Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grant County Council rejects three jail-construction options, pauses new build
Summary
After months of study and a detailed presentation on three options and financing, the Grant County Council voted to reject all three proposed jail projects and delayed any decision on new construction, citing cost, uncertainty about utilities and a desire to pursue programmatic alternatives.
The Grant County Council voted to reject three proposed jail-construction plans on July 15 after lengthy presentations on design options and financing.
Commissioner Middleworth and representatives from BW Construction and RW Baird presented three alternatives ranging from a renovation plus new housing pod to a full new-build projected at $69.9 million. The largest option would have created a 469-bed facility and, under the county's financing model, could have resulted in roughly $138 million in total payments over a 30-year borrowing period, RW Baird analyst Josh Chenock said.
"This is simply not about today's inmate population," Dustin of BW Construction told the council, arguing the county should decide the timing and scope of any solution rather than wait for court orders. BW warned of litigation risks counties elsewhere have faced over overcrowding and facility conditions.
Council members pressed for additional detail on several points before supporting construction: actual utility costs and commitments from nearby Gas City for water/sewer; whether a sheriff's administration space would be included in the GMP; contingency use and how demo costs for the existing jail would be handled. Chenock presented a conservative 1.5% growth assumption for jail-specific local income tax revenues and estimated $4.1 million as an early-year debt service figure under the most expensive scenario.
Several councilors said they were concerned about locking the county into long-term debt that could reduce funding available for other county services and local units. One council member said programs already begun'including pretrial home detention and other diversion efforts'should be given more time to show results. "Maybe next month would be a good time to update and find out how many people are on that program," the council president said, echoing calls for data.
After public comment that included appeals to invest in treatment and preventive services'an 11-year-old speaker asked the council to "please think about the kids like me" rather than building a bigger jail'the council took a roll-call vote. The motion to reject Options 1, 2 and 3 carried by recorded tally (motion carried, 4 yes, 3 no).
The council's action leaves the county without an approved construction path at this time; commissioners and staff said they will return with additional documentation if they seek council endorsement of a future plan. Bond counsel Max Adams outlined the approvals and timing that would be required should the county revisit the project, and presentation materials indicated a multi-step BOT and bond-approval schedule that would take months to complete before a market sale and closing.
The council did not authorize any borrowing or enter into a BOT agreement at the meeting; instead members directed staff and the commissioners to provide additional documentation, job descriptions for opioid-funded positions and updates on programmatic efforts before considering construction again.
