Administration recommends upgrades and continued operation of Issaquah jail after financial analysis

Dale Markey Crimp, assistant to the city administrator, presented a four‑year financial analysis of Issaquah’s municipal jail to the council on May 13 and asked for council guidance on whether to continue operating the facility or to close and contract for jail services.

The analysis summarized operations and costs: the Issaquah facility is a 72‑bed jail; current staffing includes a jail commander, four correction sergeants (one per shift), 12 corrections officers (three per shift) and one transport officer. Crimp reported the city spent about $3.8 million in 2024 to operate the jail and received roughly $1.65 million in jail revenues, producing a 2024 net cost of about $2.6 million; over the past two biennia (four years) the jail cost the city about $7.5 million.

Why it matters: Operating a municipal jail creates recurring operating costs and potential liability the city must fund; the administration’s analysis modeled four options and included an adjusted approach to allocating insurance costs to better reflect risk.

Insurance allocation and methodology: Crimp said the analysis used actuals rather than budget projections, forecasted across two biennia (2027–2030), and applied a recommended insurance‑cost allocation that weights both staffing hours and prior losses. He described the recommended calculation as “70% of a division’s share of worker hours plus 30% of that division’s share of total insurance losses,” which produced a materially larger estimated insurance burden for jail operations than the city’s current budget allocation. Using a sample WCIA bill of $3.9 million as an illustration produced an estimated jail allocation of about $909,000 under the blended method — roughly $750,000 more than a pure worker‑hours share in that example.

Options and estimated four‑year costs (2027–2030): Option 1 (status quo) was estimated at $27.0 million in expenditures with about $8.4 million in revenues (net cost about $18.6 million). Option 2 (continue operating with operational and safety improvements) reduced four‑year costs to about $22.0 million and produced a forecasted net cost of roughly $13.7 million after the same revenue assumptions. Option 3 (close the jail and contract for beds using staffing model 2) estimated $23.2 million; Option 3B (close the jail and contract for mandatory bookings only, lower guaranteed bed level) estimated $18.3 million. Option 4 (close the jail and become a SCORE member) produced two variants: Option 4A with staffing model 2 estimated $18.5 million; Option 4B with a reduced transport staffing model estimated $16.2 million.

Crimp said the administration’s near‑term recommendation is Option 2: continue operating the jail while implementing specific operational improvements and safety enhancements to reduce the likelihood of losses and litigation. Those measures included better intake health‑insurance screening (an expected health‑cost saving), a revised meal plan to reduce food‑related medical incidents, staffing to reduce ad‑hoc external transport fees, improved billing for transports/virtual court, and a planned grant‑supported pilot of wearable safety devices and other safety investments.

Council concerns and legal/operational impacts: Councilmembers asked about juvenile processing (Chief Schwann and Commander Allred confirmed SCORE houses adults only and juveniles would still go to county juvenile facilities), the deterrent and court‑enforcement benefits of a local jail, the potential impacts on patrol if transport staffing were reduced, and how increased bed rates would affect contract cities. Chief Schwann explained that SCORE membership ensures booking priority for members but does not remove the city’s transport responsibilities. Commander Allred said some contract cities that reduced guaranteed beds continued to book with Issaquah and paid the premium for non‑guaranteed beds, so early rate changes had not materially cut bookings in the first months after the rate increase.

Next steps and conditions: The administration asked council to direct continuation of the jail with the listed operational and safety improvements and to allow staff to closely monitor booking, revenue and cost impacts of the 2025 rate changes. Crimp also recommended city staff explore regional approaches and the possibility of SCORE membership as a medium‑term option and noted capital and long‑term facility needs would be part of the larger civic‑facilities discussion being conducted by DLR Group and the task force.

Ending: Councilmembers generally supported the administration’s recommendation to pursue Option 2 in the near term, asked staff to return with continued data on revenues and bookings, and requested further work on rate structure, regional collaboration and long‑term capital planning for the jail.