Thurston County revisits jail space needs as capacity strain returns

Thurston County commissioners on Saturday reviewed the history and options for addressing a longstanding shortage of jail space, tracing plans back to a 2016 memo and describing how criminal-justice reforms, rising mental-health and substance-use needs, and the COVID-19 pandemic changed the county's approach and financing.

The discussion laid out nine facility and program options — including a 120-bed “full” flex unit, a smaller 40-bed flex unit, renovation of an old jail on the Hilltop campus, partial renovations, converting or repurposing juvenile facilities, renovating a work-release facility on site, and bringing modular temporary units — and noted the operational as well as capital costs associated with each.

Board chair said the county built an initial phase of a new jail without a voter tax increase during the recession but never completed the originally planned second phase. Board materials in the packet include a 2016 memo and later briefings documenting options and high-level cost estimates. The county manager, Leonard Hernandez, and assistant county manager Jennifer Walker were present for the briefing.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the mismatch between available direct-supervision pod space and the growing number of people in need of individualized cells — driven in part by mental-health and substance-use needs — has re-emerged since jail booking returned to pre-pandemic levels. Commissioners and staff emphasized that capital decisions interact with operational funding: some lower-capital options on paper would raise annual operating costs and could prove more expensive over time.

Key background and numbers - Board materials cite a recent submission that puts the full 120-bed flex unit at about $55 million. Earlier 2019 estimates discussed in the packet placed the larger option near $40 million and the smaller 40-bed option in the roughly $28–32 million range; the 2016 memo included additional earlier, lower-level estimates. - The on-site work-release facility has been described in materials as containing about 96 beds, though remodeling that space into a secure single-site facility would reduce the usable bed count. - A 2019 discussion of a more limited option included a $3–5 million capital estimate for some renovations, with capacity in the 60–75 bed range noted in those briefings; board members said those figures are dated and need updating. - Commissioners said county unemployment spiked sharply in April 2020 during the pandemic, which contributed to pausing capital work that had been under consideration.

Discussion points and constraints - Commissioners recalled that voters had rejected earlier funding measures to expand corrections facilities, and the county used available debt capacity during the recession to build an initial phase of the new jail, leaving an intended “phase 2” unbuilt. - Several speakers noted the county's adoption of a direct-supervision pod model and later statewide shifts toward diversion programs and increased services for people with mental-health and substance-use conditions. County staff and law-enforcement representatives told the board many people in the jail have behavioral-health needs that complicate placement decisions. - County staff and at least one commissioner noted a legal constraint in separating juvenile and adult populations: “the law states we can't mix adults and children together,” a point raised in the discussion as a limitation on repurposing juvenile space for adult beds. - Commissioners discussed operational trade-offs of using multiple sites versus one consolidated facility: separate sites often require duplicate staffing, medical and food services, and could raise annual operations costs that offset capital savings. - The board reviewed prior outreach and a regional study effort; commissioners said Thurston County was not among the highest-need counties in a recent regional needs assessment used to prioritize state funding, though they still face a local capacity shortage.

Directions, next steps and outcome - No formal capital decision or binding vote was taken. The board directed further work by its jail-space subcommittee and by subgroups focused on mental-health wraparound services and operational strategies to reduce demand on jail beds. - Commissioners asked staff to update cost estimates, revisit the feasibility and operating implications of using the on-site work-release facility, and engage stakeholders — including judges and prosecutors — to understand operational dynamics before returning options to the full board. - Commissioners also indicated openness to revisiting partnerships with neighboring counties for juvenile placements or other regional approaches, while acknowledging judicial and legal constraints.

What commissioners said - Commissioner Edwards and Commissioner Hutchings were described in the discussion as having differing views in earlier debates: Hutchings had supported moving forward sooner with construction, while Edwards and another commissioner had been reluctant to expand jail capacity without exhausting diversion and treatment options. - The county manager said both capital and operational dollars are constrained now: “At the time, we had capital dollars available and no operational dollars. Now we don't really have either,” the manager said during the briefing.

Context and next meeting - Materials reviewed by the board include a 2016 memo with pro/con summaries of earlier options, a 2019 package of cost estimates, and more recent submissions compiled by county staff. Commissioners thanked county staff and the clerk for locating the earlier memo. - The board did not schedule a final capital decision in this session; members said the jail-space subcommittee work group will develop a pathway and bring aligned recommendations back to the full board.

Ending: The board adjourned to its next scheduled meeting; staff will return updated cost estimates and stakeholder engagement results to inform future decisions.