Jail expansion talks restart in Thurston County as inmate numbers climb 

Facing the return of historic overcrowding at the county jail, the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) revisited a decade’s worth of expansion plans and facility options during a work session on Wednesday, April 23. 

BoCC Chair Tye Menser presented a detailed history of past proposals and explaining how delays, design mismatches and financial constraints had left the county in the same position it was in six years ago — without the jail space needed to house its inmate population. 

“We’ve been trying to solve this for many, many years,” said Menser, adding the problem stretched back to voter rejections of two jail expansion ballot measures before the “Great Recession.” 

Because the measures failed, Menser said, the county scaled back its ambitions and built only “Phase One” of the jail without seeking new tax revenue.

The facility relied on a “direct supervision” model, where corrections officers are stationed inside open housing pods, which was a “best practice” at that time. 

However, Menser said the criminal justice reforms and increased diversion programs reduced the number of inmates suitable for pod-style housing, while the share of inmates with mental health needs grew. He said this created an “increasing mismatch” in facility design. 

As the population grew, the jail became increasingly overcrowded and fewer people were suited to pod-style housing, while more required “individualized cells” for mental health or behavioral reasons. 

Commissioner Rachel Grant recalled the roots of the overcrowding issue dated back to 2016. 

Disability Rights Washington filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Social and Health Services for delays in mental health treatment for incarcerated individuals. She said the case catalyzed funding diversion, such as most likely “$80 million allocation to King County in 2022.” 

She also said according to reports, mental health and substance use issues were major causes of jail overcrowding. 

Menser then outlined nine options the board had previously considered to address jail space shortages.

Nine options

1. Full 120-bed flex unit 

The first option, according to Menser, was often referred to as the “full meal deal” and was the complete version of the jail’s second phase, which is the 120-bed flex unit the sheriff had long advocated for. 

“This was pretty much Phase Two of the jail as it was originally conceived,” Menser said. 

He noted that in 2019, the cost estimate was about $40 million. It matched the original blueprint from when “Phase One” was constructed and was designed to include more “individualized cells” to meet the changing needs of the jail population. 

Commissioner Carolina Mejia said the updated figures submitted to the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) later placed the cost closer to $55 million. 

2. Smaller 40-bed flex unit

The second option was a scaled-down version of the flex unit. The proposal called for the construction of a smaller, 40-bed facility adjacent to the main jail. 

Menser said this was the path the board had ultimately chosen to pursue before the COVID-19 pandemic halted the county’s capital projects. The intent was to design and build the smaller unit, while also designing the larger one, in case additional funds became available or the need became more urgent later. 

He said the cost estimate for the smaller unit was around $28 million in 2019, plus an additional $4 million to design the larger version for future needs, which is about $32 million overall. 

3. Complete renovation of the old jail

The third option involved a ”complete overhaul” of the old jail located beneath the Hilltop campus. Menser said this proposal would have completely renovated the aging facility to bring it up to current standards and meet current needs. 

4. Partial renovation of the old jail

A fourth option proposed a “partial, smaller scale renovation” targeting only one portion of the old jail.  

Menser said this would have made a part of the building “usable,” without committing to a full overhaul. Still, it would have come with many of the same concerns, including the need to maintain staffing and services across separate facilities. 

5. Convert Juvenile Detention Center into adult jail

The fifth option suggested converting the existing juvenile detention center into adult jail space, while building a smaller juvenile facility elsewhere. 

Menser said former Commissioner Gary Edwards championed this idea and pointed out that “the underused juvenile facility” could better serve adult inmate needs. 

However, the plan failed due to opposition from the judiciary. 

He revealed Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller had submitted “a lengthy letter” explaining why the facility could not be used for adult incarceration. He said the judges viewed the building as being “integrated with their programming” and therefore incompatible with jail operations for adults. 

6. Partial remodel of the Juvenile Detention Center

The sixth option was similar but more incremental. Instead of converting the entire juvenile center, this approach proposed remodeling just one section of it. 

Menser said this would have required “a lot of architectural pyrotechnics” to “separate completely adults” from juveniles, since the two populations involve “completely different management.” 

He said the idea was reviewed but described it as “expensive” and noted it had been part of the board’s earlier discussions when all available options were being considered. 

7. Renovate a pod inside the existing jail

The seventh option called for renovating one of the pods inside the existing jail. 

Menser said this would involve converting a direct supervision pod, one of the open dormitory-style units, into a space with more “single-cell” capacity. He referred to this proposal as the “Charlie Pod” plan. The option had been discussed as a way to create more secure housing within the existing jail footprint without building a new structure. 

8. Repurpose the Work Release Facility

The eighth proposal involved the county’s work release facility, located just next to the jail. 

Menser said the building had “96 beds in there from a work release standpoint,” but noted the capacity would be “much less than that” if the site were converted into a hardened correctional space. 

He added the former chief back then had once been strongly protective of the work release program. At the time, there had been reluctance to repurpose the space. But today, Menser said, perspectives have changed. The program was no longer active in the same way, and some officials were now open to considering the site for redevelopment. 

Fournier revealed the building was still not being used and suggested reopening it could provide a lower-cost way to expand capacity without creating a second major site. 

Menser said efficiency would be a major advantage, as services could be centralized. 

9. Modular jail units

The ninth and final option involved installing temporary modular jail units on the current jail site. 

Menser said these would be “completely freestanding, separate, modular units on a temporary basis to house more people at the jail site.” He said previous analysis separated each proposal into a capital component and an operational component. 

He explained that even if one project “was only going to cost $2 million” while another might cost $10 million, the cheaper one could end up being more expensive if it carried ongoing operating costs. “If it’s costing you an extra $2 million in operation a year, then in four and a half years, you’ve lost money,” Menser said. 

He added the county “didn’t have the operational money,” which is why the modular unit concept was not pursued further. 

Countywide jail system gap 

After walking through the nine facility options, commissioners dissected additional gaps and policy concerns that complicate any long-term fix to jail overcrowding. 

One of the biggest concerns was the rising demand for behavioral health support inside the jail. 

Commissioners said “almost all” of the current inmates deal with mental illness, substance use disorder, or both. They noted the facility was never designed to manage this population without outside help. 

Grant pointed out existing Medicaid and behavioral health organization partnerships that already fund some jail-based mental health positions, and said those should be expanded. 

Discussion also turned to the county’s underused juvenile detention facility. 

“They’re still not utilizing it,” said Fournier, referring to the building’s low occupancy. 

He suggested Thurston County could partner with neighboring counties like Mason or Grays Harbor to “house juveniles” whose home counties lacked adequate facilities. 

Grant backed the idea and noted staffing costs at the juvenile center were disproportionately high compared to the number of youths currently being served, wherein 28 staff members oversaw just eight juveniles. 

County Manager Leonard Hernandez said the board should revisit the juvenile facility question using the same “stakeholder-driven” approach used for courthouse planning process. He then emphasized that without alignment, including judicial buy-in, any plan to repurpose county facilities would face issues. 

He also said future plans must strike a balance between upfront construction costs and long-term management needs. 

On state funding, Mejia reminded the board that Thurston County is in “better” condition than many other counties across Washington. But she cautioned that the county might not be prioritized for available funding, which would likely go first to counties in greater crisis. 

Menser observed that the county would need to revisit “past plans,” build “new partnerships,” and find “a realistic path forward” without the financial tools the board had once expected to use.