Task force debates trade-offs between 480-bed jail scenarios and a co‑located behavioral care center

The Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force spent much of its March 16 meeting weighing how to balance jail capacity, program space and a promised behavioral care center as consultants refine designs and city–county funding choices.

Co-chair Peter opened the session by asking staff to summarize where planning stands and next steps. Riley Sweeney of the county executive’s office invited the public to a March 19 community workshop and said the project is in a “validation phase” where public input will inform critical decisions.

Kayla and the design‑build team presented four scenarios that used 480 beds as a fixed planning assumption, with capital estimates ranging from about $170 million to more than $300 million depending on features, treatment space and operational design. Kayla said staff are working to refine a lower‑cost scenario that reserves funding for a behavioral care center; consultants will deliver a jail capacity analysis and a behavioral health analysis by the end of March.

Sheriff Tanksley said the jail and an out‑of‑custody behavioral care center should be treated as separate planning problems. “When we think about the jail itself…we have to think of that almost independently of the behavioral care facility,” he said, adding that he personally favors higher capacity in the long term and cited 600 beds as preferable to the 480 figure used in the scenarios.

Health and community services staff urged an emphasis on diversion and in‑jail services. Malora, speaking for Health and Community Services, said diversion should occur “at every intervention intercept” and pressed for intake screening, detox (medical and SUD), IOP and embedded medical units inside the jail. She added that a behavioral care center will only reduce jail demand if prosecutors, law enforcement and courts actually use it as a diversion pathway.

Several public‑safety leaders and attorneys debated the practical effects of booking restrictions. Attorney Stark argued that booking limits can spur jurisdictions to develop uniform diversion alternatives, while law enforcement leaders said officer discretion and safety considerations mean some offenses must remain bookable. Chief Merzig and Chief Ericson described operational constraints, noting separation requirements by sex and classification reduce usable capacity in real time.

Co‑chair Heather presented preliminary booking data showing increases in booking events from 2023 to 2025 and said warrant arrests and failures to appear have driven much of the rise. She cautioned that averages can be skewed by outliers and recommended disaggregated tables and median figures so decision makers understand which charges and repeat bookings are driving capacity needs.

County staff described the interlocal funding structure with cities. Jed Holmes said the current interlocal framework could support roughly $160 million in capital without amendment; with extended city participation the revenue envelope could approach about $225 million. Holmes and others noted that holding roughly $20–$25 million for a behavioral care center would leave about $205–$205+ million available for the jail in high‑ceiling scenarios, but he emphasized that any expansion of city commitments would be a political decision.

Participants repeatedly returned to the trade‑off: build a larger, more program‑rich jail and risk delaying or shrinking a behavioral care center, or prioritize the center at the cost of smaller jail capacity. Stephen Gawkley and others reminded the group that voters expected substantial investment in community‑based treatment alongside capital improvements. Several officials urged the county to continue pursuing outside grants and state funding to preserve program commitments.

No formal motions or votes were taken. The task force and staff agreed on two near‑term steps: the design team will provide revised scenarios and data tables in late March (with a Finance and Facility Advisory Board review planned March 30–April 2), and the county council is targeting April 28 for a decision about scope and budget.

A public commenter urged treating incarceration as a last resort and prioritizing diversion and behavioral health funding over jail construction. The meeting closed with reminders about the March 19 community workshop and the upcoming joint committee session.

The task force will reconvene with the new consultant deliverables; council deliberations about budget splits and whether to sequence expansion will follow in April.