Grant County Council approves pretrial home‑detention funding and weighs reuse of vacant juvenile facility

Grant County — The Grant County Council voted to move forward with funding for a pretrial home‑detention program and discussed whether the county should reopen or repurpose its long‑vacant juvenile detention facility.

At the meeting the council approved an additional appropriation to create a community corrections fund for the pretrial home‑detention program and approved a corresponding $200,000 reduction in the sheriff's general‑fund line for out‑of‑county inmate housing. Alyssa Stevenson, the county probation representative, told the council the pretrial services award from the state covers staff and most costs: “The pretrial services award … was $268,531 which includes full funding of salaries for the three full‑time probation officers assigned to pretrial services,” and noted an additional $75,328 toward benefits. Stevenson said the mental health court grant totaled $56,986 and covers coordinator salary, trainings, incentives and testing.

Stevenson described the home‑detention program as intentionally limited and budget‑conscious. “For the program that we have outlined right now is 30,” she said, referring to monitoring units and the initial caseload the county would be able to supervise. She and other speakers said the county will lease monitoring equipment rather than buy it, to preserve flexibility as technology evolves.

Councilors said the appropriation will allow the county to offer monitored pretrial release to people who otherwise might be held out of county; proponents argued it could reduce jail housing costs. The transcript records motions to appropriate funds and to reduce the sheriff's line, each followed by the chair saying the motion carried.

The meeting also evolved into a lengthy discussion about the county's unused juvenile facility. The chair described the building as an underused county asset and proposed an initial, limited investment to get the facility safe and accessible for further planning: “I would say we need about a $100,000 for maintenance crew to go in there and clean up the facility,” the chair said, asking for an up‑to amount to begin work.

Public commenters pushed back and offered additional technical concerns. Michael Duke, who submitted a written analysis, warned that outside consultant estimates for an off‑site new build may understate infrastructure costs, saying BW’s new‑build projection “is not completely inclusive” and urging the county to require full visibility on sewer and water hook‑up costs before committing more design funds. Another commenter, Randy Atkins, urged the council to put the existing building to use sooner and called the facility “an $8,000,000 facility sitting there that is empty.”

Council members and commissioners repeatedly noted that while the council controls funding, some decisions about building ownership and major capital work will require the commissioners. Multiple speakers urged following proper procurement and budget processes; several asked for more detailed estimates, and a few suggested phased or lower‑cost options (hand‑downs, inter‑department transfers) to limit up‑front spending.

What happens next: Councilors said the funding decision for immediate cleanup or further capital work will be coordinated with the county commissioners and returned to budget discussions; the council set its next meeting for May 20.