

The motion was seconded by Buchanan.

Scanlon spoke to his motion and said it should go in the next interlocal

agreement.

Elenbaas stated he would like to hear from the cities and also thinks that the

Sheriff should be the one to define booking restrictions.

Donnell Tanksley, Sheriff, stated he is concerned with the amendment

because they already have the definitions, and there is only one person in

the county that is charged with setting the booking restrictions, and that is

the Sheriff. He thinks the language should be to have a discussion with the

Sheriff's Office and the Committees about booking restrictions, but the

Executive’s Office (or any other committee) does not set the booking

restrictions. It is the Sheriff.

Scanlon stated his concern is around where the upper limit of booking

restrictions is and the financial risk to the County of not having a definition

on an upper limit.

Tanksley stated there is language about the booking restrictions in the

interlocal agreement and that language should be reviewed with the cities

because they are the ones who would ultimately agree (or disagree) to it.

Scanlon amended his motion to say “Request that the Sheriff present to the

County Council, County Executive, and the cities definitions regarding

booking restrictions.”

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 6 - Buchanan, Galloway, Rienstra, Scanlon, Stremler, and Boyle

Nay: 0

Out of the Meeting: 1 - Elenbaas

Councilmembers considered the main motion as amended and Scanlon

stated he is not sure he is going to be ready to vote on final passage of this

this evening and may want another week or two to hear from different

perspectives.

Councilmembers voted on the main motion to recommend approval of the

substitute resolution as amended (see motion and vote below) and then,

Buchanan invited the mayors to speak.

Scott Korthuis, Mayor of Lynden, stated he is looking for a win/win and this

vote is maybe the first step towards that. He is also looking for

compromise. The cities have been unwavering on their request for no

booking restrictions when this is done. He spoke about how the number of

beds has kept decreasing and that the cities do not see that as hearing their

request for no booking restrictions. He stated the County is willing to take

their money and take their space, and the cities are not necessarily pleased

with that. He spoke about how they could compromise on the 50/50. He

stated he is disappointed that the Council just had a long conversation about

the 50/50 but nobody talked about the cities’ request for no booking

restrictions. We need a jail sufficiently sized for our community and if it

starts going under 480 beds, they are going to be fairly disappointed as a

community. There is a large, non-vocal element of this community that

voted for a safe, effective jail.

Elenbaas's motion that the SUBSTITUTE Resolution be RECOMMENDED

FOR APPROVAL WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT(S) carried by the

following vote:

5 - Boyle, Buchanan, Galloway, Rienstra, and Scanlon

2 - Elenbaas, and Stremler

Aye:

Nay:

MOTION 1

Motion approved to amend the second to last resolved statement so that it reads:

Request the IPRTF/Law and Justice Council (LJC) to develop a minimum of two financially viable pathways to

achieve the 50% floor under current and projected market conditions (considering city contribution terms, revenue

growth assumptions, project phasing, bond timing, and the role of excess revenue above conservative baselines), and

to report those pathways to the County Council no later than October 2026; and

MOTION 2

Motion approved to add a third bullet point to the second to last resolved statement which reads:

Request that the Sheriff present to the County Council, County Executive, and the cities definitions regarding booking

restrictions.

Items Added by Revision

There were no agenda items added by revision.

Other Business

There was no other business.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 3:13 p.m.

ATTEST:

WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL

WHATCOM COUNTY, WA

Barry Buchanan-via email 5/6/2026

______________________________

Cathy Halka, Council Clerk

___________________________

Barry Buchanan, Committee Chair

Meeting Minutes prepared by Kristi Felbinger

SIGNED COPY ON FILE