Thurston County commissioners on Oct. 29 directed staff to scope a comprehensive study of options to address the county's jail‑space shortage after a county work group presented three high‑level possibilities: building a flex unit, renovating a dorm in the existing jail or repurposing the juvenile (youth services) facility.

County Manager Leonard Hernandez told the board the group’s work narrowed the options but that each one “would need additional exploration” and outside expertise to produce accurate cost and operational estimates. “We can take old plans as well. I mean, we're not starting from scratch here,” he said.

Why it matters: Commissioners and the sheriff said the county is managing an uptick in people who need individual cells, many of whom are people with serious mental‑health needs who cannot be housed in dorm-style housing. Sheriff Sanders warned the jail currently lacks the capacity to safely house people with acute mental‑health needs and that the county’s existing alternatives — contract housing outside the county or short lived triage beds — have practical limits. “The jail is not equipped to house these mentally ill people,” the sheriff said.

What was proposed: The work group presented three options for further study: (1) build or complete a flex unit attached to the existing jail, (2) renovate a dorm area inside the existing jail, and (3) evaluate whether parts of the juvenile facility could be adapted for adult use. Commissioners stressed these are options for study rather than immediate actions. Vice Chair Wayne Fournier characterized option 1 as a longer‑term project and asked staff to produce baseline cost estimates; he noted a previously estimated cost of roughly $25 million from earlier planning and asked staff to update that number for inflation. “Number 1 is not a short term solution,” Fournier said.

Cost and procurement steps: Staff and commissioners agreed the next step is a formal scope of work and an RFP for a qualified firm that can produce feasibility, financing and operational models. Commissioners and staff cited typical planning‑study costs in a ballpark of $30,000 to $65,000 for initial feasibility and procurement work, while construction costs would be orders of magnitude higher.

Related behavioral‑health options: Commissioners discussed a complementary approach that emphasizes behavioral‑health capacity rather than only adding secured cell space. Several commissioners described a hybrid model that would combine secure cells with a mental‑health triage function — short‑term evaluation, involuntary treatment assessments (ITA) and longer‑term beds — so first responders have alternatives other than booking people into jail. The meeting record shows past crisis triage beds in Thurston County were closed after providers could not sustain operations; staff and commissioners said a new crisis center under development could offer 45‑ and 90‑day options if fully funded.

Telecare and local facilities: The board reviewed the county’s relationship with the local Telecare/triage facility and concluded the county does not directly operate the leased program; one staff member said Telecare’s current lease runs through 2035 and “there is the option to cancel it with a hundred and 20 day notice, within 2 years of the expiration of the lease.” Commissioners asked staff to reexamine how the county coordinates with that facility as part of any larger study.

Board direction and next steps: Commissioners expressed broad agreement that staff should return with a scope of work and estimated cost for an RFP. County staff said they would develop cost parameters and recommended tasks, and come back with a phased approach and price tag for the board to consider. No formal vote was taken at the Oct. 29 meeting; the board instructed staff to bring a draft RFP scope and cost estimate for future direction.

What the record does not show: The board did not adopt any construction plan or funding commitment on Oct. 29. Commissioners did not vote to build or to renovate; they instructed staff to prepare a study so the board can evaluate options with detailed numbers.

Context: The discussion occurred against the backdrop of larger regional challenges. Commissioners referenced past plans, regional partner conversations about shared or regional facilities, and legislative funding opportunities. Staff and commissioners also noted the county’s limited authority over some behavioral‑health providers and the practical limits of sending inmates to out‑of‑county contract housing.