Oringinally published in the weekly Yellowstone County New print edition.
BILLINGS — Yellowstone County may be asking voters on the primary ballot on June 7 permission to borrow the funding needed to build a 148-bed addition to the jail.
The request would not be for an increase in taxes, but to borrow the money needed, to be paid back through future existing revenues.
Last year, voters rejected a request for a 6- mill levy increase to build and maintain a $7 million, 100-bed addition.
The details of what is needed, whether to borrow, and if so, how much to borrow will be the topic of a departmental meeting at 2 p.m. Thursday. The county can borrow no more than $2 million without going to a vote of the people.
If they opt to borrow more than $2 million, the Commissioners will act on a Resolution of Intent to put the matter on the ballot. Last week, they set dates for hearings for public input. The first will be held at 9:30 a.m., Feb. 23 at the County Commissioners’ board room at the Courthouse, and a second hearing is set for March 8.
The Yellowstone County Detention Facility has been struggling with overpopulation for a number of years, but over the past year, despite multi-faceted efforts to reduce the number of inmates, the population keeps spiking above 500. On Jan. 18, it reached its highest level ever, at 514, even though they had reduced by every means possible, the number of inmates, said Sheriff Mike Linder.
The facility was built to house 286 inmates.
The overpopulation problem is especially impacting female inmates, many of whom are bunking on floors due to the lack of space.
In explaining his recommendations on how to finance the jail addition, County Director of Finance Kevan Bryan said that due to limited resources, “we have to make choices,” but he wrote in his proposal, “The one thing NOT to lose in all of this is that we have a situation with women detained in our facility that we must rectify. The sooner the better. To me, everything else is, as they say, ‘negotiable.’”
At the commissioners’ request, Bryan and Linder have been working on a plan to address how to build an addition to the jail, while keeping in mind that Yellowstone County’s escalating crime problem is impacting other aspects of county government, which will take additional funding to address – including the likelihood of having to find court space for one to six new district court judges, and eventually having to add more staff for the county attorney’s office.
Bryan said in developing a plan, it is important to keep the county flexible enough to be able to respond to other future needs.
Emphasizing what the county faces, Bryan said, that to meet all the needs of the jail, law enforcement and the county’s legal system – “and provide stability in our operations for the next 10-15 years” – would require a levy of 15 additional mills, said Bryan.
The chance of enacting such a tax increase, Bryan said, was “ZERO.”
“We hear taxpayers, when viewing all levels of government, ask us to operate government like a business,” said Bryan, “Let me tell you that that is how we approach this.”
Linder and Bryan presented options.
Since adding a 100-bed addition at an estimated cost of $7 million would only meet current demand, Bryan said it makes more sense to add a 148-bed addition, which is estimated to cost $9.7 million. Until all the beds are needed by Yellowstone County, as they almost certainly eventually will, the county can generate revenue from other agencies using them – revenue that will go a long way to helping to pay off the cost of the jail.
Commissioners could fund the facility with $2 million in borrowing, “along with significant contributions from both the county’s CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) funds, and reserves (savings accounts) for both the General Fund and the Public Safety Fund.” Drawing on capital funds and reserves, the county has $11.9 million available.
“There are many advantages to this approach,” said Bryan. “It gets us the space and equal treatment we all want, and it provides for our needs for the next decade and perhaps beyond. It also minimizes our borrowing, and thereby preserving annual cash flow in the out years for operations throughout the county.”
“On the downside,” that plan “depletes our reserves and capital funds. It also doesn’t address other existing needs at the facility.”
A “prudent” plan, according to Bryan, would be to borrow more than $2 million, but to keep the level of borrowing under $11.75 million.
The county has limitations on borrowing, even when getting voter approval.
“We must do what we can to hold the annual debt service to $750,000,” said Bryan.
He recommended that the debt be paid off over 20 years.
“To obligate more would be to restrict too much future cash, on top of the depletion of both operating reserves and CIP funds in our current proposal.”
Besides building the addition to the jail, the facility has numerous other costly needs, including new roof, interior space remodel, new kitchen and laundry. Those projects total in cost to another $9.75 million. To be able to address those needs and still remain flexible enough to address the coming needs of courts and the county attorney, Bryan said the cost of the jail has to be kept under $9.7 million.
In reference to proposals to using the jail in Hardin that stands vacant, Bryan said, “…buying makes much more sense than ‘renting’ in this case. We could send 100 prisoners down the road and be out $10 million in four years, assuming no ‘rent’ increases from what in large measure is a ‘for profit’ landlord. That number will never be less. If we commit our resources to our own construction, then the expense after only a handful of years goes way down. Plus it accounts for growth.”
Also, “this approach keeps us completely in control of staff, of prisoners, of transportation costs, and of programs that can help those incarcerated. And we build something for the benefit of this county’s taxpayers,” said Bryan.
