Senator Kevin Jensen
District 16
It’s hard to know where to start when talking about a proposed new prison for South Dakota. I have been trying to make sense of everything and offering other ideas for almost 2 years now. I believe there are much better solutions than building one massive new prison 20 miles or more out of town. I do believe that everyone would agree that we need to do something to resolve overcrowding, but just how to do that has become very controversial. It seems like most people around the state were not paying attention to the news stories and legislation in the last session because it seemed to only involve Lincoln County, but a lot has happened since then.
I believe a little background on how we got to this point is appropriate, but lengthy. In 2021, the SD Department of Corrections (DOC) commissioned the DLR Group to complete a study of the physical aspects of the current prison system, primarily studying the structures and how they are used. That study was completed in 2022 at a cost of $330,000. There was second study commissioned by the DOC within the same timeframe to conduct a comprehensive review of facility operations within the DOC. That study was completed by CGL Companies at a cost of $166,000. The first prison task force assembled by Governor Noem in 2021 was faced with choosing from the 18 recommendations suggested in the DLR report, 12 of which were specific to the male population. The report did suggest a new men’s prison and a women’s prison, but also included a dozen alternatives that included adding more buildings at the Sioux Falls location, along with Yankton, Springfield and Rapid City.
If you are just now paying attention, the original Lincoln County site selected by the DOC was known to the governor’s office for quite some time, it was already controlled by South Dakota School and Public Lands. That land had been owned by the state for over 30 years and had been leased out for farming for decades. When the DOC selected that site they had not initiated any conversations with the Lincoln County Commission or any of the state legislators from Lincoln County. Everyone was caught off guard because there was no zoning request by the DOC, and therefore no public comment period. A group of local residents formed a group known as No Prison Expansion (NOPE), and they eventually filed a lawsuit claiming the state should have gone through the same zoning process that any other entity would be required to follow. That case has since gone to the South Dakota Supreme Court and a decision is still pending.
The problems with the Lincoln County location are many but the most obvious is the absolute lack of infrastructure. The DOC would need to build a power sub-station on the property and water would have to be piped 7-8 miles from near the interstate. To handle the 230,000 gallons of sewage every day they would have to pump it 14 miles to Lennox. The construction of that sewage line would have to be paid for by the DOC as well. The DOC already paid $10.5 million to the city of Lennox to access the Lennox sewage treatment facility. The DOC also committed to paying Lennox $50,000 per month for the sewage cost for as long as the prison remained open. Another major concern was that the location is on a gravel road. The SD DOT would have to build a new 2 lane, 4-mile long highway just to access the site with an estimated cost between 20 and 30 million dollars. There were also concerns about the increased potential of flooding by those living southeast of the site.
In the 2025 legislative session HB1025 was introduced and would have authorized construction at the Lincoln County location and the spending of the $825 million price tag to construct the prison. The governor’s office knew they did not have the votes to pass the original bill, so they amended it to only putting the money into the incarceration fund and the amended bill died on a 35-35 vote.
During the 2025 legislative session I introduced two bills in the Senate; SB124 to establish a new prison task force, and SB204, which would have halted any further work on the Lincoln County site and freeze any additional spending on the project. Both those bills failed in the Senate but the Governor halted the spending and any further construction, and created a new task force by Executive Order (EO). The result was the same as the bills I introduced. The EO also initiated a request for information (RFI) issued by the DOC asking for input on any other potential locations for the prison. The RFI resulted in several communities and private property owners offering new potential sites for a prison.
The newly created task force has held two meetings, taken multiple facility tours and heard testimony from the public and professionals. The task force has also received many personal contacts from those concerned about the locations and the spending. I believe the general consensus of the public and the legislature is to revisit and consider the original ideas from the DLR Group and those ideas that I have been promoting for almost two years. It makes far more sense, logistically and financially, to add buildings to the four current locations than to add a fifth location. A new location would be duplicating services and expenditures since all the existing locations will continue to operate at least on some level.
At the last task force meeting a number of locations were dismissed as impractical financially, lacking infrastructure and workforce issues. The task force also reduced the maximum price they are willing to accept. A motion was made and passed to reduce the expenditure cap to $600 million citing the fact that the vote for $825 million failed during session and still would not pass in the special session or the 2026 general legislative session. Some potential locations other than the current prison locations are still in play but are losing favor as legislators are looking into the advantages of building in places where we already have space, infrastructure and workforce, all key components to cost containment.
Our system is overcrowded, that is a given. Do we need an additional 1,700 beds right now since that is the projected need 10 years from now? Should we, or can we wait 3- 4 years for those beds? If we are overcrowded now, how do we remedy overcrowding until the new location(s) would open? What is emerging as a practical solution is to build in places the DOC already has facilities, this is something I have been saying now for almost two years. If you have time to watch the video I posted over a month ago you will see how we can relieve the overcrowding much faster and in more locations by building smaller units simultaneously at a much lower cost. https://youtu.be/8mZUR6u4soA
The DOC currently owns 28 acres of bare ground 2,000 feet north of the current Sioux Falls prison location. The DOC has claimed that the FAA would not allow them build at that open location. I have discussed this with the airport manager and that is not the case. It is true that the DOC land is on the glide path of Sioux Falls airport runway 9/27 but the FAA has announced it is abandoning that runway in 2029 and it will become a taxiway. At the present time, runway 27 is primarily only used for instrument landing practice. I was informed that if we wanted to build there it could be arranged. The current Jameson Annex occupies about 22 acres, so we could build something similar to the Jameson Annex on the open location providing more than 500 beds. The D-wing of the Jameson Annex was designed for a second floor which could add 192 more beds. The cost could be higher to add the second floor because of security issues and having to move those currently housed there to another location. Because of the potential higher cost per square foot, we could wait with that option until we could relocate the inmates from that cell pod.
There were other worthwhile ideas that came from DLR report that have a lot of merit. One plan was to build a new two level 200-bed work center (medium to minimum security) in the space between the Jameson Annex and the “Hill,” the older original part of the prison. This unit could also create new space for classrooms, mental health and addiction treatment counseling. Another suggestion was to add a 200-bed expansion on the Human Services Center in Yankton. Additionally, since the Mike Durfee State Prison location in Springfield has such robust industrial job training potential, adding up to 600 beds there with dormitory and barracks style housing seems very logical. One last concept worth considering is to add a 200-bed unit in Rapid City, which would keep many inmates closer to home and families to help reduce recidivism.
The ideas I just outlined could add around 1,900 beds. The advantage of doing it this way is that we do not have to do it all at once, we could do multiple projects at the same time, and we could focus on where we need growth in the shortest amount of time. And by the way, the old penitentiary is NOT falling down. The Hill may not be the most ideal for 800 inmates, but could still handle 400 inmates for many more years. The structure is also on the Historical Register and would cost over $30 million to demolish. I am sure the destruction of that building would create many more discussions going forward.
A major advantage to building at current locations is workforce. It is easier to add increments of work force in the current locations than add another 400 employees at a new, remote location. The DOC already operates at four locations; a fifth DOC site would duplicate most if not all staffing and services. After something is built, we have to operate and maintain it.
I am pleased that more and more people around the state are weighing in. It is taxpayer dollars being used to build, operate and maintain these facilities. We, as legislators, have a duty to the taxpayers do to the best with what we have. As I am concluding this op-ed I just received notice that Lt. Governor Venhuizen has issued a letter formally requesting Governor Rhoden to postpone the July 22nd Special Session of the legislature to allow more time for the task force to finalize their recommendations. I will continue to promote a common sense approach to find solutions to the overcrowding at the prison locations as well as looking into policy changes that will make the prison a safer place for the workforce and the inmates.
