Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prohaska & Associates presents detention‑center needs assessment; Gage County board delays submission pending juvenile-data updates
Summary
Architects who prepared the Gage County detention‑center needs assessment recommended planning for a larger, multi‑decade facility and outlined costs ($41M for a 20‑year, 71‑bed scenario); the board declined to submit the study to the state until juvenile‑holding data are added and further local review occurs.
Beatrice, Neb. — Prohaska & Associates presented the findings of a county‑commissioned needs assessment for a proposed Gage County detention center at the Aug. 7 Board of Supervisors meeting, recommending the board consider 20‑ and 30‑year planning scenarios and warning that small differences in projection methods produce large swings in recommended bed counts and costs.
Kurt Field, principal with Prohaska & Associates, told the board that state jail standards require a needs assessment as a mandatory step in planning a jail. The firm compared linear regression projections with a national incarceration‑rate method and recommended a blended planning figure — roughly 71 beds at 20 years and about 89 beds at 30 years, with a 20‑year cost projection in the firm’s materials near $41 million (projected to a January 2026 bid date). "The needs assessment is state required, among other mandatory steps," Field said while summarizing methodology and the sensitivity of projections to pandemic‑era data.
Field said COVID‑era declines in admissions create large statistical swings: excluding the pandemic slump would raise projected bed needs substantially. He also stressed the importance of planning for peak demand (a "peak factor") rather than relying solely on average‑daily‑population (ADP) trends.
The presentation included other findings: increases in female holds and substantial drug‑related arrests; the utility and limits of out‑boarding inmates to other counties; the staffing and operating‑cost implications of adding beds; and the specialty requirements for juvenile detention. Field said juvenile‑holding data are especially protected and that the firm had been unable to obtain the historical records needed for a reliable juvenile projection without paying a state research office or finding alternate access through regional behavioral‑health partners.
Board members pressed for specifics: several supervisors asked whether the analysis captured the full cost of boarding inmates out of county — transportation time, vehicle wear and tear, and staff hours. Field said phase‑2 work would quantify transport and long‑term costs and produce floor plans, site evaluations and, if authorized, bond‑campaign support.
After the presentation and extended discussion, the board went into closed session with counsel and, on returning, decided it was not ready to submit the needs assessment to the state jail standards board. County officials said they want the consultant to complete juvenile‑holding research and resolve outstanding program questions before formal submission or authorizing phase‑2 facility development. The board took no action to sign a letter of agreement with Prohaska & Associates to move into facility design and preliminary planning at this time.
The county’s next procedural steps include continuing juvenile data collection, having the county attorney review the proposed phase‑2 contract language and receiving a final firm price/scope for preliminary planning if the board later decides to proceed.
