Grant County officials review $60 million jail design and financing plan; public urges mental‑health response

Grant County held a special session to review a 60% design for a proposed jail expansion and renovation with project team members presenting plans, cost estimates and financing options.

For the record, Dustin Fry of BW told commissioners the design is roughly 60% complete and the team’s target scope fits a $60 million budget, with current subcontractor bids producing a projection of $59.988 million that includes about $4.2 million in contingencies. "We're here tonight to give everyone an update on where we are with the scoping period of the project," Fry said as he introduced the project team and packet materials.

The architect outlined a plan to add a single new housing pod adjacent to the existing facility, centered on a single control point with housing wedges around it. The current design calls for about 348 beds in a mix of two‑ and four‑person units plus dormitories and 12 classification units; the team said certain existing administrative and probation spaces would remain in place while kitchen and laundry areas would be expanded to meet operational needs.

Alex Margot of Amaresco, the mechanical/electrical/plumbing partner, described the base‑bid logic: the addition will include new MEP systems, and the team recommends replacing aging central‑plant equipment (chillers, boilers, controls and terminal units) in the existing building so one larger plant can reliably serve both old and new areas. Margot said this reduces the risk of near‑term failures after construction.

The presentation included a set of alternates commissioners could choose a la carte: a small (about nine‑bed) juvenile intake unit, renovation of an existing pod (including double‑bunking to 92 beds), second‑floor office remodels, lighting and electrical service upgrades, and other infrastructure refreshes. Some alternates are interdependent—team members said the central plant replacement is part of the defined base bid and may be required to support some alternates.

On schedule and cost, the team said they are beyond construction documents and estimated an earliest occupancy in April 2028. Presenters cautioned that a Guaranteed Maximum Price at 60% design was premature and that design contingencies and bid‑phase pricing could change the final number. The $59.988 million figure the team presented includes roughly $4.2 million of contingencies and $2.5 million in design‑engineering soft costs; scoping fees of about $2.024 million have already been expended and were included in accounting but not expected to be bonded.

Robert W. Baird’s underwriting team proposed sizing financing around a $60 million project with repayment from jail local income taxes and expected operational savings. "We're sizing this right now to a $60,000,000 project," Josh Chanock said, and he outlined a timeline that would allow construction bids in early 2026, bond pricing in February 2026 and bond closing in March 2026 if the county pursued a GMP and sale in that cycle. Chanock and the underwriter’s slide materials assumed approximately $3 million annually in local income tax receipts for debt service plus an estimated $1.2 million a year in operational savings from reduced out‑of‑county inmate housing; presenters noted that the savings estimate could vary and that some speakers suggested higher amounts.

Bond counsel Max Adams (Barnes & Thornburg) addressed legal structure and public process questions. Adams said the financing would use a lease‑rental structure with a nonprofit building corporation issuing bonds and leasing the project back to the county; because the financing relies primarily on non‑property‑tax revenues with a property‑tax backup for marketability, he said the project would not be subject to the state property‑tax remonstration process as typically applied to direct property tax bonds. Adams walked through the procedural calendar: forming the building corporation, adopting reimbursement and lease resolutions, a 30‑day objection period after lease execution, pricing and closing.

Commissioners and staff spent substantial time weighing tradeoffs: whether to hold to a $60 million base scope that replaces critical infrastructure and adds a new pod, or to pursue a larger $75–85 million package that would add a juvenile facility and more extensive renovations. Some commissioners emphasized that renovating the existing structure will require upgrading systems to current code and could necessitate temporary relocations for staff, while others said doing less now risks higher future costs.

During the public comment period, resident Ed Downs supported action but urged officials to address the upstream drivers of jail population, saying the county faces serious local mental‑health and substance‑use challenges. "I like your plan. I really do. But there's something that I need every one of you to understand," Downs said, urging diversion and long‑term care to avoid a revolving‑door population that could fill new capacity quickly.

No formal vote on the project scope, bonding or tax measures was taken at the session; commissioners noted the county council would consider related tax/revenue measures at a meeting the following evening and that the board retains final control over bond sale and appropriation steps. The commission adjourned after public comment.

Next steps identified by presenters: finish the design to 100% to reduce design contingency, return with a final GMP and subcontractor pricing, and proceed with the bond‑timing calendar if the county elects to authorize sale and appropriation.