In considering the future of Clark County’s jail, local leaders need only look across the Columbia River for a cautionary tale. The lesson: Any eventual plans must be fully funded and designed to serve the needs of the community 30 or 40 years down the road, rather than be viewed as a quick fix for a current problem.
The result undoubtedly will be a hefty price tag for taxpayers. But, as Multnomah County has demonstrated, failing to adequately plan is even more costly.
In 2003, Oregon’s most populous county constructed the Wapato Corrections Facility near the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette rivers.
Great idea. Except the $58 million jail sat empty for 15 years because the county never came up with money to operate the facility. A year ago, the site was sold to a developer for $5 million, ending a sordid chapter for county government and providing a lesson for other counties.
All of which is instructive for Clark County as the region grapples with the need to build a new jail or overhaul the old one. The jail, built in 1984, has 793 beds and frequently is overcrowded. A growing population means that pressure will continue to build.
A study commissioned in 2017 estimated the county will need more than 1,100 jail beds by 2036 and that updating or replacing the jail will cost between $63 million and $284 million.
That places a strain on a 24-member commission that is tasked with devising plans for the future of the jail. The commission initially expected to have a report ready by last November, but deadlines twice have been extended. When recommendations are finalized in a couple of months, county councilors and taxpayers are likely to feel a bit of sticker shock, but failing to adequately address the situation will be more costly in the long run.
As The Columbian wrote editorially last year: “The current situation is untenable. Providing adequate space is not a matter of providing luxuries or a country club atmosphere; it is a matter of providing the safest possible environment for inmates and officers, reducing recidivism, and creating efficiencies that help lower operating costs. In one example, overcrowding limits the mental health services offered at the current facility — services that are a wise investment in keeping offenders from becoming repeat offenders.”
Therein lies the crux of the issue: A new or revamped jail will be an investment more than an expenditure, and it will be one that is essential to preserving the quality of life in Clark County. Law and order requires a three-pronged approach from police, prosecutors and corrections staff, and corrections all too often are overlooked in the equation that helps keep law-abiding citizens safe.
County Manager Shawn Henessee notes that if the jail is too small, overcrowding will again occur, a situation that poorly serves both inmates and officers. But if the jail is too large, operating costs could be burdensome. “It’s the personnel costs that are truly terrifying to me, at times,” he said, “because those costs will only continue to increase.”
Regardless of what the commission recommends and what the county council eventually decides to put in front of voters, adequately preparing for operating costs will be essential for an effective jail.
Because the alternative is an overcrowded jail that can lead to the early release of some offenders, Clark County is in need of a new jail. It won’t be cheap, but paying for it now is better than paying more in the future.
