Lawmakers press Department of Corrections on man camps, MRCC site and Roughrider Industries in budget hearing

Chairman Nelson called the Appropriations - Human Resources Division section to order and asked department officials about several corrections capital and operating items, including temporary “man camp” housing, plans for a new MRCC facility and possible reuse of vacated state lab space.

The discussion focused on trade-offs between building new permanent facilities and short-term modular housing. Chris Jangula, chief physical plant officer for the Department of Corrections, told the committee the department’s current request budgets five modular buildings for the 72-bed man camp: two would be used as housing and three are modular “shell” units that can be fitted for recreation, programming or meals. “They need to be... self sufficient units,” Jangula said, describing units that plug into power and have their own sewer and fire systems but require site hookups.

The committee pressed whether the modular units would be reusable if a permanent facility were later built. Colby Braun, director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said reuse is possible but not certain and that the decision would be up to the youth corrections center and future planning decisions. “There is the potential…to reuse them,” Braun said, adding he could not commit to reuse without further analysis.

Lawmakers asked about vendor options and pricing. Jangula said the department used Target Logistics for current budget pricing and had reached out to three vendors in the spring; at that time only one vendor was willing to sell. He said the department would seek additional vendors if the request is funded. Representative Anderson and others asked about the condition and suitability of units; Jangula said condition and configuration vary by price and use.

Members also discussed siting for a proposed replacement of the MRCC 600-bed facility. Braun said an architectural analysis compared rebuilding at the existing MRCC site and building instead on the North Dakota State Penitentiary (NDSP) grounds. The report found poor soils at MRCC would require raising a new building “several feet, 4 or 5, 6 feet” to get above the floodplain, substantially increasing cost. Braun said the firm’s estimate for planning and design was about $23,000,000 for the MRCC project.

Braun summarized tradeoffs: keeping the facility at MRCC is operationally preferable to Roughrider Industries and local operations, but NDSP offers synergies such as shared staff and medical services. He also warned of flood risk: “we would be spending $500,000,000 to build a building in the flood plain,” he said, urging caution about siting in low ground that flooded previously.

Committee members probed potential gains from colocating Roughrider Industries and the new facilities. Braun and Jangula said relocating Roughrider would require new production buildings and could affect operations; the department would need to work through those details with Roughrider leadership.

The committee asked whether the state lab building being vacated with the new lab had been considered as a DOCR site. Jangula said the department has reviewed that building and identified potential uses including training, Roughrider Industries space, office space or parole and probation offices, but would require renovation funding to adapt the building for corrections use.

Representatives raised durability and flood-protection questions about siting man camps and the modular units. Jangula said the current man camps would be placed inside the existing dike and “inside of it, very close to it,” while other sites such as Game and Fish property east of the NDSP grounds sit in the Hay Creek flood plain and were not considered suitable.

On financing and procurement, Braun confirmed the MRCC building and other capital projects would be procured via RFPs; the department used budget pricing from vendors for planning and said it would seek competitive bids if funded. Several legislators asked the department to return with more detailed cost breakdowns and reuse analyses before any final appropriation.

No formal motion or vote was recorded in the hearing record excerpted here.