South Dakota House kills Lincoln County prison funding bill despite compromise

Yahoo

22-02-2025

PIERRE — A hotly debated funding bill that would transfer most of the last batch of money needed to pay for a new men's prison in South Dakota has narrowly failed in the state House.
Lawmakers voted 34-35 Friday, rejecting a House bill that would have moved about $148 million from the state's general fund to an incarceration construction fund.
Previous coverage: Could the new SD prison be built without $182M appropriation? 'Absolutely,' lawmakers say
Newly-appointed Rep. Jack Kolbeck, R-Sioux Falls, moved an amendment removing the appropriation language from the bill. While appropriation bills require a two-thirds majority to pass each chamber, Kolbeck's bill only needed a 36-member majority to survive.
The 320-acre, 1,500-bed facility would be located on old Lincoln County farmland south of Harrisburg, near 477th Avenue and 277th Street.
But what was, on paper, a bill centered on whether to move money into an account to fund the facility's construction spawned an emotional debate about the legislature's role in criminal justice and fiscal responsibility.
Kolbeck told his fellow House lawmakers he has heard "a lot of people say we need to build a new prison," while acknowledging the heartburn over the final price tag.
The amendment, Kolbeck said, would allow the discussion on the prison to continue.
"This has been a long discussion for the last many months," Kolbeck added. "Many months that I know, for some of you, it's been a tough decision, and I know for some of you it's not been a tough decision."
Democrat Rep. Erik Muckey voted "yes" along with most of the House Democrats, though the Sioux Falls lawmaker told the Argus Leader after the Friday vote he had "every reason to vote 'no.'"
"You have stakeholders in Lincoln County that, in my view, have gone through a process that was unfair. The inmates that need a safer site, same for the site as well … but you also have a really big problem in South Dakota with our sentencing policies," Muckey said. "Voting 'yes' today functionally transfers funds, but it may send a message to somebody that we're placing one of those three things above others."
Muckey said he ultimately voted for the bill's passage, because transferring the money, as opposed to making a true appropriation, would have "preserved options for the future."
"Whatever the site or selection may be … we may be able to move forward with the project," Muckey said. "The other reason why I voted 'yes' was, in the balancing act right now, I am wanting to make sure we transfer funds, or choosing to transfer funds sends a message to our staff and for the inmates families that we are looking at a facility that's safer for them."
Rep. Peri Pourier of Rapid City was the sole House Democrat to reject the proposed amendment.
Pourier told the Argus Leader after the measure died that she doesn't necessarily believe the state doesn't need an updated prison. But the fourth-term representative's rejection of the measure, she told the Argus Leader, stemmed from what she viewed as the state's lack of rehabilitation and prison aftercare funding.
In an impassioned speech on the floor, Pourier related a litany of issues she believes the state is not prioritizing and the legislature is not addressing.
"Can we acknowledge that we have felony ingestion on the books?" Pourier asked. "Can we acknowledge the lack of mental health facilities?"
There's also a message behind the $825 million prison purchase that Pourier interpreted negatively.
"This is largest purchase … that we're going to see in our lifetime," Pourier said. "That prison's built for 100 years. My grandchildren, what are they going to say about us, when you have the money [and] you invest it in prisons?"
South Dakota Department of Corrections officials and Gov. Larry Rhoden have claimed a delay in meeting the prison's 2025 funding goal could cost the state upwards of $40 million in inflationary costs the next legislative go-around.
Which is why Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, R-Sioux Falls, called on her fellow House members to make a "fiscally responsible decision."
"I think we can all recognize that this prison is going to be expensive regardless of where it's located," Rehfeldt said. "What are we going to spend this money on if we don't spend it on this? I couldn't think of a better thing we could spend this on."
Speaker Pro Tempore Karla Lems was among the batch of populist Republicans who weren't keen on the transfer. Lems, who is in her second term, criticized the DOC's planned prison project by pointing to "unanswered questions" surrounding "plan A" — the Lincoln County site.
Her heartburn was largely focused on the affordability of the project, which has other costs that are not directly wrapped up in the $825 million price tag. That includes the $55.4 million annual cost for operations and personnel services — $21.6 million more than the South Dakota State Penitentiary, which the new site would replace.
There's also the cost of paving gravel roads around the prison property that's not included in the final figure, Lems noted. And the state may need to pull from a $24 million fund to cover change orders to the original site plan.
The Canton Republican also pointed to other states which are planning to build new prisons at a fraction of the cost or at a more affordable rate.
A proposed prison in Nebraska is projected at $350 million, according to a local TV outlet. That's a per-bed price of $231,000, less than half of South Dakota's counterpart at $546,000.
Alabama, too, is also building a $1.25 billion, 4,000-bed prison facility with minimum, medium and maximum security areas, as well as specific cells for mental and medical health holds, according to the Associated Press. That's about $312,500 per bed.
"To me, this whole prison project … I have an acronym for it: CPR," Lems said. "It's on life support."
Fort Pierre Republican Rep. Will Mortenson sympathized with opponents to the bill, saying Friday he would much rather spend the prison dollars in the education sector and on hunting opportunities.
Mortenson, formerly the majority leader of the House, characterized the new prison as "a need, not a want."
"It's an unwanted need," Mortenson acknowledged. "[But] we have the money now, and it is fiscally conservative to set it aside in a fund … rather than go blow it on pet projects."
Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt gave notice of intent to reconsider, meaning the bill could return to the House with some compromises. Tuesday is the deadline for the bill to pass out of the House.
"How much does a life cost? Does it cost a dollar? Does it cost $5 billion?" Kolbeck asked. "That life costs your heart. That's what that costs."
More: What you should know about crime/public safety bills in South Dakota's legislature now
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Lincoln County prison funding bill fails in South Dakota House