Columbia County sheriff asks Scappoose council to back jail-levy renewal

Sheriff Brian Pixley asked the Scappoose City Council on Aug. 5 to publicly support a renewal of a Columbia County jail operations levy slated for the November ballot, saying the measure is critical to keeping the county jail open and maintaining public safety.

Pixley (Columbia County Sheriff) said the levy would renew funding previously approved by voters in 2014 and subsequently renewed in 2017 and 2020. He told the council the current proposal would be roughly $0.75 per $1,000 of assessed value and that the county’s existing levy rate of about $0.58 per $1,000 will end June 30 of next year. He said the jail’s three primary revenue sources are the county general fund (about $1 million annually), bed rentals (including to the U.S. Marshals Service) and the property tax levy.

Why it matters: Pixley said the county faces sharply higher operating costs. He told the council the jail’s medical contract increased from roughly $600,000 to about $1.5 million and that the U.S. Marshals bed-rental rate rose from about $92 per night to about $127 per night, boosting revenue but also reflecting broader cost pressures. Last year the county booked about 3,057 inmates, Pixley said. “Essentially going to neuter public safety in Columbia County. That’s frankly scares the hell out of me,” he said.

Council questioning focused on community impacts and alternatives. Police Chief Llewellyn (Scappoose police) said transport and logistics could become more difficult if the levy fails, noting the city may need to send detainees to other counties: “...that could possibly mean us transporting to different counties,” he said. Councilors asked whether the levy would recur and how the rate is calculated; Pixley said he expects the levy to be renewed on a recurring basis unless the county converts it into a permanent taxing district in the future.

Next steps: Pixley asked the council to consider a council resolution of support. Several councilors signaled willingness to have staff draft a resolution for consideration, and the mayor said staff could prepare a draft. The council did not take a formal vote in the meeting on the resolution; the item remains at the request-and-consideration stage.

Context and limitations: Figures reported at the meeting were presented by Sheriff Pixley and reflect his account during public comment and Q&A. The council did not record individual roll-call tallies during its spoken consensus about drafting a resolution; the sheriff’s office provided historical context about previous levies and noted that some COVID-era state funding was reallocated by the county.