Greenlee County officials open multi‑year review of jail costs, capacity and possible regional placements

Greenlee County officials on Monday reviewed a multi‑year analysis of the county jail and asked the Board of Supervisors for direction on next steps, including cost estimates for renovation, new construction, and the financial and operational consequences of sending inmates to another county.

The county jail, officials said, was built in the late 1970s and is near 50 years old. County Administrator Derek (last name not specified) told the board the facility’s shell is sound but its interior systems, security electronics and inmate‑handling spaces do not meet modern design expectations. “Our current jail is about 46 years old,” Derek said during the presentation.

The presentation laid out three cost buckets: detention operations (staffing, benefits, detention supplies), public‑works maintenance of the building, and health department costs for nursing and inmate medical services. Using budgeted figures, staff showed a large fixed daily cost to keep the jail open, and a per‑inmate daily budgeted cost that falls as the occupancy rises. The county’s average inmate population since March 2022 has been in the single digits (roughly 7.3 inmates per day over the dataset), staff said; that low occupancy drives higher per‑inmate costs because many fixed costs remain the same whether the facility houses few or many people.

Derek and county finance staff told the board that to reach the lower per‑inmate rates counties sometimes charge for housing — rates that can be attractive if paid by neighboring counties or federal agencies — Greenlee would either need to more than double its current average daily population or accept a blended arrangement where part of the daily care is outsourced and part remains local. The board heard that a county of Greenlee’s size would need roughly 30–80 inmates every day (depending on assumptions) to achieve those economies under current budgets and that Greenlee’s physical capacity is roughly 40 beds.

Sheriff Eric Ellison and county staff also outlined operating realities: separation of inmate populations by classification and gender, the rising cost of repairs in an aging facility, suicide‑prevention modifications that were expensive to complete, and the ongoing use of video visitation systems rather than traditional face‑to‑face visiting. The sheriff emphasized the operational limits of the current footprint and the difficulty of maintaining separate housing units as population increases.

County staff asked whether the board wanted them to pursue four lines of further work: 1) an order‑of‑magnitude estimate for new construction on the existing campus (different footprint so operations could continue during construction); 2) a detailed renovation cost estimate for the existing building; 3) a fuller analysis of transportation and medical costs the county would incur if inmates were housed out of county; and 4) staffing and operational estimates for a modernized facility.

Supervisors said they want more detail, including transportation and medical cost breakdowns, and urged staff to work closely with the sheriff’s office so any estimates reflect operational realities. Several supervisors said building a new facility would be a last resort because of bond financing needs and long timelines; the board asked for renovation and outsourcing cost estimates first.

The county administrator warned that any major construction would likely require bonding or voter authorization and noted construction inflation and current interest rates would affect financing costs. Staff said they would return with estimates and a clearer set of options for the board to consider.

Ending: The board did not take a final vote on jail strategy Monday. Staff will prepare more detailed cost estimates and a transportation/medical cost study and will coordinate with the sheriff’s office before returning to the board for further direction.