Commissioners advance proposed BOT jail project to council after public hearing

The Grant County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously June 1 to approve a resolution recommending two BOT (build‑operate‑transfer) proposals for a new county jail and to forward the proposals to the county council for final financing approval.

The action followed a public hearing during which bond counsel and the project developer presented two alternatives: a new‑build guaranteed‑maximum‑price (GMP) proposal that the contractor said "came in under 70 million," and a renovation option for existing pod space. Bond counsel Max Adams told commissioners the resolution authorizes the board president to negotiate a final BOT agreement but does not itself commit county financing; any funding decisions will require county council approval.

The developer, Jay Troing of BW Construction, said the GMP reflects current market pricing and includes several contingency buckets: a roughly $1 million design contingency, an escalation contingency near $590,000, a construction contingency of about $1.7 million and approximately $440,000 for developer and soft‑cost contingencies. Troing also said the GMP assumes site work allowances and noted that if the county selects a different site some site allowances would be adjusted to a finalized allowance during design.

The hearing drew multiple public speakers who questioned the need for a new jail, the total cost, and long‑term operating implications. Resident Michael Duke told commissioners that campaign statements in prior elections indicated the county could renovate the existing facility and that many voters oppose building a new jail. "Representations were made ... that we didn't need a new jail," Duke said. Other residents raised concerns about ongoing debt, the fate of the current facility, staffing and whether rehabilitation and programmatic plans are in place to reduce recidivism.

County officials noted a locally approved "correctional rehab" tax that county staff estimated will generate roughly $3 million per year and which can only be used for specified correctional purposes under state law; officials said that tax revenue and debt service scenarios will be reviewed by the county council as the fiscal body. County counsel read statutory language from Indiana Code relevant to the BOT procurement and explained that the resolution accepts the committee recommendation and authorizes negotiation of a final agreement with BW.

After discussion, Commissioner Stewart moved and another commissioner seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 6 and transmit both proposals to the county council, with the new‑build option listed as the board's priority. The commissioners voted by voice; the motion carried.

Next steps: the board will forward the adopted resolution and the two GMP exhibits to the county council for financing review and any required appropriations. The resolution expressly states it does not itself authorize county debt or financing; final funding approval must follow the council's process.