Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Forks County Commission rejects state DOCR contract amendment, keeps current local jail arrangements
Summary
The Grand Forks County Commission voted to reject a proposed contract amendment with the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that would have altered how released people are returned to the community; commissioners cited public-safety, staffing and control concerns while sheriff reported more than $1.3 million in inmate-housing revenue to date.
The Grand Forks County Commission voted to reject a proposed contract amendment with the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation meant to formalize use of expanded jail beds and the state’s approach to releasing people back into the community.
Commissioner (unnamed in transcript) moved to reject the contract; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote with one dissent. Commissioner Bierke voted no; other commissioners voted in favor, and the motion carried.
Why it mattered: Commissioners said the county must retain the ability to prioritize local public-safety needs and manage staffing constraints at the correctional center. Sheriff Schneider told the board the jail has increased its inmate-housing revenue beyond prior projections and is housing regional partners, but said staffing — not space — remains the primary limit on taking additional inmates.
What speakers said: Sheriff Schneider presented a briefing on inmate housing and revenue, reporting “we’ve already exceeded” the county’s revenue forecast for the year and that the county had taken in inmates from neighboring Walsh County and other partners. Colby Braun, director of the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told the commission the state’s proposed contract language reflected practical limits: “we can’t… say that a person won’t be in Grand Forks because we have no control over where they’re gonna be,” and the state proposed having certain individuals enter the county facility earlier for programming before completing classification at a state facility.
Concerns raised: Commissioners and county legal/administrative staff emphasized the county’s previously stated concerns about the contract’s release provisions and noted risks related to housing people earlier in a sentence. Commissioners also raised the county’s long-term debt obligations and the value of guaranteed revenues from housing partners; Commissioner Bierke urged caution but warned against discarding a revenue stream if staffing issues can be solved.
Outcome and next steps: The motion to reject the proposed DOCR amendment passed; commissioners said county staff and the sheriff will continue to work with state partners and that housing for state and federal partners will continue under existing arrangements. The commission intends to monitor staffing, pursue grant opportunities for programming, and consider operational changes to reduce recidivism and free local capacity.
Vote at a glance: The motion to reject the proposed DOCR contract passed by roll call with one dissent (Commissioner Bierke voted no); the chair announced the motion carried.
