Authorize the Department of Corrections to purchase and exchange certain real property, to contract for the design of a prison facility, to construct a prison facility in Minnehaha County for offenders committed to the Department of Corrections, to make an appropriation therefor, to transfer moneys to the incarceration construction fund, and to declare an emergency.
SB 2 authorizes the South Dakota Department of Corrections to acquire specific real property in Minnehaha County, exchange two state-owned parcels in Lincoln County, and use the acquired land for construction of a new prison facility for offenders committed to the Department of Corrections. The bill also directs the Bureau of Human Resources and Administration to oversee design and construction, requires public competitive procurement of construction packages through the state website, and allows the department to contract for necessary design, engineering, utilities, and related improvements.
The bill makes a major fiscal commitment to the project by transferring $78,778,932 from the general revenue replacement fund to the incarceration construction fund and appropriating $650 million from that fund to the Department of Corrections for land acquisition and construction. It also transfers any reversionary interest from the old state parcels to the newly acquired property, sets a June 30, 2032 reversion date for unspent funds, and declares an emergency so the act takes effect immediately upon approval. In addition, the bill adds a new statutory restriction prohibiting the new prison from being used to temporarily detain non-adjudicated noncitizens who are being actively deported by the Department of Homeland Security.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial: it authorizes a new correctional capital project, changes how certain state lands may be bought and exchanged, creates or uses the incarceration construction fund for this purpose, and assigns oversight and payment authority within state government. It also amends chapter 24-1 to impose a use restriction on the facility, limiting one potential detention function that might otherwise have been considered.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive overall, with the bill advancing on multiple do-pass votes by comfortable margins, though not unanimously. That suggests broad legislative agreement on the need for prison capacity or replacement infrastructure, alongside some meaningful opposition. The main point of contention evident from the bill text is the scale and purpose of the project, especially the large appropriation and the explicit prohibition on using the facility for detention of certain noncitizens, which likely reflects policy disagreements over corrections spending and immigration-related detention use.
SB 2 authorizes a major correctional capital project in Minnehaha County, including land acquisition, land exchange, design, and construction of a new prison facility. It appropriates $650 million from the incarceration construction fund and transfers $78,778,932 into that fund from the general revenue replacement fund, while assigning project oversight to the Bureau of Human Resources and Administration and requiring public procurement. The bill also amends state law to prohibit the new facility from being used to temporarily detain non-adjudicated noncitizens actively being deported by DHS.
The available vote history indicates generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, with do-pass recommendations passing by margins of 13-2, 51-18, and 24-11. That pattern suggests the proposal had majority support across the legislative process, but also notable minority opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded votes are the primary indicator of sentiment.
The most notable areas of contention are the size of the public investment, the decision to build a new prison facility, and the bill’s explicit restriction on using the facility for certain immigration-related detention. Supporters appear to have backed the project as necessary infrastructure for the Department of Corrections, while opponents likely objected to the cost, the expansion of prison capacity, or the policy choice to bar use for non-adjudicated noncitizens being deported. The split votes show that these issues were significant enough to draw substantial, though not majority, resistance.