Thurston County reviews long-running jail space shortfall; nine options examined, no decision

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners reviewed the county’s long-running jail space shortage and a catalog of nine possible remedies during a public, livestreamed session; no formal vote or final decision was taken.

“Okay. We are back. And this portion … will be live streamed and public virtual tenants is available on the Thurston County YouTube channel,” the board chair said as the hour’s agenda item began, noting County Manager Leonard Hernandez and Assistant County Manager Jennifer Walker were present.

The discussion traced the problem’s history, starting with earlier efforts to expand the county jail that culminated in a Phase 1 facility built after voter measures failed. Commissioners said the original design used a direct-supervision pod model intended for a traditional jail population; over time, a higher share of incarcerated people required individual cells because of acute mental-health and behavioral needs, producing a sustained mismatch between facility design and population needs.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff described the issue as both operational and fiscal. Past plans had assumed available bond capacity and capital funding; many of those options were paused or repurposed after the COVID-19 pandemic and the county redirected available bonding capacity toward other capital projects. Commissioners warned that operational costs — not just construction — determine whether a lower-capital alternative is viable long term.

Key points from the meeting

- Nine options: Commissioners reviewed nine solutions assembled in earlier memos (including a 2016 staff memo), ranging from the full Phase 2 build the sheriff requested to smaller alternatives. Options discussed included a full flex unit (the Phase 2 concept), a smaller 40‑bed flex unit, a complete renovation of the old jail under the Hilltop campus, partial renovation of the old jail, reconfiguring part of the juvenile facility and building a smaller juvenile facility, converting a pod within the existing jail to more single cells, renovating the on-site work-release facility, and installing temporary modular units (Lehi-style modular housing) on the jail site.

- Costs and revised estimates: Participants cited older cost estimates from a 2016 memo and follow-ups in 2019. At different points the smaller flex unit was estimated in the high‑$20 million to low‑$30 million range (one number referenced was $28 million plus $4 million contingencies), while a later submission listed a $55,000,000 figure for a flex unit. The on‑site work‑release renovation was previously discussed at roughly $3 million–$5 million and was described in that analysis as yielding about 60–75 beds, though speakers noted those figures came from 2019 materials and would need updating.

- Operational vs. capital tradeoffs: Multiple speakers emphasized that some lower‑capital options create increased annual operating costs (duplicate staffing, separate medical and food services, and expanded supervision), which can erase upfront savings within a few years. The county currently lacks both the capital dollars and consistent operational funding to implement many options the memos considered.

- Juvenile facility and regional options: Commissioners repeatedly raised the county’s underused juvenile facility as a possible part of a solution, including partnering with neighboring counties that have idle juvenile facilities. The county reported judges raised concerns about repurposing juvenile space for adults; a letter from Judge Schaller opposing some uses was described as part of that pushback (the judge’s letter was referenced by speakers but not included in the meeting packet).

- Diversion, mental‑health and funding: Staff and commissioners stressed that changes in criminal‑justice policy and an increase in people with acute mental‑health and substance‑use needs have driven much of the capacity pressure. Meeting participants said Disability Rights Washington brought litigation concerns in earlier years that accelerated statewide diversion and treatment programs; speakers also reported that, per jail staff, a very large share of incarcerated people have co‑occurring mental‑health and substance‑use disorders, increasing demand for single‑cell and higher‑staffing arrangements.

- Work‑release and on‑site options: The on‑site work‑release facility was described as attractive because it would limit duplicate operational costs, but speakers said it is not currently in use and would require renovation and a review of program logistics. Modular units placed on the jail site were presented as a temporary, capital‑light option but would carry ongoing operational expenses.

Next steps and board posture

No motion or formal decision was recorded on any of the nine options. Commissioners and county staff described an ongoing jail space needs subcommittee and a county staff recommendation to update cost estimates, engage stakeholders (including judges and regional partners), and reassess operational funding sources — including possible state funding and Medicaid‑funded programs that already subsidize some jail health staff. County Manager Leonard Hernandez affirmed the plan to align stakeholders and to bring clearer operational and capital cost estimates back to the board for evaluation.

The board’s conversation repeatedly framed a two‑track approach: continue to pursue criminal‑justice diversion and mental‑health programming to reduce demand while also planning for additional facility capacity. Commissioners said there is no single solution that will satisfy every stakeholder; the subcommittee is expected to refine options and report back.

Ending: The board did not set a firm timetable for a vote; commissioners agreed to continue work through the subcommittee and to return with updated cost estimates and stakeholder input before any formal action.