Whatcom County task force weighs jail scenarios as budget ceilings shrink

Task‑force members spent the Feb. 23 meeting focused on reconciling programmatic goals with what staff called a sharply constrained budget, as consultants presented four program‑level jail scenarios meant to guide an April decision.

Project director Adam Johnson of STV told the group they are still in the ‘‘validation’’ and programming phase, not design, and that the scenarios use a fixed bed count to compare costs: “We’re not into design yet, so we’re not designing anything. We are in the programming and validation stage.” He said scenario 1 used a $170,000,000 budget target but proved inadequate for administration, warehousing and courtroom needs; scenario 4, by contrast, pushed program square footage and costs above $300,000,000.

The presentation and follow‑up discussion centered on three tradeoffs: how many beds to plan for, how much of the behavioral care center (BCC) should be included in the capital budget, and how to preserve program and diversion space without exceeding the county’s borrowing capacity. Staff said the BCC estimate is a placeholder (roughly a 40,000‑sq‑ft plug) and that county planners are estimating $30,000,000 for the BCC with hopes of about $14,000,000 in state support; they said that adds roughly $10–15 million to the figures shown in the scenarios.

Co‑chair Heather Flaherty urged the group to apply the county’s 2019 jail‑planning principles, which prioritize treatment and community‑based services. ‘‘For a decade, Whatcom County has been working to build a justice system that actually prevents and treats, and reduces incarceration,’’ she said, stressing that bed counts should be derived from a comprehensive look at diversion and treatment capacity as well as cost.

Law‑enforcement officials argued for higher capacity. One speaker representing the sheriff’s office said the sheriff has identified 600 beds as the number needed ‘‘to eliminate booking restrictions,’’ citing active warrants and public‑safety incidents as part of the rationale. Other members countered that higher bed counts substantially raise both capital and long‑term operating costs: members cited county budget lines and national per‑bed operating estimates and warned that operating costs over decades can dwarf one‑time construction dollars.

Jed (county staff) outlined preliminary capital limits and scenarios for partner contributions, saying that under current assumptions a construction ceiling that relies mainly on the sales‑tax levy and extended city contributions could be about $230,000,000; reserving $20,000,000 for behavioral‑health capital would lower the jail construction cap to roughly $210,000,000. Staff emphasized these figures are assumption‑driven and must be negotiated with city partners.

Members pressed the team for refined analyses that link beds to programming and operating costs. Staff said they will present a refined capacity analysis and a draft behavioral‑health study to advisory boards in March and April as timing allows and recommended using scenario 2 as a baseline while the team models mixes of dorms, bunked units and single cells to fit the available budget.

The meeting closed with members urging more public engagement and an interim IPRTF meeting to review refined analyses before the April decision. The task force did not adopt a final recommendation on beds or scope; instead, staff were directed to deliver refined capacity and operating‑cost work in the coming weeks.