SB 2015 is the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation appropriation bill for the 2025-27 biennium. It provides a total appropriation of about $492.0 million from all funds, including about $344.4 million from the general fund, and authorizes 964.29 full-time equivalent positions. The bill funds adult services, youth services, and a new-and-vacant FTE pool, while also setting out one-time funding for major correctional capital and operational needs.
The bill directs significant one-time investments in correctional facilities and related programs, including planning and design for a new minimum-security Missouri River correctional center, a Heart River correctional center project, temporary housing at Missouri River, deferred maintenance, software and technology upgrades, equipment, victims of crime grants, mental health assessments, workforce training, and demolition of a James River maintenance building. It also authorizes a contingent Bank of North Dakota line of credit of up to $989,891 if federal grant funding for tasers, body cameras, and ballistic vests is not received, with repayment to be sought through a later deficiency appropriation if the line is used.
In addition to appropriating funds, the bill allows certain department revenues—such as supervision fees, electronic monitoring revenue, commissary profits, offender fines and restitution, and youth correctional center permanent fund money—to be deposited into and spent from the department operating fund. It also exempts several prior appropriations from normal unexpended-appropriation rules so those funds can continue into the next biennium, including prior funding for deferred maintenance, DOCSTARS maintenance, information technology, and the Heart River correctional center project.
The bill’s broader policy provisions require the department to establish a steering committee for Missouri River correctional center planning and to report quarterly on that work, while expressing legislative intent that the next legislature consider supporting construction of a new minimum-security facility. It also directs legislative management to study diversion and deflection centers and to conduct a wide-ranging study of sentencing, corrections, and parole oversight, including the possible impact of requiring offenders to serve 85 percent of their terms in secured facilities, parole board structure and transparency, victim notification, recidivism, rehabilitation, and public safety impacts.
Overall, the bill appears to have been generally supported, with strong vote margins in both chambers, though the House vote was notably less unanimous than the Senate vote. The main points of contention likely center on the size of the corrections budget, major capital spending for new facilities, the proposed 85-percent secured-facility sentencing concept, and the balance between public safety, rehabilitation, and jail/prison capacity. The inclusion of studies on diversion, deflection, sentencing, and parole suggests lawmakers wanted additional policy review alongside the appropriation rather than immediate statutory changes in those areas.
SB 2015 amends state fiscal law by appropriating funds to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the 2025-27 biennium and by authorizing specific uses of general fund, special fund, and federal fund dollars. It also creates a contingent borrowing mechanism through the Bank of North Dakota, establishes reporting and steering-committee requirements, permits certain departmental revenues to be deposited into the operating fund, and exempts specified prior appropriations from lapse rules so they may continue into the new biennium. The bill affects the department, county and regional jails, victims’ services, correctional facility planning and construction, and future legislative study and oversight of sentencing and parole policy.
The overall sentiment around SB 2015 appears favorable, reflected in the strong final votes in both chambers and the absence of recorded committee opposition in the provided materials. The Senate’s support was especially strong, while the House showed more division but still passed the bill comfortably. The discussion implied by the bill’s structure suggests broad agreement on funding corrections operations and facility needs, paired with interest in studying longer-term policy questions rather than resolving them immediately.
The most notable areas of contention are the scale and direction of corrections spending, especially the large capital commitments for Heart River and Missouri River facilities and the use of strategic investment and improvements funds. Another likely point of debate is the policy study on requiring offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences in secured facilities, which could affect prison populations, costs, and release practices. The bill’s studies on parole board structure, victim rights, diversion and deflection centers, and the role of local jails indicate unresolved disagreements among lawmakers, corrections officials, law enforcement, counties, victims’ advocates, and justice reform stakeholders over how best to balance public safety, transparency, rehabilitation, and system capacity.