# The Blueprint for a 684-Bed Jail: Planning Whatcom County's Future Justice Facility ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened for just under an hour on Tuesday morning, June 24, 2025, in the County Courthouse chambers. Committee Chair Barry Buchanan presided over a meeting that would reveal the preliminary scope of what could become one of the largest infrastructure investments in the county's recent history. The three voting members—Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, and Jon Scanlon—were joined by four additional council members observing the proceedings, underscoring the gravity of the decisions ahead. Two agenda items dominated the session: a presentation on jail capacity analysis projecting needs through 2050, and a proposed framework for managing the complex web of stakeholders involved in the justice facility project. What emerged was a picture of ambitious planning tempered by political caution, as county officials sought to balance infrastructure needs with public skepticism following two previous failed jail bond measures. The morning's discussions would lay bare the tensions inherent in planning a major public facility: How do you build for future needs without overbuilding? How do you maintain democratic oversight while enabling efficient decision-making? And how do you communicate honestly about costs and scope while maintaining public trust? ## The 684-Bed Projection: Building for 2050 Adam Johnson from STV, the county's consulting firm, opened with a detailed presentation on jail capacity analysis—work that has been months in the making and represents one of the most comprehensive studies of Whatcom County's correctional needs to date. The numbers he presented were striking: 684 rated beds projected for 2050, more than double the current facility's capacity. "This is all preliminary," Johnson emphasized multiple times, a caveat that would become increasingly important as council members pressed for clarity. "The numbers that we're discussing today are still preliminary and they're still very fluid." The analysis built on extensive data collection and stakeholder engagement. In early May, STV held two days of workshops with key officials including Sheriff Donnell Tanksley, Under Sheriff Chief Erickson, the prosecuting attorney, public defender, and health department representatives. They toured the current downtown jail facility and work release center, gathering both operational data and aspirational goals for the future facility. The methodology behind the projections relied on four main drivers. Population growth topped the list—when the current jail was built, Whatcom County had about 106,000 residents. By 2050, projections show over 300,000 people. "That's almost like dropping another city of Bellingham to your county between now and then," Johnson noted. Historical data showed consistent growth with only occasional plateaus, lending confidence to the upward trend. The other key factors included jail admissions, average daily population, and average length of stay. The consultants accounted for contemporary challenges like booking restrictions, COVID impacts, and legislative changes including the Blake decision that affected pre-trial processes. They also examined recidivism rates and looked at similar-sized counties for comparison data. The headline number—684 beds—breaks down into specific categories. General population would account for 504 beds, with an additional 36 designated as "48-hour beds" for intake processing. These transition beds reflect a more sophisticated approach to jail management, where newly booked individuals receive evaluation and orientation before placement in general population or specialized housing. Perhaps most significantly, 144 beds would serve specialized housing needs, including acute behavioral health care and what officials term a "behavioral care center." This represents a fundamental shift from purely custodial to therapeutic approaches to incarceration. "We want to have empty beds in the jail," Johnson explained, describing the National Institute of Corrections' recommendation for 80% capacity. "It's safer and it's more efficient to have a number of empty beds in the jail. It's easier to classify folks when you have a number of empty beds. It's easier to separate prey from predator." ## The Infrastructure Investment Strategy The most intriguing aspect of the presentation involved the distinction between what they're planning for versus what they intend to build initially. Johnson was clear that no one advocates building the full 684-bed facility on day one. Instead, the strategy involves "smart investments" in infrastructure that would accommodate future expansion without the massive costs of retrofitting. "When we think about things like laundry and kitchen for this facility, you're going to have laundry and kitchen needs for the life of this facility," Johnson explained. "So we want to space, size the space of those types of areas in infrastructure for 2050, but you don't need to put all the laundry machines in there right now." The examples were concrete and compelling. A 2050-sized facility might need a 10-inch water main versus an 8-inch main for 2030 needs. Installing the larger main now would cost "pennies on the dollar" compared to digging it up and replacing it later. Similarly, they could size mechanical spaces and run conduit for future housing units while only installing what's needed immediately. Council Member Tyler Byrd captured the logic perfectly: "I'd rather pay for it in today's dollars than in the future dollars. And that's only compounded by the extra work you'd have to do in the future if you don't do it now." Johnson promised that 2030 and 2040 projections would be included in the final report due in July, giving officials a clearer picture of what they'd actually build versus what they'd plan for. ## Questions of Scale and Philosophy The presentation sparked immediate questions from council members, particularly around the fundamental assumptions underlying the analysis. Council Member Jon Scanlon raised a critical point about the role of diversion and prevention programs. "I think a lot of this kind of assumes we keep doing things in similar way," Scanlon observed. He referenced the county's Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force and wondered about policy levers that could actually reduce the projected jail population rather than simply accommodate it. Sheriff Tanksley acknowledged the complexity of quantifying such programs' impact. "When we look at the different programs that we have and the partnerships that we have... it's, in fact, difficult to piece all those pieces together to determine exactly what's going to be effective 10 years from now, what's going to be effective 20 years from now." This echoed similar challenges faced by Spokane County, which had attempted to assign specific bed reductions to various diversion programs but couldn't provide solid methodology when questioned. Chair Buchanan noted they'd repeatedly asked how Spokane arrived at those numbers without getting satisfactory answers. The exchange highlighted a fundamental tension in jail planning: How do you account for policy changes and program effectiveness when making 25-year infrastructure decisions? The answer appeared to be conservative planning with hope for better outcomes. "Hopefully we don't, you never have to add on those other beds," Johnson said. "But whatever that diversion program looks like... hopefully, maybe that works, and recidivism is gone and there's a big empty jail. I think everybody wants that goal, right." ## The Single-Cell Question Council Member Todd Donovan pressed for clarity on a politically sensitive issue—whether the facility would feature single cells or shared housing. During previous bond campaigns, officials had discussed preferences for single-cell facilities, but cost remained a major factor. Johnson's response revealed how many operational details remain undetermined: "Single cells are probably preferable, but that's more expensive, cost per cell. And so where does that trade off happen? That's going to be a conversation with the design builder." The answer would depend on multiple factors including operational costs, supervision ratios, and budget constraints. In a direct supervision model, officials need to consider how many individuals one person can effectively oversee, which affects both safety and staffing costs. Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler emphasized that the intention wasn't to over-build but to "build to the capacity of what we need based upon being able to address the things that were in the implementation plan and the needs assessment and to end current and future booking restrictions." ## The Charter Controversy The second agenda item—proposed stakeholder group charters for managing the project—generated more heated discussion than the jail capacity numbers. Ashley McLaren from STV presented what she described as a "mechanism to make all of the decisions that need to be made as we move forward with the design process." The proposed structure resembled a corporate organizational chart, with the county executive positioned as the final decision maker for "project scope, spending decisions, and priorities." Various stakeholder groups would provide input through defined channels, with information flowing upward through what McLaren called a "funnel" approach. Council Member Donovan immediately identified the political problem: "I guess the way it's worded sounds like the executive is the final decision maker for project scope, spending decisions, and priorities and then the Council pays the bill. It's kind of how I read it." This struck at a fundamental issue of governmental authority. While the executive branch manages day-to-day operations, major spending decisions ultimately require council approval. The charter language seemed to minimize the legislative branch's constitutional role. Council Member Byrd was even more direct in his criticism, noting that the organizational charts placed the council "under the executive" on the same level as departments and committees. "We're getting less information from what I can tell," he observed, comparing their briefing to more detailed presentations given to the Finance and Administrative Services committee. "I feel like we're being delegated off to the side with just the hey, rubber stamp this as we go with the little bit of information you have," Byrd continued. "And hopefully everything goes well, otherwise, we'll point the finger at you if we're approving it all at the end." ## Communication Concerns The charter documents revealed additional tensions around information flow. The proposed structure suggested council members would receive updates through the county's communications team rather than directly from project staff—a prospect that alarmed some legislators. Byrd expressed particular concern about this arrangement: "In my head, that graph says communications team, which means the marketing and public relations people who redact everything and provide least amount of details possible, and we're essentially getting the same information again, the committees and the public are getting." McLaren attempted to clarify that the communications team reference meant STV staff coordinating information flow, not county public relations personnel. But the confusion highlighted broader concerns about transparency and access to unfiltered project information. The charter also included plans for engaging tribal councils, though details remained incomplete. McLaren explained they wanted to coordinate with the Lummi and Nooksack tribes rather than imposing communication structures unilaterally. "We don't want to kind of impart that on them. We want to do that in collaboration." ## Wetland Complications A brief exchange about wetland mitigation revealed another complexity facing the project. Rob Ney from the county's facilities department, participating remotely from vacation, provided a sobering update on environmental challenges. "Initially we thought we had better options internal with county property, and we're just looking externally as well," Ney explained. "The wetland regulations are not as easy as they used to be, and so we are just doing everything we can to make sure that when we do go forward with a plan, it is rock solid." This represented a significant complication for a project already facing tight timelines. The team was working with the Department of Ecology and Army Corps of Engineers to find acceptable mitigation options, but the process appeared more challenging than originally anticipated. ## The Vote to Hold After extensive discussion, the committee voted unanimously to hold the charter proposal until the next meeting. Chair Buchanan moved the motion, requesting "a little more detailed presentation at that time so we can get answers to some of these questions." Council Member Scanlon suggested that several members spend time between meetings working on the document to develop something they could potentially approve. This represented a more collaborative approach than simply rejecting the proposal outright. County Executive Satpal Sidhu offered the final word, urging council members to be specific about desired changes: "I think the council should point out certain things they would like to which they would like to see, rather than just saying, okay, this doesn't work for you." The exchange captured a broader dynamic in local government—the tension between executive efficiency and legislative oversight. County staff needed clear decision-making processes to keep the project moving, while council members insisted on meaningful input rather than after-the-fact approval. ## What's Ahead As the meeting adjourned, several critical timelines remained in motion. The jail capacity analysis would be finalized in July, providing more concrete numbers for 2030 and 2040 needs. The design-build procurement process continued with three firms competing for selection in August. Environmental permitting and wetland mitigation work proceeded under tight deadlines. Most immediately, the stakeholder charter issue required resolution before meaningful project decisions could proceed. The committee's request for revision represented more than procedural disagreement—it reflected fundamental questions about democratic governance and public accountability in major infrastructure investments. The meeting revealed a project at a crossroads. Technical planning proceeded with impressive sophistication, incorporating lessons from similar facilities nationwide and sophisticated modeling of future needs. But political and governance challenges remained unresolved, threatening to complicate implementation regardless of technical merit. As Chair Buchanan noted, this would all return to the committee in July—a deadline that would test whether county officials could bridge the gap between operational efficiency and democratic oversight. The stakes extended beyond a single facility to encompass questions of governmental transparency, public trust, and the appropriate balance of power in major public investments. With two previous jail bond measures defeated by voters, the pressure to get both the substance and process right had never been higher. The morning's discussions suggested that while the technical foundation was solid, the political architecture still required significant work.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met on June 24, 2025, to review a jail capacity analysis for the new Public Health, Safety and Justice facility and discuss draft stakeholder group charters. The committee received preliminary projections showing a need for 684 rated beds by 2050, though actual construction plans for opening around 2030 will be smaller with infrastructure designed for future expansion. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Rated Beds:** The official capacity of jail beds, calculated with a 20% buffer to ensure safe operations and proper inmate classification. **Direct Supervision Model:** A jail management approach where corrections officers work directly among inmates in housing units rather than monitoring from control rooms. **48-Hour Beds:** Transitional housing where newly booked inmates are evaluated and oriented before placement in general population or specialized housing. **Booking Restrictions:** When jails cannot accept new inmates due to overcrowding, forcing law enforcement to seek alternatives or release arrestees. **Specialized Housing:** Beds designated for inmates with specific needs including mental health, medical care, high-profile cases, or behavioral management. **Wetland Mitigation:** Environmental requirements to offset wetland impacts from construction, involving restoration or creation of wetlands elsewhere. **Design-Build Process:** A project delivery method where one entity handles both design and construction, currently in the proposal phase with three finalist firms. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Barry Buchanan | Committee Chair | | Tyler Byrd | Committee Member | | Jon Scanlon | Committee Member | | Adam Johnson | STV Project Manager | | Ashley McLaren | STV Communications Lead | | Kayla Schott-Bresler | Deputy County Executive | | Sheriff Donnell Tanksley | Whatcom County Sheriff | | Rob Ney | Facilities Department | ### Background Context This jail capacity analysis represents a critical milestone for Whatcom County's new justice facility project, which voters approved after two previous rejections. The current downtown jail has significant capacity limitations and safety concerns, forcing booking restrictions when full. The new facility aims to address these issues while incorporating modern corrections practices, mental health treatment capabilities, and rehabilitation programming. The 2050 projection of 684 beds reflects expected population growth from 226,000 in 2020 to over 300,000 by 2050, but the county plans to build for immediate needs while preparing infrastructure for potential expansion. ### What Happened — The Short Version STV consultants presented preliminary jail capacity projections showing a need for 684 rated beds by 2050 (570 minimum plus 20% buffer). This includes 504 general population beds, 36 48-hour transition beds, and 144 specialized housing beds. The analysis considered population growth, admissions data, and various factors affecting jail usage. However, the county plans to build only what's needed for approximately 2030 operations while designing infrastructure to support future expansion if required. A separate agenda item on stakeholder group charters was held for the next meeting after council members raised concerns about decision-making authority and communication protocols. ### What to Watch Next - Final jail capacity analysis report due in July 2025 - Design-build contractor selection in August 2025 - Revised stakeholder group charters with clearer council authority - Wetland mitigation resolution progress - 2030 and 2040 capacity projections to determine actual construction scope ---

**Q:** What is the projected total rated bed capacity for 2050? **A:** 684 beds (570 minimum capacity plus a 20% buffer of 114 beds). **Q:** Why does the jail capacity analysis recommend a 20% buffer? **A:** The National Institute of Corrections recommends 80% occupancy to allow safe classification, separate incompatible inmates, and handle sudden influxes without overcrowding. **Q:** What are 48-hour beds used for? **A:** Transitional housing where newly booked inmates receive orientation, medical/mental health evaluations, and assessment before placement in general population or specialized housing. **Q:** How many specialized housing beds are projected for 2050? **A:** 144 beds for inmates with acute behavioral health needs, medical issues, high-profile status, or other special housing requirements. **Q:** What does the capacity analysis assume about the current jail and work release center? **A:** Both facilities will be defunct when the new facility opens, with all operations consolidated into one location. **Q:** Who conducted the jail capacity analysis? **A:** STV with subconsultant Eric Ratz from DLZ, who has completed over 100 rated bed capacity studies. **Q:** What population growth is driving the jail capacity projections? **A:** Whatcom County is projected to grow from 226,000 (2020 census) to over 300,000 by 2050. **Q:** When was the current downtown jail built and what was the county's population then? **A:** Built when the county had approximately 106,000 people, significantly less than today's 226,000. **Q:** What is the timeline for design-build contractor selection? **A:** Contract award is scheduled for August 2025, with three firms currently submitting proposals. **Q:** What major infrastructure consideration affects the project timeline? **A:** Wetland mitigation requirements that must be resolved before construction can proceed. **Q:** Why did the committee hold the stakeholder group charters item? **A:** Council members wanted more input on decision-making authority and communication protocols before approval. **Q:** What was Council Member Byrd's main concern about the charters? **A:** The council appeared to receive less detailed information than other committees while being expected to approve major decisions. **Q:** What infrastructure approach will the county take for future expansion? **A:** Build oversized utilities, kitchen, and laundry spaces now with expansion-ready conduit and mechanical systems to save millions later. **Q:** What was the original 2017 ballot measure jail cost estimate versus 2023? **A:** $75 million in 2017 compared to $150+ million in 2023, doubling in six years. **Q:** How often will committees receive project updates under the proposed charter? **A:** Monthly peer-to-peer briefings with two-page reports and quarterly milestone presentations. ---