While the Josephine County Commissioners have only given some preliminary directions to legal counsel for the process of renewing the jail and juvenile levy, in my opinion the direction they are headed is the right one for now. This is a direction that balances the need to maintain similar levels of services for both programs with the desire to avoid tax rate increases in the short-term.
Before diving into this topic, readers should be aware that this article is part opinion and part reporting the news. And I do have a few conflicts of interest as a long-term advocate for local public safety programs. I’m currently the chair of the Grants Pass Public Safety Advisory Committee and we’ve been discussing this topic recently. I also represent a local mineral development company that has applied for a mining lease on a 76-acre County-owned forestry property in order to help the County generate more revenues for law enforcement programs from its timber lands and this lease application is pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed against the County.
Without going into the weeds on this discussion, when Josephine County lost much of its federal and timber-related revenues around 15 years ago, after reviewing and voting on several replacement alternatives, Josephine County voters first approved the $0.93 jail and juvenile justice local option property tax levy in the year 2017. Local option levies are limited to no more than 5 years in term, and so the end of the second 5-year voter-approved levy term is next year.
We’ve been at the same jail and juvenile justice levy tax rate of $0.93 per $1000 of assessed value for almost 10 years now. Since 2017, this levy has provided the vast majority of revenues needed to operate the County’s adult jail and the detention part of the County’s juvenile justice program. Sometimes juveniles commit similar crimes as adults do, and sometimes detention is needed for juveniles that pose significant risks to the general safety of the public through disruptive behaviors.
I’ve heard several law enforcement professionals discuss the importance of correctional behavior at an earlier age in order to help avoid bad behavior as an adult. The detention portion of the County Juvenile Justice building is similar to a jail cell you would see in single occupancy adult jail beds, and this often has a significant impact on youth when their behavior warrants temporary incarceration.
The entire County, including the City of Grants Pass, use the County’s adult jail and juvenile justice programs. And so, the local option levy is for all residents/voters of the County, including Cave Junction and Grants Pass residents. The Grants Pass Public Safety Advisory Committee took a tour of the Juvenile Justice shelter and detention facilities following its June monthly meeting and is planning on touring the adult jail later this month. All of these programs are critical to a fully functioning law enforcement and justice system in both the City and County.
Earlier this year there were some rumors that the County was considering splitting up this levy into two ballot measures for voters to consider – one levy for the adult jail operations and one levy or tax measure for the operation of the detention part of juvenile justice. The shelter side of juvenile justice is largely self-funding, and it’s the detention side that requires operating revenues of close to $3 million per year. Over the years, increases in costs have slightly outpaced increases in the revenues brought in by the levy, leaving a small potential shortfall if the levy stays at the same rate of $0.93 per $1000 of assessed value.
In last week’s discussion by the Josephine County Commissioners, all three commissioners had a slightly different opinion of how to move forward with the levy renewal. In the end, commissioners directed legal counsel to draw up a levy renewal ballot measure for this November’s ballot to renew the levy at the same rate of $0.93 and also directed legal counsel to begin preparing the paperwork for a new services district that would provide for Juvenile Justice detention services countywide. Ultimately, no matter what the commissioners decide, Josephine County voters have the final say and only voters can renew or approve a levy or a permanent tax rate for a district.
There was some confusion when staff cited financial projections that showed in the next term of the levy, 89 cents of the levy would have to go to adult jail operations, leaving only 4 cents of the 93-cent levy for juvenile detention operations. Staff suggested there may need to be a subsidy of $2 million or more per year from the General Fund or other sources to the juvenile detention program during the term of the next levy. Commissioner Richardson asked an appropriate question, and that is how did we go from a fairly well-balanced budget for the annual budget that was just approved to a projected $2 million or more projected shortfall in the following year? This question was answered in part, but overall, not adequately addressed.
Commissioner Richardson also suggested the County take a longer-term approach and begin drawing up the paperwork to form a services district for juvenile detention services. The Community Justice Director that oversees the juvenile justice program suggested the tax rate that would fully fund the juvenile detention program would be somewhere between 31 cents and 35 cents. The County would have to seek approval from the Grants Pass City Council and the Cave Junction City Council in order to form any new services district that would serve the entire county.
In my opinion, there are many questions that need to be answered, and a much more concrete plan drawn up before commissioners should approve or seek voter approval of a new services district for juvenile justice detention services. Commissioners can form a district without voter approval, but only voters can approve a permanent tax rate authority for the new district.
It appeared to me that the confusion surrounding the differences between the current budget and what the budget would look like during the next levy term likely relates to a variety of factors including more conservative assumptions used for the next levy term. A common mistake or rather an overly conservative assumption sometimes used in local budget forecasts is assuming these programs are fully staffed or close to fully staffed each year. Staff is by far the biggest cost in most of these programs and in most years staff turnover or temporary vacancies allow budgets to be underspent by 5-10% on average each year.
Therefore, at times it looks like there may be a budget deficit in the future but once the savings are tallied each year, the budget is well balanced. And 5-10% savings on average ends up being a relatively big potential savings number for the combined budgets for County operating programs that are funded in part by General Fund or general discretionary revenue sources. The difference between assuming programs are fully staffed each year and what actually happens on average each year can be $3 million to $5 million per year in total for all programs that rely on discretionary revenue sources in the General Fund.
And there are several questions outstanding regarding some General Fund or law enforcement revenue sources:
1) Now that federal timber harvesting revenue sharing percentages recently increased from 50% to the O&C counties to 75% to the O&C counties, how will this impact County revenues in future years?
2) Why did the 2025 Commissioners turn down a mining lease application that the applicant stated may have led to as much as $10 million of County revenues during the projected 15-20 year life of the project, revenues that could have been used for law enforcement programs over the next 20 years? [Note this action is pending a lawsuit by the applicant]
3) Are there other County-owned “timber” properties that have the potential to general lease revenues or royalty revenues from mineral development operations?
4) Now that the County’s General Fund balance appears to have achieved a fund balance of over $21 million, how much of this significantly higher carryover balance can be used to buffer “potential” shortfalls during the term of the next jail/juvenile justice levy?
5) How much can net revenues from timber harvesting on County-owned lands sustainably contribute to the juvenile justice budget on average each year in future years?
Until these questions are answered, and a long-term sustainable plan for the provision of critical juvenile justice detention services has been developed, in my opinion Commissioners should hold off on forming a new services district, seeking the approval of Grants Pass and Cave Junction to be a part of the district, and seeking voter approval of the tax rate authority for the district. Presenting the plan to the city councils is a prime opportunity to explain the need for the juvenile justice detention system. Much more work needs to be done before rolling out the potential plan and voters need to know that revenue alternatives have been explored before considering voting for a small increase to property tax rates.
For now, the only definitive direction seems to be seeking voter approval of a renewal of the jail and juvenile justice levy at the same rate of $0.93 per $1000 of assessed value for the next five years. Look for this decision to be on a Weekly Business Session agenda for the Josephine County Commissioners in the near future, and eventually on the November 2026 ballot.