Regional sheriff outlines plan for an 8‑bed youth center, seeks surrounding counties’ support

Preston Christie, identifying himself as a Zinkham County sheriff, presented a feasibility study and preliminary design for a proposed Yankton County Youth Center and asked surrounding counties whether they would commit to using and supporting a regional juvenile facility.

Christie described the proposal as “an 8‑bed, staff secured male and female juvenile facility” in a roughly 4,000‑square‑foot single‑level building adjacent to Yankton’s public safety center. The design includes intake and screening, interview/medical rooms, an educational classroom, a day room with access to a secure outdoor courtyard and a staff‑secured housing area for shorter stays. “This proposed 8 bed staff secured male and female juvenile facility is a 4,000 square foot building,” Christie said.

Christie said counties currently send juveniles to regional facilities at substantial cost. “I think right now we’re at $497 a day if they go to [the] juvenile detention center in Sioux Falls,” he said, and later noted the per‑night charge is expected “to go to $550 next year.” He said Yankton County spent just under $300,000 for juvenile detention last year and under $200,000 so far this year, and that sending some juveniles far from home disrupts education and increases costs.

Christie said his board spent about $50,000 on a feasibility study and that the proposed model emphasizes treatment, education and a less‑restrictive staff‑secured environment for many juveniles who do not require long‑term, locked detention. He described operational considerations, including staff ratios (he cited approximately two staff per eight juveniles for on‑campus facilities), the Department of Corrections’ rules when a facility is attached to an existing law‑enforcement building, and the potential for contracted bed‑night arrangements for surrounding counties.

Commissioners and attendees asked questions about staffing, rules for off‑site facilities, how the facility would interact with juvenile risk assessments and override practices, and how costs and bond timing might work if the project moves forward. Several commissioners and county officials said a closer facility could be beneficial for families and reduce transportation time for deputies.

Christie said he was not asking for a motion and was primarily gauging interest; he plans further outreach and consideration of whether the project would go to a bond vote or be decided by the county commission. He also said Yankton may pursue local funding first and avoid state control of the facility: “we don’t want the state to have any say in our facilities,” he said.

Next steps Christie proposed included continued outreach to neighboring counties, further committee work, potential presentation to the county commission for a bond or other financing option, and continued refinement of the feasibility study and cost estimates.

Ending: Commissioners did not take a formal vote on support during this meeting; Christie left contact information for follow‑up and said he would present the plan to his commission and to neighboring county officials as outreach continued.