State officials brief Lincoln County on proposed 1,500‑bed men’s prison; neighbors voice opposition

State Department of Corrections officials on Jan. 7 briefed the Lincoln County Commission on plans for a new 1,500‑bed men’s multi‑custody prison sited on state‑owned land north of Sioux Falls and answered questions from commissioners and more than a dozen residents and nearby property owners.

The briefing, delivered by Ryan Bruner, a senior policy adviser for the governor on public‑safety issues, and Secretary Wasco of the Department of Corrections, reviewed the DLR site selection study, utility and site‑preparation work already under contract, and the project’s guaranteed maximum price (GMP). Bruner said the state chose a site the Department already owned after an 18‑month search that tried — unsuccessfully — to secure privately owned parcels that met the DLR recommendations for acreage and setbacks.

Why it matters: The project is the largest South Dakota corrections build in recent years, and county residents said the site selection and outreach process left them with unanswered questions about traffic, local services, maintenance of new roads and the effects on property values. The state said most construction and operating costs will be borne by the state and that utilities and site work already are contracted or under way.

Bruner and Secretary Wasco described the project as the primary recommendation of a 2021 DLR study that called for a modern multi‑custody facility near Sioux Falls. According to DOC officials, the key financial and infrastructure figures discussed at the meeting included:

- A guaranteed maximum price of approximately $825 million for the full project, which DOC said includes land costs and construction; the DOC representative said the construction contingency within the GMP is $24 million.

- About $62 million in prior appropriations tied to land, design and early infrastructure that DOC said have been spent or obligated.

- Utility and site costs the state described as site‑specific but not new compared with other Sioux Falls‑area parcels: DOC reported having paid about $4.0 million related to a new electrical substation obligation, $1.5 million so far to South Lincoln Rural Water as a connection fee and capacity purchase, and roughly $10.5 million paid to the city of Lennox for a sewer connection agreement.

- Staffing and operating estimates the DOC presented from its contractor analysis: a staffing model of 441 full‑time equivalent positions, FY2025 staffing costs of about $36.7 million and FY2025 operating costs for the new facility of about $18.7 million. DOC said decommissioning the older state penitentiary and other reassignments would free about $33.8 million of existing budget authority, leaving additional ongoing costs the department estimates at roughly $21.6 million per year based on its FY25 projections.

Secretary Wasco repeatedly emphasized to commissioners that the state would cover prosecution and inmate defense costs under state law and that the county should not expect to bear direct operating expenses for the prison. "The new men's prison will not cost Lincoln County money," she told the commission, citing state responsibility for prosecution and DOC responsibility for inmate defense costs under SDCL 23A‑40‑6 as summarized at the briefing.

Commissioners pressed state officials on several local impacts and procedural questions. Commissioner Arons asked whether background checks and application details for a liquor license transfer on the consent calendar had been completed earlier in the meeting; county staff answered affirmatively. On the prison, commissioners asked whether the state would build and maintain the access road(s). Bruner said DOT studies and conversations are under way and that, at a minimum, the state is willing to construct, maintain and operate the road needed for the prison; he added that jurisdictional transfers or exchanges can be negotiated with the county later.

Residents and organized opponents spoke at length during the public‑comment portion the commission limited to roughly 30 minutes. Speakers described outreach failures and questioned the timing of state contracts. Examples from the public record include:

- Jeff Bikesman, who said he is a member of NOPE (Neighbors Opposing Prison Expansion), called the state nontransparent and said residents were not engaged before the decision. "The litigation is not done. The Supreme Court has not made a ruling. And the state has not officially approved this site," he said.

- Tommy Eastland, a nearby leaseholder, said he was not informed before the land transfer and said DOC’s credibility had suffered as a result.

- Several speakers, including Mike Hoffman and Michelle Johnson, raised concerns about county roads, township impacts, volunteer emergency services and property values.

DOC officials acknowledged the litigation tied to the site selection (Bruner said the original lawsuit was dismissed and appealed; a reply brief was filed with the state Supreme Court the day before the Jan. 7 meeting) and said they would not comment on litigation specifics. Bruner told commissioners the timing allowed a non‑litigation briefing but that the department would continue to avoid discussing matters that are part of the court record while the appeal is pending.

No county votes were taken on the prison at the Jan. 7 meeting. Commissioners asked DOC to return for further public engagement after litigation is resolved. Bruner said DOC and the contractor would be available to meet with county leaders and residents once the legal issues have been settled and more details can be discussed publicly.

What was clarified at the meeting: DOC staff provided a detailed breakdown of what it called site‑specific but already obligated costs (substation, water connection, sewer payment to Lennox). Officials also said the site meets the DLR recommendation for acreage setbacks and that changing location now would require redesign and likely add at least one or two construction seasons and substantially higher costs.

Next steps: DOC told commissioners the project still requires further legislative approvals this session and remains subject to the ongoing appellate litigation. DOC representatives said they will return to meet with commissioners and area residents after the legal matters are resolved, and that DOT will continue engineering and jurisdictional analyses for access roads in coordination with the county and municipalities.