Washington County staff update commissioners on jail and community corrections expansion; board signals support for planning

Washington County staff briefed the Board of Commissioners on July 14 on a multi‑year plan to expand the county jail and community corrections center, saying the effort aims to reduce forced releases, meet rising behavioral‑health needs in the adult‑in‑custody population and improve operations.

Erin Calvert, an assistant county administrator, opened the presentation and framed the update as an informational step in a longer process. "This presentation is the first of many updates," Calvert said, adding staff will return with refined cost estimates and a formal project plan if the board wishes to codify direction later this year.

The county’s current jail, opened in 1998 with 572 beds, has repeatedly reached capacity, staff told the board. Calvert and project staff described "forced releases" — returning people to the community before their court processes conclude — as a central operational challenge that creates warrants, court backlogs and public‑safety concerns. The county’s community corrections center, staff said, has a physical capacity of 215 beds but is currently funded for 167 slots and plays a key role in keeping eligible people in a supervised setting rather than releasing them directly to the community.

Staff described the project governance and team: a project leadership team with cross‑department representation, focused work groups, a steering committee with external stakeholders and three project managers responsible for execution. Staff named Stuart Spofford (facilities project manager), Jim Wheaton (sheriff’s office project manager) and Kristen Burke (health and human services project manager) as key managers. The county recently completed an RFP and retained DLR Group to carry out a feasibility assessment, visioning, programming, site and infrastructure analysis and a financial analysis.

DLR’s scope, staff said, includes stakeholder interviews, site visits to jurisdictions that model integrated services, and developing options for specialized units (for people in recovery, trauma‑informed care, or with other special needs). Staff suggested site visits to several jurisdictions to learn about design elements and integrated reentry or behavioral‑health supports.

On schedule and funding, staff presented a provisional project life cycle and emphasized that early planning will refine cost and timing. Staff noted marked decision points (slides used green dollar signs) at which the board would be asked to review updated cost estimates. "We are hoping to begin securing those funds in 2028," staff said, while cautioning that available funds now would take the project only "deep into design" and not through construction without additional allocation.

Commissioners generally indicated support for the project plan direction. One commissioner raised a budget question after reviewing the CIP snapshot, saying, "we're about $7,500,000 short in funding" for the 2026‑27 fiscal year as presented; finance staff explained that revenue timing and prior receipts affect how the snapshot populates and that some projects include unfunded lines further out in the CIP. Several commissioners emphasized the need to avoid building a facility that will be undersized when it opens and asked that bed‑need assumptions be revisited during the consultant visioning and stakeholder interviews.

Board members asked staff to provide additional background materials with future packets (e.g., the January slide showing where jail clients come from and previous quarterly reports), to expand the list of steering committee and external informants, and to circulate the CIP link for commissioner review. Staff said they will return later this summer with more detailed project materials and that project updates are planned roughly every four months.

Next steps: staff will continue the DLR feasibility and financial analyses, conduct visioning and site work, and return to the board at the green‑dollar decision points with refined cost and schedule information. The presentation concluded with staff asking for board direction on the two policy questions and several commissioners answering in support of continuing the planning and pursuing formal plan adoption later in 2026.