Toole County advances plan for new 32‑bed jail; second public hearing set

Toole County officials outlined a plan for a new 32‑bed jail at a public hearing, saying the project would expand the county’s detention capacity and aim to meet current Montana jail standards.

The county presenter said the project is intended "in the best interest of public safety," and that the county has secured approximately $1.5 million in grant funding and allocated about $2.2 million from its existing budget. The presenter added there are no plans to raise taxes or create a new levy to pay for the construction.

County planners showed preliminary site layouts placing the new building adjacent to the existing jail and sheriff’s office and described how the addition would increase operational capacity to roughly 41 beds when combined with the current facility. They described a design using pods and secure corridors to maintain the sight‑and‑sound separation required by Montana jail standards.

Why it matters: Officials said the county is operating at or over capacity and has been relying on other counties and agencies for housing inmates. The proposed facility is designed both to meet state inspection standards and to generate some revenue by contracting bed space to other jurisdictions and agencies.

Key details and constraints - Capacity and design: The plan presented calls for a 32‑bed addition in pod-style housing; combined with existing cells the presenters estimated about 41 usable beds. Officials emphasized requirements for separate male and female spaces and adequate recreation (one hour out of cell) mandated by Montana jail standards. - Funding: Officials said approximately $1.5 million in grant money has been secured and roughly $2.2 million has been set aside from county funds. Presenters stressed those sums are part of long‑term budgeting and said they do not intend to place a new tax or levy on the ballot for this project. - Revenue model: County staff estimated a target contract rate of about $75 per day per inmate to attract inter‑county or agency housing business; presenters noted some state and regional rates are higher (roughly $85–$115 in examples cited) and that in special holding arrangements agencies have paid up to $125 per person in isolated examples. - Standards and inspections: Contractors and an inspection program (referred to in the record as MAKO) have reviewed the existing facility repeatedly; the county said partnering with architects experienced in Montana jails should help ensure compliance at opening. - Space and program limits: Presenters described current female holding space as very small (an estimated 4×8‑ft room), and discussed options to create segregation or short‑term mental‑health holds. They warned that segregating difficult inmates reduces available bed count and complicates operations. - Timeline and costs: Officials told the hearing that breaking ground is unlikely before next summer and that construction would take roughly a year once started. A planning figure cited in the meeting for the 32‑bed project was approximately $6 million; presenters also noted prior, lower estimates had risen as design work progressed. - Workforce and scale: County staff cautioned that larger facilities are harder to staff and retain employees, an operational factor that influenced choosing a smaller, more manageable facility size.

Contracting and demand: County representatives reported interest from surrounding counties for contracted beds; one county reportedly indicated it would seek eight beds as soon as construction starts, but officials cautioned that concrete contract commitments are not guaranteed until terms are negotiated and the facility is in service.

Public process and next steps: The county announced a second public hearing next Wednesday at 6 p.m. at the same location and encouraged written comments for residents unable to attend. The project engineer was not present at the meeting but is expected to attend the next session to answer technical questions.

Quotes "A new jail is being considered in the best interest of public safety," the county presenter said as the hearing opened. On schedule, Tyler said, "not till next summer," when asked how soon construction might start.

What remains unresolved: The final site selection, the full capital cost breakdown, and any definitive bed‑contract agreements remain under review; officials asked for public input on location and noted city easement and height requirements forced revisions to earlier plan options.

The county plans to continue design work, host the next public hearing with the engineer present, and collect written feedback before making a site decision or beginning procurement.