Residents urge Mitchell leaders to withdraw city from maximum‑security prison consideration

Dozens of Mitchell residents told the City Council on June 16 they oppose a proposal that would put a level‑5 maximum security prison near the city and asked local leaders to withdraw Mitchell from consideration.

The comments came during the council’s public‑input period, where residents repeatedly urged elected officials and the Mitchell Area Development Corporation (MADC) to rescind a statement that the organization presented Mitchell as an option to the task force evaluating sites for a private prison. "If this level 5 maximum security prison moves forward, our identity will shift overnight from Palace City to Prison City," said Michaela Johnson, identifying herself as a Mitchell resident and parent.

Supporters of the city’s review of the opportunity told the council the community should learn more before taking a position. Mike Lauritzen, with the Mitchell Chamber and Development Corporation, told the council Mitchell is one of four options and said forums would be held so residents could ask questions. "We are one of four options for the prison. We have not been selected yet," Lauritzen said, inviting people to two public forums and a debate at Dakota Wesleyan University.

Why residents oppose the proposal

Speakers opposing the proposal raised similar themes: public‑safety worries, long‑term economic harm and inadequate local infrastructure. Several said prison staff and contractors typically commute from other places rather than move into host towns; others pointed to experiences in other communities where they said crime and commercial decline followed prison construction.

"Most jobs go to people commuting in, not to locals," said Emily Holman, a Mitchell business owner. She also raised traffic and road‑maintenance concerns tied to construction crews and increased daily trips on rural roads leading to the site. Lisa Bullock, who said she has lived in Mitchell her whole life, told the council the city would be required to provide sewer and water for an estimated 2,200 people associated with the facility and that existing infrastructure was not planned for that speed of growth.

Several speakers emphasized impacts on housing and schools and said the facility could change the town’s appeal to families. "Families like mine, businesses like ours, and even our tourism industry will suffer," said Courtney Denny, who said her home is about a mile from the proposed site.

Process and transparency concerns

Multiple speakers criticized the perceived speed and opacity of the process. Stephanie Gates and others said the public first learned of the project from social media posts and that MADC’s statements to the task force overstated community support. "This proposal hasn't been shaped by residents," Gates said. She told the council to "slow down and make sure everyone in the area is very well aware of what's going on."

Other speakers called on elected officials to be more active in representing taxpayer concerns because the council provides annual funding to MADC. Gates noted Mitchell’s recent MADC funding and asked the council to consider whether MADC is representing taxpayer interests.

Council response and next steps

Council members said they had not yet made a decision and several councilors and the mayor encouraged residents to attend upcoming public forums. Mayor Jordan Hansen and other council members said they were still gathering information and intended to learn more at the scheduled community meetings. Council discussion later in the agenda addressed unrelated items; no formal council action on the prison occurred at this meeting.

Why this matters

A decision to pursue or oppose siting a maximum‑security prison near Mitchell could affect local roads, sewer and water planning, housing markets, workforce composition and the city’s image. Residents at the June 16 meeting urged council members to weigh those long‑term community effects and to ensure broader public engagement in the task force process.

The council did not take a formal vote on the prison at the June 16 meeting. Staff and council members urged residents to attend the task force forums for more information and to continue public comment at future meetings.