Name: Bellingham City Council - Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee meeting, Feb 23, 2026
Start: 2026-02-23
End: 2026-02-23
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee

Mon, February 23, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council – Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee — February 23, 2026

This committee meeting, chaired by Council Member Dan Hammill and joined by Council Members Hollie Huthman and Skip Williams, covered three substantive items: an update on the Whatcom County jail and behavioral care center project, a funding agreement for the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission, and a resolution on immigrant and civil rights.

Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center Update

Whatcom County Deputy Executive Kayla Shaw-Breler and Mayor Kim Lund presented an update on the planning and scoping process for the new county jail and behavioral care center. The project is currently in the "validation phase" — pre-design — where decisions about size, scope, location, and budget must be made before architectural design can begin, with the county targeting a scope-and-budget decision by the end of April 2026 and design to start in summer 2026.

The financial reality has shifted significantly. The original $155 million capital budget estimate was based on 4% annual sales tax growth, but actual sales tax receipts in 2025 were down 9% from 2023 projections, and current growth is running at about 1.5% annually. Construction costs have also risen steeply since 2023. As a result, the county's design-build team developed four scenarios ranging from roughly $170 million to well over $200 million (exact upper figures were presented in visual format but not stated precisely in the transcript), all scoped at 480 beds as a common starting point.

Scenario 1 (~$170M): A bare-bones, "Skagit-style" jail — modern but minimal programming, centralized services, and limited housing classification flexibility.

Scenario 2 (~$200M): Adds adequate administrative space, decentralized programming within housing units, and targeted improvements to kitchen, laundry, judicial, and medical space.

Scenario 3: Adds more robust housing classification flexibility and stronger rehabilitative service delivery.

Scenario 4: A fully integrated justice model with advanced behavioral health treatment focus and coordinated care.

The county has also reached general consensus to move the behavioral care center forward as a separate, out-of-custody facility on the Division Street behavioral health campus, potentially housing a co-occurring inpatient treatment center, a 23-hour crisis relief lobby, and psychiatric urgent care — though some funding depends on the outcome of the state legislative session.

Key discussion themes from council members:

Council Member Lilliquist (attending, not a committee member, but participated) argued forcefully against underspending — warning that a facility without adequate programming would continue warehousing people rather than reducing recidivism, and that building a facility without enough operational flexibility could actually cost more to run. He suggested the biggest lever for reducing jail population is expediting trial timelines to reduce long pre-trial stays, which drive the majority of jail bed-days.

Council Member Huthman asked about how average length of stay factors into capacity calculations; Deputy Executive Shaw-Breler acknowledged it is a major driver but said more detailed analysis would be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

Council Member Anderson asked whether the existing work release facility could be repurposed to house behavioral health services, potentially freeing space in the main jail for more flexibility. Shaw-Breler noted that option had been explored but that bringing the work release building up to healthcare facility standards was estimated at roughly $25 million — comparable to new construction.

Council Member Williams asked whether the project could be designed to expand in phases, noting the sheriff's preference for 600 beds while the current plan is for 480 with possible modular expansion later.

Council President Stone asked whether any of the four scenarios legally contradicts what voters approved in the ballot measure. Shaw-Breler confirmed the ballot language was broad, and that the real constraint is reaching consensus among all interlocal agreement partners — every Whatcom County city must agree to an updated financial framework, and the county council must authorize the budget and bonds. Stone raised the concern that if cities and the county diverge, the project could stall.

Hammill summarized the committee's direction: Scenario 1 would be a "monument to the past" and does not reflect voter intent; Scenario 3 most closely reflects the original vision; but the current conversation is about what can be subtracted from Scenario 3 — or possibly Scenario 2 — to meet financial reality without abandoning core values.

Vote: No vote taken; this was an informational update and discussion item.

Interlocal Agreement — Whatcom Racial Equity Commission (WREC) Funding

Deputy Administrator Janice Keller presented a one-year interlocal agreement continuing the city's $100,000 contribution to the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission (WREC) for 2026. The WREC is a county advisory body focused on racial equity and building an inclusive, safe community. The city and county jointly funded the commission for its first three years at $300,000 each over that period; this agreement moves to an annual renewal model.

Council Member Williams, who serves as the city's representative on the WREC, noted the commission is becoming more operational and doing meaningful community work. Council Member Huthman requested a future presentation from WREC leadership to update the full council on the commission's work.

Council President Stone noted an awkward funding imbalance: the city is contributing $100,000 while the county is contributing $50,000 to an entity that lives within county government. Deputy Executive Shaw-Breler acknowledged the discomfort, explained the county's budget constraints, and noted broader county-wide discussions about how to equitably fund its more than 54 advisory boards. She indicated the commission is also pursuing grants and fundraising through the community foundation.

Mayor Lund noted the city's engagement goes beyond funding — the city's strategic initiatives manager is a voting WREC member, and the mayor herself participates in nearly every meeting.

Vote: Motion made by Council Member Hammill. Approved unanimously 3–0 by committee. Will be forwarded to the full council.

Resolution Reaffirming Immigrant Rights and Civil Rights

Council Member Williams presented the background on a resolution reaffirming the city's commitment to constitutional rights — including free speech, peaceful assembly, due process, and freedom from warrantless searches — and denouncing recent federal immigration enforcement actions as unlawful and harmful to public safety.

Williams explained that he and Hammill initiated the resolution because the council felt it needed to take a clear public position. The goals were to: affirm the council's historical commitment to civil and human rights; address current and future steps to resist actions by the federal administration affecting immigrants and civil liberties; reassure community members that all branches of city government are aligned in protecting those rights; and potentially encourage other local governments in Whatcom County to take similar stances.

No public comment was recorded in the transcript for this item, and no detailed debate among committee members was captured beyond the motion to approve.

Vote: Motion made by Council Member Williams. Approved unanimously 3–0 by committee. Will be brought forward to the full council for further discussion.

Key Takeaways

The jail project faces a serious financial squeeze. Construction costs are up and sales tax revenue is underperforming — the original $155M budget is no longer viable, and the four scenarios now range from ~$170M to well above $200M. The county must reach consensus on scope and budget by end of April 2026.

Scenario 3 is the aspirational target; Scenario 1 is considered inadequate. Committee members and the mayor broadly agree the bare-bones option doesn't reflect what voters approved, but reaching Scenario 3 or 4 within current financial constraints requires hard trade-offs that have not yet been resolved.

All interlocal cities must agree to any updated financial framework — meaning Bellingham and other Whatcom County cities have real leverage (and shared responsibility) in shaping the final project, not just the county council.

The city will continue its $100,000 contribution to the WREC under a new one-year agreement, though the funding imbalance with the county (city paying double) was flagged as a concern worth watching.

The council passed a civil rights resolution denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions, signaling Bellingham's intent to affirm constitutional protections for all residents and potentially encouraging similar action by other local governments in the county.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

An interlocal agreement with Whatcom County providing funding for the Whatcom

# Summary: Interlocal Agreement with Whatcom County for Racial Equity Commission Funding

Deputy Administrator Janice Keller presented the continuation of an interlocal agreement between Bellingham and Whatcom County to fund the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission (WREC), with the city maintaining its $100,000 annual contribution for 2026. Council Members Williams and Huffman expressed support, acknowledging that WREC is now operational and producing community results, though they noted initial development could have progressed faster. Council President Stone questioned the funding disparity, noting the city contributes $100,000 while the county contributes $50,000 toward the estimated $150,000 budget; County Deputy Executive Kayla Shaw Wrestler explained the county is in the fourth year of funding following an initial three-year $600,000 commitment and is exploring broader equitable funding solutions across its 54 advisory boards. Council Member Huffman also requested a future presentation from REC leadership on their progress. The motion to approve the one-year agreement passed unanimously.

A resolution reaffirming the City's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights and denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions that endanger public safety and violate individuals’ constitutional rights in Bellingham and nationwide

# Combined Summary

Council Members Williams and Hamill introduced a resolution reaffirming the City's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights while denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions deemed unprecedented, unlawful, and threatening to public safety and constitutional protections. The resolution affirms residents' rights to free speech, peaceful assembly, due process, and freedom from warrantless searches, positioning the council on current challenges facing immigrants while drawing from the city's historical stance on human and civil rights. The presentation emphasized that all branches of municipal government are aligned in their commitment to protecting residents' rights and maintaining Bellingham as a welcoming city that could set an example for other county colleagues. The resolution passed unanimously with a 3-0 vote to move forward for discussion with the full committee.

Update on planning for the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center

# Summary

Deputy County Executive Kayla Shot Breler presented an update on the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center, which is in the validation phase using a progressive design-build approach targeting architectural design to begin summer 2026, with key scope and budget decisions needed by end of April. The initial $155 million capital budget estimate has been greatly exceeded due to steep construction cost increases since 2023 and stagnant sales tax revenue, requiring reassessment of project scope and budget while maintaining original values. Staff presented four scenarios ranging from $170 million to higher amounts with varying bed counts (480 as the starting point) and housing configurations, with a fifth scenario to emerge from consensus on budget and policy priorities; Scenarios 3 and 4 align with the original behavioral health-focused vision but exceed current tax capacity. Critical decisions needed include setting a budget target, renegotiating the 2024 interlocal agreement with municipal partners, determining flexibility on preserving revenue for community-based services, and deciding on service levels including programming quality and booking restriction elimination. Council members emphasized the importance of aligning the facility design with voter expectations prioritizing behavioral health services and diversion programs over expanded incarceration capacity, and suggested working backward from the desired vision (Scenario 3) rather than accepting current financial constraints as permanent.

Agenda items (3)

Procedural (3)

24835ProceduralAn interlocal agreement with Whatcom County providing funding for the Whatcom

The city is entering into a funding agreement with Whatcom County to support the construction and operation of the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center.

What happened

24841ProceduralA resolution reaffirming the City's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights and denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions that endanger public safety and violate individuals’ constitutional rights in Bellingham and nationwide

The city council will adopt a resolution stating that Bellingham supports immigrant rights and civil rights, and opposes federal immigration enforcement actions that the city believes threaten public safety and violate constitutional protections.

What happened

24844ProceduralUpdate on planning for the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center

City officials will provide an update on plans for a new justice and behavioral care facility being developed in Whatcom County, which will serve the region's criminal justice and mental health needs.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Authorize interlocal agreement with Whatcom County for Whatcom Racial Equity Commission

aye 3

Daniel Hammillaye

Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye

Hollie Huthmanaye

Recommend approval of resolution reaffirming City's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights

aye 3

Daniel Hammillaye

Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye

Hollie Huthmanaye

Verbatim transcript available

186 transcript segments indexed

Welcome back. That was a brief break. So, the next committee before us is public health, safety, justice, and equity. That committee is chaired by council member Hamill. So, I'll turn it over to him at this time.

City of Bellingham Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee minutes February 23, 2026, 1:15 PM Chair: Daniel Hammill Phone: 360-778-8200 Members: Hollie Huthman, Edwin H. "Skip" Williams Email: ccmail@cob.org Web: cob.org/council City Council committee meetings Standing committee members receive reports and information, ask questions, and vote on a recommended action for consideration by the full Council at the regular meeting.

There is no public comment period during committee sessions. Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 1:19 p.m. Present: Committee Chair Daniel Hammill, Third Ward Committee Member Hollie Huthman, Second Ward Committee Member Edwin H.

>> Thank you, Council President. I'm joined this afternoon by council members Huffman and Williams on the committee. We have three items items before us. The first one is an update on planning for the Wakom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center.

"Skip" Williams, Fourth Ward Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity 24844 1. Update on planning for the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center Summary: Mayor Kim Lund and Kayla Schott-Bresler, Whatcom County Deputy Executive, presented an update on planning for the Whatcom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center, which has been impacted by declining sales tax revenue.

Uh uh city of Bellingham and Wakom County officials will provide the city council with an update about planning for the Wakom County Justice and Behavioral Care Center. And here to take us through are Mayor uh Kim Lond and Kayla Shot Breler, deputy executive from Wakom County Executive's Office.

Council Members discussed the project and asked questions. The presentation is available here. 24835 2. An interlocal agreement with Whatcom County providing funding for the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission Summary: Janice Keller, Deputy Administrator, presented the interlocal agreement (ILA) with Whatcom County to provide funding for the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission (WREC).

>> Good afternoon, council. I'm going to turn it over to Deputy County Executive Kayla Shot Breler, who's here today to run through an update for all of you. Thank you, uh, Council Member Hamill and Maryland.

Um, hi everyone. Good afternoon. I'm here today to, uh, primarily give you an update on the new jail facility and behavioral care center. There's a lot of other exciting work happening in the justice project related to incarceration prevention, diversion, behavioral health.

Council Members discussed the ILA and asked questions. Action: Page 1 of 2 Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the interlocal agreement with Whatcom County regarding the Whatcom Racial Equity Commission.

MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 24841 3. A resolution reaffirming the City's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights and denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions that endanger public safety and violate individuals’ constitutional rights in Bellingham and nationwide Summary: Council Member Hammill and Council Member Williams presented an updated resolution affirming the City's commitment to immigrant rights and civil rights and denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions that endanger public safety and violate individuals’ constitutional rights in Bellingham and nationwide.

Um, and happy to speak with you all about that another time. But, um, we have some really big decisions coming up on the scope and budget for this capital project. So going to focus the majority of my remarks on that.

Council Members discussed the resolution and asked questions. Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to recommend approval of the resolution. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

So today I'm going to talk about the process a little bit. What's led us to today and our timeline for making some decisions over the next few months. Um we've had our design builder scope a few scenarios as a starting place for decision-making purposes on the scope and budget of this facility.

I want to talk a little bit about the policy dials that we can use to refine this model as we work towards um some decisions and some next steps. Uh the goal here really is to solicit questions and feedback from all of you to help inform and shape future discussions with you with other municipal partners, the county council, stakeholders, and the public.

um because we certainly don't expect agreement on all aspects of this project, but we are driving towards consensus so we can proceed. So, from a process standpoint, um just as a little refresher, we're currently in the validation phase of the jail and behavioral care center capital projects.

This is pre-esign where decisions relating to the size, scope, location, budget, and programming of the facilities are made. Once we get through this validation phase, we will proceed into the design phase um and then eventually the construction phase on the project.

As a reminder, we're using a progressive design build approach. So, we have both our designers and our general contractors on board as part of a unified project team. So, it can be an iterative process as we go through validation and design um hoping to get to a guaranteed maximum price with our um construction partners prior prior to a shovel going in the ground.

And from a timeline perspective, we're aiming for architectural design to begin in the summer of 2026, but we really need some key decisions to happen before that in order to proceed. Um the county executive has set the target that we get decisions on scope and budget by the end of April and we are here to provide this body and all of our other stakeholder groups as much information as possible uh for deliberation between now and them.

We have um a lot of decision makers involved in this process right we have an interlocal agreement with every Wakom County city which means the city councils um all need to be involved as we move forward.

We have the Wakom County Council which h has to authorize the budget and bonds for this facility. We have the sheriff's office who's the eventual user of this facility. And then we have our finance and facility advisory board, incarceration prevention reduction task force and our justice project oversight group, JPOP.

So lots of different stakeholder groups and of course the general public. So, in terms of community engagement, we had a workshop in Ferndale in November and we have a second community engagement workshop set for March 19th in Lynen.

We're doing monthly newsletters, weekly social media updates, and radio regular media coverage to ensure that the public knows we're reaching a critical stage in decision-m for this project. And then, um, all of those boards I just mentioned are having regular discussions on this over the next few months.

So um we've made some progress this year so far. We've reached sort of general consensus related to the location and model for the behavioral care center which is proceeding concurrently with the jail facility project.

Um so the finance and facility advisory board and um Wakom County Council moved forward with uh with direction to design that facility as a outofcustody behavioral care center which would essentially house a co-curring inpatient treatment center as well as potentially um a 23-hour crisis relief lobby and potentially also psychiatric urgent care.

um that is somewhat dependent on the outcome of the state legislative session in the hope that we're able to um preserve our 23-hour crisis relief funding for a combined facility. There was also consensus to move forward with new construction on the Division Street behavioral health campus for that facility.

We've done an initial jail capacity needs assessment that was completed last summer. Um and we are currently doing more work to refine both jail capacity estimates as well as specialized housing estimates.

So how many behavioral health care beds, how many general population beds and are partnering with a behavioral health consultant to to think about how that analysis is informed by all the diversion work happening in our community and how that might impact jail capacity.

We expect to be rolling out the results of that work over the next few weeks. And most of the discussion the last few weeks has really been about these scenarios. You probably read about it in the Cascadia.

You can see a picture here of a recent finance and facility advisory board meeting. And that's what I'm going to focus on today. I think everyone is aware that we have some constraints and need to change our expectations with regard to how this project unfolds while keeping our initial values at the forefront.

Construction costs have risen steeply since 2023. We have also seen sales tax revenue stagnated. Um, our initial projections for how we would fund this project were based on 4% sales tax escalation, which I believe was an average of the previous 10 years.

Um, but sales tax receipts in 2025 were down 9% from 2023 projections. and instead of a 4% sales tax growth rate, we're seeing about 1 and a.5%. Which dramatically changes how much we can afford for this project.

We also estimated initially $155 million capital budget for the jail and behavioral care center with a commitment from the cities to contribute 75% for 4 to six years of their revenue. Um, I think everyone's well aware that our costs are now uh greatly exceeding $155 million and we are looking to sort of back into an appropriate scope and budget for the financial reality we face today.

And unfortunately this is creating a situation where the priorities of the justice project in terms of an an adequately sized facility to avoid booking restrictions, a therapeutic facility with adequate space for um a high level of health care and programming service as well as preservation of um money for municipal needs and community- based behavioral health services are all competing for the same resources and and putting pressure on one another.

And so we're faced with a situation that is uncomfortable for everyone where we need to sort of come to consensus around a new reality and prioritize amongst those policy goals. There's been a lot of debate in this community for a long time about jail capacity.

Um the executive provided direction to our design build team to scope all of the scenarios um in our validation phase at 480 beds. This was really a starting point, a middle ground um based on previous recommendations that have been made as well as the jail capacity analysis that was conducted in the summer of 2025.

We needed one fixed variable to scope these scenarios. Um and this felt like a reasonable starting point, but was not a end decision on the number of beds that are needed for this facility. The other thing we're sort of beginning to uh gain understanding around is that eliminating booking restrictions is far more complex than simply the number of beds in this facility.

As you'll see later in the presentation, it involves um stuff related to the capacity configuration. So, sort of the configuration of the housing units and then a lot of stuff that is occurring outside of the jail such as crime and arrest rates, criminal justice decision-making, diversion, and much more.

But certainly the number of beds in the facility has a major impact on booking restrictions. The number of beds in the facility I think it goes without saying is also a significant driver of both construction and operational costs for the facility.

So when we talk about um capacity, how many beds are in the facility? Those beds are going to be classified in different ways. And the sheriff's office, our design build team could speak to this in much more detail than I can, but essentially we have a lot of different options for bed configuration.

And this isn't meant as a decision-making tool, but but really um as a a conversation starter around how much housing configuration can impact the capacity of the facility. So, um, what you'll hear from our sheriff's office is that if we have, um, sort of too many beds, uh, comingled in one area, it removes the flexibility for classification.

So, that can be based on gender, it can be based on the se severity of the charge, it can be based on um, whether two inmates can safely be housed together. And so if there's these dormatory, you know, 64 bed um essentially bunking areas, if if too many of the housing units are configured in that way, it can limit the ability to reach maximum capacity in the facility and utilize all the beds because you don't have as much flexibility from a classification perspective.

Unfortunately, building a facility with a lot of flexibility from a classification standpoint requires more square footage and is therefore a significant cost driver. And so when you look at these different scenarios, you can see that the housing space and and I'll go into this in more detail changes significantly as you get into the more expensive scenarios.

So the four scenarios that the design build team scoped um I'll go into really quickly. The first scenario was really a budget-driven scenario. So we used $170 million as a budget target, $480 beds as the sort of main fixed variable.

This is like um the best way I conceptualize this is sort of a scadgetlike jail. This is sort of um you know it's modern. It's uh in many ways improved upon what we have now, but it doesn't meet the priorities with respect to programming, housing classification, judicial space, and many of the things that we're looking for from this facility.

So, we um scenario two was a $200 million budget target and it incorporates more space from an operational perspective like adequate administrative space for sheriff's office staff as well as some targeted improvements to key areas like housing, kitchen, laundry, and judicial space.

Scenario three is when you start seeing um a lot more buildout with respect to operational improvements on classification. um as well as strengthening rehabilitative service delivery. And scenario 4 is a more holistic integrated justice model that has a more um advanced behavioral health treatment focus as well as more coordinated care and operations to improve operational efficiency.

Um so I'll get into this in a little more detail here. So you can see on the left um everything here is compared to the Scadget jail which you'll see in yellow here and that's um Scadget has been sort of escalated to to be apples to apples uh with 480 beds and I believe all of the costs here are in current dollars as well.

Um, scenario one is is quite similar to that Scadget model, very bare bones and the programming space is de is um centralized rather than decentralized in the housing units. So you can see um there's about 7,500 ft of program space where in scenario 2 3 and 4 um there's less much less programming space in that program line.

All of that space in scenario 2, 3, and 4 has been transferred into the housing units. So, the services are coming directly to inmates rather than inmates being transported to the services. The jail cost range on all these scenarios is quite wide um to allow for a margin of error at this point, but ultimately what we'll do is provide budget direction to the design builder and then they will be forced as we get into design and there's less contingency and more certainty to prioritize within that budget based on the direction they've been provided.

You'll see that below the line here are the behavioral care center costs and the jail demo costs. Um, again, we're moving the behavioral care center forward concurrently. And so with that assumption, you would essentially be looking to um set a budget target that allowed for the behavioral care center build as well as whatever uh jail sort of reimagined scenario the direction was around.

This isn't take it or leave it on any of the scenarios. It's a starting place for conversation and debate and really the design build team and all of our partners will be able to sort of think about this as a menu of options where you can reflect and prioritize different areas based on what comes out of the conversations over the next few months.

So what we're going to end up with is essentially a scenario five that best reflects consensus on the budget and policy priorities for this facility. These are just some benchmarks for reference. As you can see, that scenario one baseline target was really modeled off of the square average square foot cost um for the Scadget County Justice Center and a similar square footage per bed.

The amount of square footage per bed is really a significant cost driver. And so you can see some of the communities where uh we look to as models when this project was originally conceived like Franklin County.

You see almost double the amount of square feet per bed as in that scenario one here. I'm not going to get into this in quite a bit of detail, but it talks about um which sort of priorities within the scenario see the most improvement or least improvement at different price points.

Happy to sort of provide different versions of this slide to folks if they'd want additional background. But you can see things like housing configuration, which we've talked about. If someone's priority is eliminating booking restrictions, then housing configuration would be an aspect of the scenarios where you'd really like to see prior prioritization, more square footage.

If um adequate medical space and healthcare delivery was the highest priority, then you could see how that's reflected across the scenarios here. Fortunately, we do have a situation where there's a lot of folks with a lot of priorities.

So trying to choose from this in terms of a menu of options is quite difficult. Um so that brings me to the conversation around policy lovers. What kind of guidance do we need? What do we see as the focal points for conversation going forward?

We really need to set a budget target as soon as possible. That's the thing that's going to most allow our design team to move forward on their programming exercises while the rest of the um decision making is unfolding.

The budget is dependent on sort of renegotiating this interlocal that was signed in 2024. So the length of contributions from the municipal partners and the tolerance for extending that timeline is a major factor in setting the budget for this project as well as this discussion about preservation of revenue for community- based services.

Is that an area where there's flexibility? Are folks holding firm on the target to preserve a certain amount of revenue for community based services? and what is the give and take there? That's a place where we need to guidance from our elected officials.

The level of service inside the facility both in terms of the potential to eliminate booking restrictions from a bedcount perspective and a housing configuration perspective is a place we need a lot of guidance as well as what is the quality and the size of the programming and the healthcare delivery areas within the facility.

So policy level input on that is something that's very helpful at this point. There's a lot of unknowns at this time. We don't know what our interest rate is going to be at the time of borrowing, though we're encouraged by sort of some of the city's recent good efforts here.

We don't know what actual sales tax receipts are going to be in the near and long term. And of course, uh, the longer we go, the more we risk f future cost escalation, which is why we're trying to keep the project on schedule and move forward, um, with the understanding that these are big decisions to with long-term consequences and we want to respect the decision-making process.

Um, so in terms of next steps, there's going to be discussion with all of these advisory boards with the county council really being the ultimate and final decision-making here with the understanding that all of the interlocal agreement members need to agree on an updated financial framework.

So happy to pause here, answer questions, and hear discussion and feedback. >> Thank you, Deputy Executive Committee members. Council member Hothman, >> thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Um, this is really interesting stuff and very complex.

Um, I have two questions, but I'll start with one and let others on the committee ask questions. But, um, you mentioned Scadget County Jail is sort of the comparison that's most like Wakom County. I just quickly looked up the population of Scadget County, which is about 140,000 it looks like.

Um, so a bit smaller than Watcom County. Um, do you know, so they currently have 480 beds, I think you stated. Um, do you know how often they're operating at capacity, if they operate at capacity or what percentage?

>> That's a good question. They have 400 beds. We increased like uh the ratios to 480 to provide for apples to apples comparison. Um, I don't know if Chief Merzik knows the answer to that. I don't know off the top of my head.

Uh, I believe I had heard they weren't fully at capacity, but don't can't say with confidence. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions? Council member Williams. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Um, council members, go ahead.

>> Yeah. A couple questions. One short one I didn't answer in the facilities and ask in the facility finance thing. There's an $8 million jail demolition cost. If I'm looking for places to not spend money, has it been considered to maybe let that the jail when it's retired maybe stand a little longer?

It seems to me that's one thing we could push off and not harm the community. Am I right about that? >> Uh yes, that's on the table. >> Okay. Um >> go ahead. Follow. >> So, not really follow up, just >> go ahead.

>> So, there's a risk of overspending. Obviously, we don't have the money. The project can't be built. That's bad. But there's also a risk of underbuilding. If we underbuild, uh, we'll may still have booking restrictions, which means that public safety is compromised in that way.

If we underbuild and build a facility, we talked a lot about operational costs. We might actually build a facility that's compromised. So, it's actually more expensive to operate. So, we hurt ourselves in the long run.

If we under uh spend, then we also may not have the services that which would start rehabilitation and recovery, help break the cycle of crime. So again, what you have now is jail doesn't actually improve public safety.

It just warehouses people, but the crime continues when they're released. So I see enormous risks of undersspending, too. And I'm it seems like I'm I'm more I think I'm more concerned about the risk of underspending because I I once you underspend that's unavoidable.

Whereas over spend we're sorry that's underspending whereas overspending I'm hoping that we could figure out ways of funding this or sharing costs or looking for support. Um I know that counties are usually supposed to just stand on their own two feet.

Um but this seems so significant that um I think the risk of underspending needs to be avoided. >> That's policymaker feedback. Thank you >> with council Williams and then Huffman and then Anderson. >> At the meeting >> your mic.

Sorry. >> At the meeting last week, um I had to leave early. I was sitting in the back of the room. Excuse me. Thought it was off. um at the end of that meeting, where did the committee fall in terms of these four options?

Um my my takeaway from the conversation was that many people shared Council Member Liiloquist's sentiment that they were worried about sort of under contributing to the project. I can let Mayor Lend answer as well.

There was certainly no decisions made. I think um a lot of comments around trying to build consensus. Marilyn, do you want to reflect on that? >> I think it's absolutely accurate to say that no decisions were made.

Um, you know, I think in the broad 50,000 foot elevation, kind of flying at that height and the conversation that we've had in the community, scenario three and four are closest to what we envisioned when we were committing to building a new jail.

Um but when we look at the math and the financial landscape of where we find ourselves today, those are numbers like it those are costs that exceed the actual tax amount. And we've additionally made a commitment to build um at the time we imagined that the behavioral care components would be if you look at the ILA agreement inside the jail itself and now we've um made some decisions upon further reflection that an out of custody model and a separate facility is the right direction to explore.

So we've made significant changes and iterations. Um, I think we're all mindful also about building a facility to minimize the impact of booking restrictions. Thread the needle of providing the right in custody access to services.

Investments in courthouse so there's much better access to speedy justice for people that are in there. and also try to design it with an eye towards ongoing operational costs. Because if we can design a building where we're saving just even a few million dollars each year in operational costs over decades, that plays out to be significant um for the taxpayers and community.

Um so all of those are factors to which we had conversation at the last FAB meeting. >> Thanks. Okay, I'm going to go um Council Member Huffman and then Council Member Anderson then Cotton. So, go ahead.

>> Um so, one of our goals is to be able to remove booking restrictions as part of uh right sizing this jail. Um and clearly there are many many factors that go into what the how we get to that right sized number.

Um, I'm and and I I think that the priority of flexibility is a really important one as I've come to understand that having that flexibility, particularly in current times, is best for the well-being and safety of both inmates as well as staff.

Um, being able to move people around and fit um fit the right bed for the the right person um has become more complicated. So, uh, that flexibility is really important, but, um, I'm curious in terms of the factor of length of jail stays, uh, average length of jail stays, how is that playing into this?

And, um, is there talk of likelihood of improving length of jail stays? Um, and I guess just what what factor does that play? >> Yeah, that's a good question. And I don't have a lot of information about that today, but as we roll out this new G capacity and behavioral health analysis over the next few weeks, I think we're going to have more information on sort of what is our average length of stay now and um and what factors sort of outside the facility may need to change to improve average length of stay.

Um but I I do remember from previous conversations that average length of stay is a significant driver of jail capacity and the number of beds we need. Um, so it's a main a main consideration in trying to think about uh constraining future growth of the facility, the overall number of beds we need.

Um, but unfortunately don't have a lot more to share right now. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um, and apologies, I have not been in every single conversation, so if this has already been discussed and tossed out, I guess I just want verification.

Since the model has been decided that the um kind of not have the behavioral health and the support services uh cohabitated with the jail site um and then I believe over towards division. Has there been any consideration of uh remodeling the work release um jail um into facilitating those needs and then being able to put work release with the main jail where that could be some of the flexibility where it would be more dorm style?

I used to do GED testing in both the downtown jail and the work release. And the work release seems to um in my opinion uh model better for more of a dormatory um style because that's kind of what they have down there.

But that I would think would give some flexibility. But I'm not sure about the cost perspective of a remodel compared to a build. and then all the infrastructure for the jail would be rightsized with some flexibility.

Has that discussion happened at all? >> Yeah, there was some there was discussion about that with respect to the behavioral care center. That was one of the options considered and it was estimated that um the to bring that facility up to a health care healthc care level of service standard um could cost as much as building new.

I think the really rough estimate was around $25 million. Thanks for this presentation. Um can you help me understand the um the decisions around um in custody programming space between scenario one and scenario two?

And you mentioned the services in in um uh bed calculated areas. Um yeah. So what what are the operational consequences of that decision? >> Yeah. >> And um yeah, thank you. >> So it's certainly being recommended by the sheriff's office as well as our design build team to choose a model where the programs are offered within the housing units rather than centralized outside of the housing units.

This is um to reduce operational friction as well as operational costs through the transportation of inmates. Um so you can see that reflected in scenario 2, three and four here. Um when we've discussed sort of what are we talking about when it relates to programming space, the areas of emphasis so far have been on the diversion triage.

So that's sort of what potential is there for um healthcare assessment and diversion triage at booking. Scenario one doesn't provide adequate space to do that here. Um and so that's been uh incorporated at sort of at a minimal extent into scenario two and then more so into scenario three and four.

That's been identified as a key priority if we're thinking about um diversion. It's less programming but more about how can we get folks out of this facility who don't need to be there. Um another place where we had some conversation was around the medical unit.

So making sure that the medical unit was adequately sized for um to provide adequate and mandatory health care services as well as behavioral health treatment. Um making sure that we have adequate space for detox services.

So that that's been an area of emphasis. Um, and then we haven't had as much discussion around programming space in terms of um, classes or voke rehab or any of that, but I imagine some of that prioritization and discussion is going to happen over the next few months.

And some of the members of our project team who have been in more of those detailed conversations, I'm sure, would be happy to speak with you. So that's Hannah Fisk from the Walker County Health and Community Services Department, as well as Caleb Ericson um, from the sheriff's office.

The other place where you see a big change between scenario one and scenario two two here is on the rapid resource center. So that's the idea that we're providing at least some level of of resource to people upon exit from the facility, a place where folks can um get referrals to services, charge their cell phone, that sort of thing.

>> Uh Council Member Stone, >> thank you for the presentation. I don't know if he'll be able to speak to my question or not, but part of what I'm reflecting on obviously this being right a decision of the voters um to fund this facility.

Are all of these then options falling right within the parameters that need to be met to comply with what that expectation was from the voters? I think that there were a lot of expectations from a lot of different people and I I it's not clear to me whether there was consensus on one particular aspect or more on the unifying vision of a balanced approach to incarceration.

I don't know if others want to reflect on that, but I um you know, I think there's some specific parameters in the interlocal. There's some really clear goals set in the ordinance that the county council adopted.

Um the ballot measure language itself was quite broad, but I know there was a lot of community discussion around preservation of revenue for community based services, around a sort of um modern and therapeutic approach to the facility, and then of course around booking restrictions.

So, we'd like to meet all of those goals. It's it's showing it's near impossible to meet all of them to the level of we hoped. So how do we prioritize within that? >> Just brief followup. So and I recognize I think the ballot measure was fairly broad and so there's no legal I mean within the ballot measure itself no legal constraints where right that would have to be revisited.

Um but I guess to follow up you'd mentioned that the county council would sort of be the final decision maker. Um at the same time, this moving forward is dependent upon all of those interlocal agreements, right?

And so is there a scenario where the county council makes a decision and let's say just hypothetically, right, the small cities are like, "Yeah, we're not signing on to that." I think our yes I I that's my fear you know it's a it's a drastic fear I guess I would say that we don't reach consensus between all of the elected bodies but I think the way we plan for the process to work is to have some of the discussions with the cities um we were at the small city partnership meeting last week so to try to get a sense of where the cities are at we can then inform our county council and take a unified vision and recommendation to them.

Any further questions? Council members, does that conclude your presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. I guess I'll take a uh a turn here. Um so I was just in a meeting this morning uh with several of us here for the incarceration prevention reduction task force.

The deputy executive um mentioned several different groups that are working on this. So, the the finance advisory board, which one of our members here serves on, the JPOP, which is the oversight uh group, um small or small city councils and mayors are part of these discussions.

City Bellingham uh city council is part of this discussions along with the mayor. Thanks for serving on the on the FAB. Um this is very complex. the the numbers in the packet here. We started at 155 and our lowest scenario uh that you presented here was 170 170 million sorry um would basically build us a monument to the past.

It would be a box that we could that people would go into and serve whatever time pre-trial or pre with their charged um with their charges rather and then serve time upon conviction. That's not what my interpretation of what the voters voted for.

My interpretation was that they were um very interested in behavioral health services, diversion programs, prevention programs, and such. We've um built several of those programs over the years. The lead program um Grace uh alternate response team, MCOT, um have all played a big part and Deacon Center for Hope.

Um there's other diversion programs. It just the list goes on and on. And yet we still have uh 5,000 active warrants if those numbers are correct. Um and we're never going to book 5,000 people at the same time in the current facility or any facility as far as I as far as I can tell.

Those things need to be resolved. So the courts are another important component um of what we're talking about here. And they have their own jurisdictions. There's two of them uh in Wakom County, the county and then our municipal court.

There's a lot of stuff going on here and I want to make sure that we um that we have fidelity to the to what the voters um said that they wanted. And so that I'm just saying that out loud because I I believe that we can and should do these diversion programs, but the price tags that were handed here don't reflect the reality of um of arriving at some kind of conclusion when it comes to what those could look like.

the what I heard to answer council member Williams question what happened after you're referring to the finance advisory board meeting what happened after there wasn't really a consensus however one thing did bubble up to the top for me and and that is the the third scenario was the most reflective of um of what I heard what the voters wanted what I've heard other council members ask for and uh what I heard the county executive say is what can we when you Look at that list there of all those different uh components of what um affect the cost.

What can you live without or what can we modify and change to reduce those costs? I think we're at that part of the conversation now. So no additive rather we're in a subtractive environment here. And so what what in that scenario can we um can we make peace with uh not having or having in some other way uh perhaps in the community or in some other uh fashion.

So, I just wanted to add that at the end here after all the other members had had a chance to speak. And if there's anything you want to say in response, um, now's your time. >> I think that's well said, Council Member Hamill.

I think that's a good summary. Um, you know, our community wants to be very morally ambitious as we approach this project and we also need to be pragmatic about the financial constraints and so that is what we have before us and I think the county executive said it very well at the end of the last um FAB meeting was we all have to be prepared to come back at the next meeting about what we're going prepared to give um because that's the reality.

How do we um realize um something closer to the possibilities in scenario four or three with a scenario 2 price tag? And that is that is our challenge. And so how do we sharpen the pencils, really refine those scenarios and understand where where we're going to pay to realize that vision to be morally ambitious and where we're prepared to give some based on the constraints that we have.

So that's the task before us. And just to reemphasize this is a very it is a time-sensitive conversation. So we will be looking to get direction um shortly so that we can prepare uh to move forward with the design build team.

>> Thanks mayor. Go ahead. Right. Question I've got that I've asked a couple of members on the committee in phone calls and whatnot is um what I'm hearing is the the final decision right now is what it's going to be.

Whatever it is, it's what it's going to be. And as my colleague has said, what are we going to live without? Is there any discussion about at the moment we have to think of what are we going to live without?

But in the ideal situation that we're looking at of providing these services and everything, has there been any discussions about well this this is what we can afford now, but can we design this project in a way that it grows?

Has there been any discussions like that? >> Yes. I I I think that that's very front and center in our design team's mind. They're thinking about the aspects of the facility that are most centralized like um from a like configuration standpoint.

So, uh services within the facility like healthcare healthcare that must be centralized. designing those from a square footage standpoint for the future uh so that if the facility expands those those areas are adequate to serve um to to serve the future population of the facility.

So if I'm answering if if I'm interpreting your question, yes, that's front and center. It comes at a tradeoff of like money you're spending on, you know, future capacity for healthcare, kitchen, laundry, the structural uh aspects of the facility is money you're not spending on beds and service space.

Um am I not answer answering your question correctly? >> No, I don't think so. >> Okay. Uh, Mayor London. >> Um, well, part of how we arrived at the 480 number was an analysis of um potential needs for beds.

That was the preliminary. I know that there's ongoing refinement to those numbers, but I believe if the sheriff was here right now, he would say um that 600 is the number. He remains committed to that number.

Um and so 480 is not a number that he can promise that we won't have booking restrictions and that 480 reflects a number. Um the reason why that's possible is because we are building the physical structure in a way where we could potentially add on in a modular fashion in the future.

So um that 480 number was kind of >> a compromise and reflection. >> So it's like 480 now but some thinking is down the road a piece we might need 600. Yes. I I think the sheriff's concern is that, you know, just 15 or 20 years later, we may need 600 beds and we're going to all be back at it again, right?

And so trying to make sure we don't um underinvest in our future. So if we underinvest or I don't even like that word, but if we use the resources we have available to us right now to get to a certain level of everything, the the number of beds, the treatment capacity, whether it's in the facility or outside of the facility or both.

Is the discussion looking at it from a point of view of okay this is what we can do with the resources we have right now. But in the long view, we are thinking we're going to get to this level. And if our ideal is multiple um treatment facilities, some that are in in the building, some that are not for maybe um people that don't need to be in the building to go.

and and then but then to me it's a matter of looking at it and saying okay we got this far right now we got to move to the next level and be proactive and and then figure out how are we going to pay for that whether it's other income sources grants whatever another uh voter piece.

Um, but it's based on what our actual need is going to be from our projections rather than okay, here we are. This is what we can do for the next 50 years, 10 years, 20 years, and that's it. And then we'll but if I guess what I'm asking is is the group looking at it from a point of view of this is where we are now and this is where we need to be in 10 years or 15 or 20 and maybe you already answered that but >> I I I mean I think a lot of the discussions have been very values-based.

Uh, I would let the other members of these boards chime in. And in terms of everyone knows there's going to be future needs, but I wouldn't say there's been a very detailed sort of phasing discussion around that.

I I don't know how else to answer the question. I um >> Yeah, >> I think you're answering it. It it's a really challenging question to answer because you know I think the 480 number was based on the consultants's analysis of population growth current um you know the history of Watcom County specifically and so um that number was a number of anticipated beds.

I I believe the timing is 2030 when they think that's the right number and I'll write in air quotes. >> Um and you know and then it went up from there. I think what we don't fully understand is the interplay of the investments that we've made in incarceration reduction um and interception opportunities in our community and how will that influence if we continue to make those investments over time how does that impact um you know the what the right number is and that's the heart of I think that values conversation that's playing out and all these committ committes right now is um how do we layer all of this together to come up with that right number and I I don't know if we can say the right number right because I think um there's there's a lot of values and judgment put on you know the number and in these conversations right now from from different ends of the of the spectrum.

>> That's my little question. Well, this is certainly a situation where I wouldn't want to be in the county council member's shoes. Um, but putting myself in their shoes or kind of doing that as an FAB.

Um, I mean, when I look at these scenarios, scenario one is the one we can afford, but it doesn't meet our vision and it'll probably bite us in the back end in a lot of ways that will lead to greater expenses.

So, we can afford it, but we shouldn't afford it. Scenario three is the one we want, I think. And that I'd like to start by scenario three and then kind of subtract a little and see what I can live without.

But I think in reality, I need to start with scenario two and maybe think about winnowing down scenario two. And already that doesn't make me happy. But then I want to think about not just scenario one, two, three in columns.

I want to look at the rows. And I would have specific questions about the rows because not all those program square footages are the same. If I was going further with his decision-making, I'd want to know about those different rows.

Which one of those has the greatest operational impacts? For example, housing, very large operational cost. Which one of those is actually pretty cheap to build, right? Maybe that that's not the where we need to save money.

Maybe there's other places, other line items where the square footage has greater operational cost or greater construction cost. Not all square footages are built the same. And then pivoting to a point I think that council member Husman brought up in terms of jail population.

I would look very strongly at the greatest driver of jail bed days and that's really the so the the majority of people who go to the jail don't stay long but the majority of the bed days are for those who stay there for a long time.

Most of those are people who have relatively serious crimes that are waiting trial. So if I wanted to make a chief jail, what I would do is I would accelerate the time it takes to uh uh reach trial and get a final disposition in those court cases.

So if I was going to try to make that 40 number work, the main thing I would do is I would push for speedier trials. That's not the decision that county council is being made to ask answer. But in terms of looking what's actually driving this and and and therefore bed days and therefore the housing costs which are the most expensive to build and the most expensive to operate, I need to drive down jail population by expediting trials.

>> So that's my feedback if I was a county council member. >> Thank you. >> Committee further questions council. Okay, seeing none. Thank you so much for coming over and presenting today. >> Thanks. >> Okay, we've got a couple more items here uh for the committee.

The next one is an interlocal agreement with the with Wacom County providing funding for the Wacom uh racial equity commission. The Wacom racial equity commission or the wreck was founded as a county advisory group through Wacom County code 2.107.

The commission is tasked with addressing racial equity and assisting local governments with their commitment to support a welcome, inclusive, and safe community for everyone. The proposed interlocal agreement memorializes the city and Wakom County's uh shared uh support for the purpose and goals of the wreck and our shared commitment to continue joint funding for the commission's work in 2026.

Here to take us through is Deputy Administrator Janice Keller. Thank you, Janice Keller, mayor's office. I don't have very much to add from um what was in the summary statement. This continues the interlocal agreement that's been in place for the previous three years and moves it to a one-year agreement.

Um the city is maintaining its $100,000 contribution for 2026 and uh the interlocal agreement outlines that and the funding arrangements as we move forward. uh the city council and the county council approved their funding support in their respective budgets.

So this part is the interlocal agreement that implements the funding support. >> Thank you committee. Council member Williams and Huffman. Seeing as how I sit on the council as one of the governmental adviserss I guess I would call myself um the wreck is now fin it's becoming very operational and doing work in the community that's bearing bearing fruit.

And um it's too bad that in the initial stages um the development of it wasn't um quick enough to get it rolling sooner. So this is kind of a backend picking up support so that it becomes more of a self-sufficient body and keeps the work of racial equity in the forefront of our community.

So I I would I would uh support doing this, but I'll wait until Council Member Huffman has something to say. >> Thank you, Council Member Williams. Um clearly I I will be supporting this. um quite a few of us here, the city had a lot of invested time in seeing this um entity form and then we kind of passed it off to the county and um and at this point don't have a lot of interaction with the rack as a as city um electeds and and staff other than than council member Williams who's assigned to that the the commission.

I would be really interested in a um presentation when when the folks with the the wreck are prepared to do that to see to get an update on what's been happening um with with the wreck. >> I think we would like to bring that presentation to you as well.

We wanted to get all of the mechanics in place and then invite um the city and county representatives to the wreck as well as the wreck leaders to come and give you an update. All right. Thank you. Committee.

>> I'd like to make a motion that we we approve this uh interlocal agreement. >> Motion's been made. No second needed. But I do have a a comment or a question from Council President Stone. >> Yeah, I just had a question.

I realize my question is not directed at the city. It's really a county question, but um and so maybe put a pin in it and follow up, but just noting that I guess the operations, right, is um is estimated to be 150,000, but just noting the split, right, where the city then is carrying $100,000 and the county contributing 50,000.

Um yeah, just putting some additional information and and um perhaps there are additional expenses also from the county, right, that support this work in other ways um beyond the commission itself, but obviously, yeah, my questioning is not the city's commitment of that 100,000.

We've budgeted that and I think it's money well spent um but wanting to feel confident about the county's commitment to this work since it is living within the county offices. our our county colleagues are still in the room if you'd like to invite them to address that question.

>> Yeah, >> if you >> Thank you. Uh Kayla Shaw Wrestler County Deputy Executive. Um so certainly the county is still very committed to the vision and operations of the racial equity commission. Um when the city and county initially signed the interlocal agreement, it was a commitment um of $600,000 for three years split equally between the city and the county.

We're now in the fourth year of funding. Um and so the county is uh had to taper off financially a little bit. Um and and it sort of remains to be seen what the budget looks like going forward. certainly encouraging um fundraising, grant seeking, which I know uh the racial equity commission's director is is actively engaged in, as well as the community foundation.

Um I can't can't provide certainty about the future. Um and I I do recognize the awkwardness of the city funding a county advisory board at a higher level than the county. So it's um a uncomfortable uh an uncomfortable aspect of the interlocal.

Um the other thing I would just say is there are discussions broadly happening at the county related to the funding of advisory boards and um disparities around level of funding and level of staffing.

I believe the county has over 54 advisory boards. Um, so really trying to figure out what a uh more holistic approach is to provide equity um amongst the different boards and the level of staffing, but don't have a super satisfying act answer for you.

>> Okay. And just follow up. So at this point, this is just a one-year agreement and then we'll revisit that next year. Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions? >> Oh, go ahead. Sorry, Mayor. I just wanted to say that I think our commitment reflects uh this council's values.

Um council member Williams serves um our strategic initiatives manager Dborah Beneza is a voting member of the wreck and very involved in that work and I myself participate um on almost every meeting and um participated in the two-day annual retreat last year.

So I think this interlocal reflects our engagement and our commitment to the commission. >> Further questions, comments? Okay, votes been or motion's been made. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I.

>> I. >> Opposed abstensions. I'll bring that forward this evening. >> Okay. Thank you. Last item uh for this committee this afternoon. This is a resolution reaffirming the city's commitment to immigrant immigrant rights and civil rights and denouncing federal immigration enforcement actions that endanger public safety and violate individuals constitutional rights in Bellingham and nationwide.

Um I'll read the summary statement for all residents of Bellingham. The Bellingham City Council reaffirms the city's commitment to the basic rights and freedoms set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

These include the right to free speech, peaceful assembly, due process, and freedom from warrantless searches. We bring this reaffirmation forward in light of the recent unprecedented unprecedented and unlawful actions by the federal government in the context of immigration enforcement.

And I would ask uh Council Member Williams to uh provide maybe some of the background information on this. Do you have a prepared statement? >> Yes. Some of this, as I've said before, um when this came up as an idea for us to consider, um we felt council member Hamill and I felt that that that the that the council needed to take a position regarding the challenges that we as a city and community are facing.

with the um current situation that we're facing regarding immigrant and civil rights. And as we discuss this further, um, at the time, our intention was to draft this in a way that, um, and developed this from the viewpoints of our history as as a council in a city in standing for and supporting human and civil rights in our community, highlighting actions that this council has taken in the past.

We wanted to address the steps that we're currently taking and and for the future consider taking to resist the actions being done by the current federal administration regarding immigrant enforcement and other civil and constitutional rights to reassess our community.

I'm I'm sorry to re to reassure our community that in addressing this current atmosphere and these activities surfacing in our nation and in our community that all branches of our municipal government are rowing in the same direction and organizationally will not waver in our commitment to protecting the human and civil rights of all our residents so that we can remain a welcoming city for all and further to maybe set an example for our colleagues in the rest of the county to also take similar approaches to dealing with the current environment that we're having.

So that's why we uh took it upon ourselves to work with the staff to come up with this resolution and um and I'll make a motion to accept. Thank you, council member. Any further questions? Okay. Not at this point, council members.

Okay. Um motion's been made. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed abstensions. I'll bring this forward with a three zero vote uh tonight for further discussion with committee the whole and that ends um the moment that ends the public health safety justice and equity committee.