Jackson County commissioners heard new cost estimates for a pair of new jail proposals as county staff begin the next stage of gauging whether voters would approve one of the pared-down proposals.

County Administrator Danny Jordan on Tuesday presented firmer cost estimates for two options, both involving a 20-year law enforcement tax district covering construction and operating costs of a new jail. One is a $233,740,879 proposal for a facility with a maximum capacity of 776 beds, the other is a $189,593,269 proposal for a facility with a 624-bed maximum.

The new jail would be built on property the county bought in 2018 in north Medford.

Jordan pointed out that both proposals will leave the county in debt after the completion of their 20-year bonds. He cited permanent rate limits set for Jackson County in the Oregon Constitution, which restrict rate increases to 3%.

“I know it’s going to be criticized because, up front, we’re saying we’re going in debt 20 years from now,” he said.

Law enforcement costs generally rise about 7.5%, Jordan said. He estimated that the $233-million proposal would leave the county $9,968,104 “in the hole” on year 21, while the $193-million proposal would lead to a $12,829,669 deficit at year 21.

“It just keeps going further in the hole after that,” Jordan said. “That’s just the first year.”

He floated another option that wouldn’t require a vote, and would cover actual costs: a public safety surcharge applied to every residence in the county, which could be raised or lowered as needed on an annual basis to cover actual costs. He said the county is the only local jurisdiction that hasn’t added a surcharge.

“That’s how the cities are getting around what we’re facing,” Jordan said. “It is the one way.”

Jordan also touched on a criticism he often hears from developers in the community — that if they made it easier to build, the county would get more property taxes. 

“What they forget is, every building they build requires us to deliver service that we already can’t fund,” Jordan said, describing how it averages to the same per capita of arrests if population grows. “It puts us incrementally in the hole to have residential or commercial development.”

Commissioner Rick Dyer acknowledged “a large community outcry” for the county to at least have a solution on the table, but he quickly dismissed Jordan’s idea.

“I’m opposed to a public safety surcharge,” Dyer said. “I always think this is something voters need to weigh in on and do their own cost-benefit analysis to determine if it’s something they will support or not.”

The estimates are subject to change because county staff used data compiled Feb. 16 to calculate new costs to build and operate the new larger jail facility. The county expects increased insurance premiums for the new jail to be about 500% of current costs, and describes the need for added personnel, such as an on-site dedicated information technology technician and a new undersheriff to support the new jail.

The latest estimated cost to taxpayers for the $233-million bond would be $1.5676 per thousand dollars of assessed value, while the $189-million proposal would cost taxpayers $1.3845 per thousand for 20 years.

The two proposals would replace the current jail at 787 W. Eight St., built in 1981, which currently has a maximum capacity of roughly 300 inmates. Capacity is capped at 280 so corrections deputies have flexibility to separate inmates when necessary. 

Illustrating the one-in, one-out system at the jail, Jackson County Sheriff Nathan Sickler told commissioners at the meeting that only 11 inmates are people serving sentences on convictions. The rest are awaiting court appearances on pending charges.

The two proposals are smaller than the $160-million proposal for an 896-bed facility voters soundly rejected in May 2020. Earlier this year, Jordan said costs have roughly doubled over the past four years, pushing that proposal over $300 million.

The numbers were presented as County Counsel Joel Benton begins work with a survey contractor to determine whether voters would support a new law enforcement tax district.

Commissioners Rick Dyer and Dave Dotterrer both pressed for finding out if making land available near the jail for as-yet-undetermined ancillary services would increase voter support.

Dyer floated the possibility that perhaps an entity related to medical detox would be interested, or that coordinated care organizations would have a “vested interest” in being located near the jail.

Jordan criticized the idea, noting that Jackson County Health &Human Services is not interested in having to send people near a jail for mental health services, nor are local CCOs.

“Nobody’s going to want their client to come to the jail to get their services,” Jordan said.

Medical detox requires “hospital-style facilities,” and Jordan told commissioners that it would make “zero sense” for a provider to build such a facility at the site in north Medford because there are no similar resources nearby.

He also voiced concern that opening the door on ancillary services sets expectations for services the state doesn’t require.

“What’s going to confuse the issue is people will believe it’s our responsibility,” Jordan said.

Dotterrer told Jordan that the inclusion of treatment and mental health services is a common question he hears about new jail proposals.

“You could say we don’t have the responsibility for this, but we think it makes sense to co-locate in some way working with another organization,” Dotterrer said.

The commissioner said he believes the survey company is “smart enough to figure out how to ask this question,” potentially to survey respondents who decline either proposal.

“What’s the harm of asking the question?” Dotterrer said.

“The harm of asking the question is creating an expectation,” Jordan answered.

Depending on the results of the survey, Jordan said the county could begin the bond and levy process by the 2025-26 fiscal year, with plans for the jail to open sometime in fiscal year 2029-30.