Task force reviews county council jail resolution; work groups, costs and service trade-offs top concerns

The Whatcom County Incarceration Reduction Task Force steering committee on May 7 reviewed a county council resolution that sets a planning budget cap for the Justice Project and asks the task force to help implement two work groups: one to examine average length of stay and average daily population, and another to evaluate how to meet a proposed 50% floor for other implementation projects.

Jill, the staff lead, screened the resolution's extracted proposals and asked the committee to prepare to receive a final council draft after redlines arrived from small-city mayors. Chair Barry said he had received a heavily redlined version just before the meeting and had not yet reviewed those changes.

"So right now, we are sitting with the council's output. It's in a motion to hold," Barry said, noting multiple competing amendments and that the task force could serve as an advisory body if the resolution includes work-group language. He added that two specific work-group efforts in the original resolution would likely fall to the IPRTF: "to look at average length of stay and average daily population" and "to evaluate that whole concept of funding the other projects in the implementation plan." Barry warned that the redlined version contained extensive edits he could not yet summarize.

Committee members pressed for clarity on the resolution's financial inputs and the practical effects of a 50% floor for outside services. Heather summarized the county's debt-modeling assumptions and construction inputs, saying that the county had modeled a maximum debt capacity in the $205 million range and that design teams were targeting roughly 155,000 square feet. "They have told us that the cost per square foot is about $895," Heather said, producing a rough construction estimate the group used to assess bond size and downstream effects on other projects.

Members also asked about proceeds from the sale of the Lebownie property and how those funds would be treated. The chair offered a ballpark range and said the figure had changed since earlier estimates: "It's around 5 and a half, 6 [million]," he said, adding, "don't quote me on that because I'm not informed on it." Dan asked whether those proceeds would have guardrails limiting use to capital or allowing operations, and the group agreed the allocation would need explicit council or interlocal guidance.

Sheriff Tansley urged balancing in-jail programming and community services while noting statutory limits on custody. "We can't'—the sheriff's office cannot keep people in the jail longer than... court orders and other things," he said, arguing that decisions on jail size, beds and programming should be made soon so services can begin.

Several members warned that building treatment spaces without available providers or staff could leave new spaces unused. Raelene said there is "a shortage" of treatment providers and correctional employees and asked whether planned treatment spaces could be repurposed if providers cannot be found.

Jill said the IPRTF packet for the next meeting will include a more complete update after council actions and suggested the May 18 task-force meeting include the final council output if available. Members agreed to leave the draft jail program report tentative on the May 18 agenda and to report status updates if the design-build report is not ready.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the resolution at this meeting; members focused on clarifying the scope of any task-force charge, the data required for work groups, and next steps for public engagement. Barry said he would report back to the steering committee after council developments.

What happens next: the IPRTF will receive an updated packet and may be asked to form or staff work groups after the council finalizes its version of the resolution.