The Jackson County Board of Commissioners voted 2-1 Tuesday to put off, for now, the referral of a potential future ballot measure asking voters whether they want to fund a new jail.
The three-member panel and other county officials also discussed a proposed treatment facility in the same development to help those struggling with drug addiction and mental health challenges.
鈥淚 can tell you this: we can do both,鈥� Commissioner Chair Rick Dyer said during the meeting.
County Administrator Danny Jordan responded, 鈥淲hy does that even need to be part of the jail project, though? Because we want the votes.鈥�
鈥淲e also want treatment options,鈥� Dyer said.
Underlying Tuesday鈥檚 discussion were the results of an external survey on the proposed ballot measure that was presented to the board on July 23.
鈥淚f we鈥檙e going to pay for a survey, my view is we rely on that survey,鈥� Commissioner Colleen Roberts said Tuesday.
The June 20-25 survey by the Portland-based firm DHM Research included 400 registered voters in Jackson County, who were asked about their views on a potential Jackson County service district to fund the construction, maintenance, and operation of a new county jail 鈥� which would be located off Crater Lake Highway, northeast of Medford. The last time the jail initiative was on the ballot was May 2020, when it was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
The latest survey results showed support for a service district fell below a majority as voters got more information. Forty-three percent of respondents supported the measure, 42% opposed it and 16% said they 鈥渄on鈥檛 know鈥� when they were only shown the ballot title with the question, 鈥淪hall (a service) district be formed in Jackson County for construction and operation of jail with (a) rate up to $1.57 per $1,000 (of assessed property value)?鈥�
Support only decreased when respondents were given more information about a potential ballot measure, which said, in part, 鈥淭he typical homeowner would pay $360 per year, which is about $30 per month.鈥�
Specifically, support declined by six points, to 37%, and opposition increased to 55%. Eight percent of respondents remained uncertain.
Survey respondents who supported a possible new jail mostly cited the need to address overcrowding and opportunities to improve local public safety. Those who opposed the measure said the facility is too expensive and they believe their taxes are already too high.
John Horvick, senior vice president of DHM Research, presented the survey results to commissioners and county officials. The results did not go without criticism, particularly from Jordan, who said it was inaccurate for the survey to state that the land for a potential new jail also has enough space for a separately funded facility for people struggling with mental health issues and drug addiction.
Jordan said that people who are in treatment but not in custody are not the responsibility of the county. Instead, he said, the state is responsible for delegating treatment to coordinated care organizations, networks of health care providers that serve people on Oregon鈥檚 version of Medicaid.
Jordan told commissioners he believed the survey鈥檚 language about a treatment facility was added 鈥渢o get people to vote鈥� for a new jail. He said while he鈥檚 not against more treatment options, it鈥檚 not the county鈥檚 responsibility to treat people who are not incarcerated.
Jackson County Sheriff Nathan Sickler added that while he understands treatment is 鈥渘ot our direct responsibility," the public is 鈥渢elling us everywhere we go that this is a big concern of theirs.鈥�
鈥淥ur concern as commissioners is to represent the people; stay concerned about taxes on their home 鈥� and keeping a home, over a jail district,鈥� Roberts said, shifting the conversation away from a treatment facility. 鈥淪ome may want it, but most of them find it鈥檚 too expensive and they can鈥檛 afford this.鈥�
In an interview Wednesday, Sickler viewed the survey results more optimistically than Roberts saying they 鈥済ave me some hope鈥� of a ballot measure for a new jail passing. The voter margin on the ballot title is 鈥渢oo close, I think, to not move this forward,鈥� he said.
Sickler said even if he ends up recommending the board refer a ballot measure to voters, it probably won鈥檛 go out until 2026.
鈥淚n an ideal world, we would be going sooner rather than later because the need is ever-growing,鈥� Sickler said. 鈥淏ut we also need to make sure we don鈥檛 rush things to the point where we鈥檙e not doing the best job we can as far as gathering information and making a real informed decision.鈥�
