Construction of a new Pima County jail is off the table following nearly a year of study and public input, officials say.
In December 2022, Sheriff Chris Nanos pleaded with the Board of Supervisors for help with conditions at the jail that he called a “full-blown crisis.” Two months later, a blue ribbon commission was formed and tasked with assessing the need for a new detention center and determining how to pay for it.
A public survey was opened by the commission at the end of last year, but responses showed the public was split on three options: build a new jail, renovate the current facility or leave things as they are.
The two recommendations the commission members made to supervisors was to either build a new jail, which would cost county taxpayers more than $800 million, or to spend about $600 million on renovations.
Both findings were based on estimates that the county would need an additional 1,132 beds to meet its needs in the coming years, based on population projections and jail data.
When the commission put both options forward to the board, however, it did not suggest one over the other. In a February meeting, Jan Lesher, the county administrator, declined to put forward either option to supervisors. A second commission was to be formed.
Lesher and the Democratic supervisors agreed that this new commission would begin looking at population-reduction measures like lowering bed capacity and alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders to help alleviate overcrowding at the jail.
Building a new jail is not an option, Board Chair Adelita Grijalva says.
“I don’t believe that there has ever been, and not by this sitting board, an indication that we would be willing to move forward with the new jail or any process to get that,” Grijalva said. “So, a voter-initiated or voter-approved bond. I don’t believe that that there’s been any interest in moving forward in that direction.”
“I do not believe in putting that kind of investment into incarceration. There are so many other things that we could do, that are not being done in our community, to reduce the jail population,” Grijalva said.
She continued, expressing hesitancy to even bring renovations in front of the public for a vote.
“Every comment that I’ve heard has been negative about, I mean, from every side of the aisle. This isn’t a partisan issue,” Grijalva said. “This is a maintenance issue that has just been ignored. And I’m not faulting this Sheriff. There are some systemic issues in how improvements have been made, how purchases have gone through for incredibly expensive equipment that didn’t work or were installed improperly.”
Supervisor Steve Christy, news of the jail being put on hold was “a huge surprise” when he watched a recent interview of Grijalva on KVOA. Supervisor Matt Heinz is quoted in the TV report as saying there is not enough “political will” for a new jail.
“I was not made aware that this was any kind of decision that was reached by the Board of Supervisors ... So, for (Grijalva and Heinz) to state that this is what the board is going to do is news to me,” Christy said. “I don’t know where they are getting some sort of authority to determine which direction the board is going to do.”
Christy, who has likened the process to a can being ‘kicked down the road,’ said that he has issues with focusing solely on reducing the jail’s population.
“Quite frankly, I’m very skeptical of putting a highlight on reducing the jail population, I have issues with that. I believe law enforcement and our criminal justice system have very solid and well-thought-out reasons why people are in jail,” Christy said. “(My two colleagues) are treading on some pretty uneven ground of trying to insert their own personal narratives of what they’d like to see into the operation of the jail, which is not in their purview.”
Sheriff Nanos, whose department oversees the jail, says he understands that the board has its opinions on the needs at the jail and that the matter has been tabled.
“I don’t want to speak for the board, but my idea is that the board is simply saying, ‘wow this is a lot of money, maybe we need to look a little deeper at what we can do to avoid spending that kind of money,’ “ Nanos said. “I hope that (Grijalva) and the board are, or at least looking at all of these possible resolutions, all these possible solutions to a problem and weighing it out.”
Nanos says that a new jail or renovations shouldn’t be a decision left solely to supervisors. He said it should be the public’s decision and it is worthy of taking it to voters.
There are a few reasons why the county needs this new jail, he said, but it all boils down to the health and safety of inmates and the people who work there.
“I don’t want a new jail just because this one’s falling apart and crumbling, and I don’t want a new jail because we’re way overcrowded,” Nanos said, although its condition does have influence on the need. “I want a new jail because this one is not the safest jail, and I don’t think you can remodel it to make it that way.”
Nanos said he wants a jail that uses a direct supervision model, in which correctional officers and staff interact continuously with inmates in housing units, actively supervising them “to identify problems in their early stages,” according to the National Insititute of Corrections.
“When we talk about correctional sciences (that says) the best, the safest jail you could have is a direct supervision jail, and what we have is not that,” Nanos said. “So, if you’re going to spend any money, much less $858 million, shouldn’t treatment be the best you can have, the safest you can have?”
Renovations aren’t going to solve the problems, Nanos said. Without a direct supervision-modeled jail, he likened any future renovations to “throwing a lot of money into a black hole.”
“But we don’t have the choice. We have to maintain that facility and keep repairs up. When I came in here in 2021, we had over 3000 work orders,” Nanos said. There are now 121 active work orders, he told the Star this week.
The formation of a new charter for the second blue ribbon commission is scheduled for a vote at the April 2 meeting for the Board of Supervisors.
