Episode 6

In episode 6, Toby interviews State Representative, Kevin Jensen, on the proposed $1 billion prison project. 

-Policy changes that put staff and inmates at risk
-Ignoring DLR Study that would save SD taxpayers $400-$700 million
-Why are SD taxpayers being lied to?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
What an amazing place we live, south Dakota.
My mission statement is simpleto re-energize the true
conservative values of SouthDakota.
You're listening to Toby DodenUnfiltered.
Well, welcome to episode six ofToby Doden Unfiltered.

(00:24):
I am your host, toby Doden, andthis is a special week because
it's Christmas week and Icouldn't be more excited.
So, first and foremost, merryChristmas to each and every one
of you out there.
I hope you have a greatChristmas, a great New Year's, a
wonderful holiday season andget off to a wonderful start to

(00:45):
your new year in January.
Now, as promised, we're going totalk to Kevin Jensen today.
Kevin Jensen is a veryaccomplished professional.
He's a small business owner.
He has volunteered for two plusdecades for two-plus decades,

(01:09):
you know, helping with, you knowmeth addiction.
He is a certified NRA gunsafety specialist and trainer.
He wears many hats, one ofwhich he is a current member of
the State House ofRepresentatives and
senator-elect in his districtand will be serving as a senator
in the 2025 legislative sessionand in 2026.

(01:32):
Kevin has championed the newprison issue for more than a
year.
Kevin dug in.
He had a lot of questions.
He wasn't getting the questionsanswered and so he did his own
research, and so we're going totalk to Kevin today in detail
about the new prison proposalthat was originally reported at

(01:53):
a cost of $825 million on someland south of Sioux Falls.
Now there's been reports thatthat cost could escalate to well
over $1 billion.
We're also going to talk abouta DLR study that was done at the
behest of the state for$300,000 back in 2021, and I

(02:15):
think the report was finalizedin 2022.
That report laid out a verydetailed multi-city,
multi-facility plan that wouldhave cost roughly $600 million
but would have built eight newfacilities, nearly 3,000 beds,

(02:36):
and done dozens and dozens ofvery important and key and much
needed renovations and upgradesto facilities all over the state
and much-needed renovations andupgrades to facilities all over
the state.
And so, without further ado, letme welcome you to our guest
today, the esteemed Kevin Jensen.

(02:57):
I cannot be more excited totalk to the individual that we
are going to be talking to today.
We mentioned it last week onour Bitcoin podcast that we were
going to keep it simple so wecould focus on our prep work.
For this week we are going totalk all things about the new
proposed I guess nearly $1billion prison plan that the

(03:22):
governor's office in SouthDakota has been pushing for and
we are going to talk to somebodytoday.
If you've been watching theprison issue at all, you've
heard of Kevin Jensen.
Kevin is an interesting guy andI've known Kevin.
I've met him this year, happyto call him my friend, and Kevin

(03:44):
didn't want us to do this.
But I feel like it's anecessity to give you a little
bit of background on Kevinbefore we get into the
information on the prison.
Kevin is a small business owner.
He's a South Dakota state andan NRA certified firearms
instructor.
Kevin worked for nine yearswith the Department of Justice
doing meth lab training.

(04:06):
He trained first responders andlaw enforcement on meth lab
issues.
Kevin's worked on all nineIndian reservations in South
Dakota and trained tribalentities and law enforcement.
He served on the Canton SchoolBoard for 15 years.
He was a 4-H leader, a deaconin two churches and, as a side

(04:28):
note, I got to tell you he's anentertainer.
He plays the guitar and hesings country and country rock
very well.
That is who we are talkingtoday.
We are talking to Kevin Jensen,who has been championing, I
wouldn't say, the anti-newprison campaign, but he's been
out at the forefront of at leastdigging up the facts.

(04:49):
So the good folks and thevoters of South Dakota, if it
ever comes to that, has all theinformation they need to make a
good decision.
So, kevin, welcome aboard.
It's good to talk to you today.

Speaker 2 (05:01):
Yeah, thank you, toby , it's good to talk to you today
.
Thank you, toby, it's good totalk to you too.
Yeah, I've been living thiswhole prison issue really from
the beginning, and it goes backover a year and a half, close to
two years In fact.
The more research I've beendoing, this has been kind of
going on behind the scenes forover two years, but I really
kind of picked up on it lastsummer and over the last few

(05:22):
months but I really kind ofpicked up on it last summer and
over the last few months.
A lot of things have come tolight that I just that are
making me very, veryuncomfortable with this, and
it's not just the location.
I think it would be hard tofind any legislator that doesn't
agree that we need to dosomething with the prison system
, that we don't have to upgradea number of the facilities.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
So let me ask you this, kevin like I, you're in
the know, right, like you'veserved.
You've served in the statehouse of representatives since
2017.
You are the Senate elect.
You'll be serving in the Senatethe next two years, which is
awesome.
Thank you for doing that.
I know it's a thankless job andthank you.

(06:06):
But outside of people like youand you know folks that are in
the know, I think most SouthDakotans kind of got you know
surprised by the whole prisonthing.
So when did the conversationsfirst begin about even examining
the existing prison?

Speaker 2 (06:25):
about even examining the existing prison.
Well, back in 2021, wecommissioned a study to find out
what it would take to upgradeour current facilities.
We know that places likeSpringfield and Redfield are
kind of running down and they doneed repair and we do need to
expand.

(06:45):
So there was a DLR studycommissioned and that was about
$300,000 the state paid for andthat came up with a $608 million
plan that would have upgraded anumber of the facilities,
including building a new prisonfor $338 million, building a
women's prison and updating allthe others.
And that DLR group study cameout in 2022.

(07:09):
So we've known for a couple ofyears that we were doing this.
The last three sessions we'veactually been setting money
aside for the incarceration fundand pretty much everybody was
voting for that because we know,we knew we needed to do some
things.
It really kind of came to ahead early last summer when they

(07:32):
came out with a set ofguidelines of what they were
looking for for the prison andyou know, a couple of those
things were kind of innocentlittle things like, ok, the
governor kind of wants it inLincoln County and we want to be
along the interstate near anexit for easy access, and of
course.
I was working with Ryan Brunerover the summer and I was

(07:56):
actually helping them trying tofind a location, with absolutely
no clue that they already hadthis school in public lands
seven miles from my house.
And the location near my houseis only part of the issue.
But what happened is the daybefore the appraisals were

(08:17):
released for that new area.
That was the first I'd evenheard of it, and Ryan Bruner
called me up the night beforeand he just said, oh, we're
going to be releasing theappraisal on the land tomorrow.
And I said, well, what land?
I had no idea they'd alreadypicked a site and that's when
they kind of dropped it.
They were going to release onthe next day and most of the

(08:41):
people in my area didn't evenknow school and public lands
owned that because there's agentleman, a neighbor, a friend
of mine has been farming it forwell over 30 years and so it
just it was really, it wasreally kind of a shock.
There was land that we had beennegotiating with along the
interstate that I thought wouldhave if we were going to put it

(09:02):
there and the neighbors were OKwith it and it's along the
interstate, you know, therethere wasn't a lot of pushback
at that point, but it was kindof a bomb dropped on us.

Speaker 1 (09:11):
Yeah Well, you said something there interesting,
kevin, and I want to go back toit because I think it's
important.
So, as a current member of thestate legislature, as one of the
leaders of our state, youdidn't even know that the state
had purchased millions ofdollars of land, and you heard

(09:33):
it secondhand.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well, no, the School and Public Lands has owned the
proposed site since the 1990s.
Okay, proposed site since the1990s Okay.
What I didn't know is you know,I live seven miles away, like I
said, and I didn't know thatland was actually owned by
School and Public Lands untilthat day before when they called

(09:57):
me up and said this is thelocation we've picked.
There's probably a lot ofpeople, I'm sure all the
neighbors over there knew it wasSchool and Public Lands.
But then what they actually didis they did an appraisal, which
is another side issue.
Land just in that same areajust a few weeks ago sold for
$14,000 an acre and $18,000 anacre, but they appraised the

(10:21):
whole 320 acres at over $25,000an acre, which is going to be a
problem later on for taxpayers'evaluations and assessments and
those things.
But what they did then is theytransferred about $9 million
from corrections into school andpublic lands funds and then

(10:42):
changed the title, changedownership.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
Wow, okay, so, okay.
So they already own the land.
But as a legislator, youweren't even in the loop as to
know that they had chosen thatparticular spot to put the prism
.
So was that solely made by thegovernor's office?

Speaker 2 (11:04):
Well, the Department of Corrections, I believe.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
yes, it was solely by them, yeah, but the Department
of Corrections isn't going tochoose that without the governor
signing off, correct?

Speaker 2 (11:14):
Correct If you've been following our
administration.
Not much happens without thegovernor's blessing.
But just to back up a littlebit, I served on Corrections
Commission for six years, myfirst six years in the
legislature.
Two years ago they took me offand it was kind of a surprise.
I was also on the JuvenileJustice Reform Oversight Council

(11:37):
for six years and they took meoff of that too.
So that's why I know these.
You know, I suspect that theseplans were in place for a couple
of years, or at least theexpansion of the prison was
being planned.
But the administration andpeople in Pirinomi pretty well,
I have kind of an unfilteredmouth.

(11:57):
Sometimes I say I have a size10 foot, size 10 foot, but a
size 11 mouth, and it fits inthere quite easily.
I just, you know, I want tokeep everybody informed.
I don't, I don't keep secretsand if I hear something I say
something.
And it's kind of interestingthat whole process of taking me

(12:19):
off corrections about the sametime they were making these
plans.
It could be totallycoincidental, but I doubt that.

Speaker 1 (12:28):
Yeah, I don't believe in coincidences, Kevin.
I want to go back one morething before we move forward.
You mentioned that the statelegislature the money being set
aside the last few years by thelegislature.

(12:50):
Was it specifically forrenovations to the existing
facility or was it just ageneric fund for future
exploration of where thisthing's going to go?

Speaker 2 (13:05):
fund for future exploration of where this
thing's going to go.
Well, I think it started asmore of a generic fund because
we knew we needed upgradesaround the state.
So it kind of started as ageneric fund.
But then after the DLR study,dlr group study, it started
becoming a little bit morespecific and that study
indicated a number of proposals.

(13:25):
In fact I think it's about a 50or 60 page proposal saying that
what we needed to do around allthe facilities.
I really didn't, you know, Idon't think a lot of us even
suspected that that DLR studyand I think I sent a copy to you
that that study would actuallybe thrown in the garbage can and

(13:48):
totally ignored.
And I think the public largelydoesn't even know that that ever
existed.
In fact, I didn't know itexisted until last spring when
Representative John Mills, whohappens to be on appropriations
and he's also a builder and acontractor, and he brought it to
our attention and that's whenthe red flags went up and the

(14:10):
bells started going off and I'msaying, okay, there's something
not right here.
We've got this study that tellsus how we can upgrade at least
3,100 beds in the facilitiesaround the state for about $608
million, and again, thatincluded a new prison for $338
million, a new men's prison.
It also stated in that reportthat the site location needed to

(14:32):
be studied.
And then, all of a sudden, thesite location was picked with no
discussion with the legislatureand we will still have to vote
on that.

Speaker 1 (14:43):
On that location, yeah, but that to me that's a
smaller issue at this point soI'm looking at this dlr uh study
that was done in 2022, uh, Ithink you said at a cost of
three hundred thousand dollars,and in this study it's a.
I mean, it's a.
There's a lot of informationthere, so we're going to put
this up on the screen so peoplecan see what we're talking about

(15:05):
.
But this study that you keepmentioning, kevin, was to
construct eight brand new, fromthe ground up facilities.
That was going to house roughly450 women, a thousand men, in
various locations, plus the 1300plus bed multi-custody
correctional facility.

(15:25):
So, plus, it was going to doliterally dozens of updates all
over the state at differentfacilities and at a cost of $600
million, which, yes, that's alot of money.
But as of now, we have the $500million that the state set
aside, plus, I think, roughly$72 million that they've earned

(15:46):
in investment income.
So, you know, roughly $572million basically enough to
pretty much pay cash for thisDLR proposal.
So what?
What happened, kevinspecifically, and who?
Whose decision was it and andwhen, to say no.
This DLR study?

(16:06):
You know it's, it's, you knowwe did it, but we're not going
to look at it, we're not goingto listen to it.
We're going to build a brandnew prison that's going to cost
probably two to four hundredmillion more and get one prison
location, rather than dozens anddozens of upgrades around the
state.
When was that decision made?

(16:28):
Who made it and who was in theloop?

Speaker 2 (16:32):
Well, what I would suggest is that and I just want
to say on the outset I'm notaccusing anybody of anything,
but when I was on the schoolboard, I earned the nickname a
guardian of unintendedconsequences, and that's because
I was a systems analyst,systems designer, before in an

(16:52):
earlier career, and I alwayslook at everything and said if
we do this, then what's going tohappen?
So, to step back, about thesame time all of this happened,
you know, governor Noem hadappointed Kelly Wasco as the new
Secretary of Corrections, andthat's about the same time that
the decision must have been madeat the administrative level.

(17:14):
I believe that Kelly Wasco wasbrought in from Colorado prison
system because it needed to fitGovernor Noem's plan, and so I
believe that you know, andsomebody can correct me if I'm
wrong on this but I believe thewhole thing started with

(17:35):
Governor Noem having her conceptof what needed to happen.
Now, like you mentioned, youknow, the study, the DLR study,
was minimum medium, mediumsecurity, work release, women's
prison, all of these things wereinvolved.
But right now the focus is on a1,500-bed maximum security

(17:55):
level, five maximum securityprison, and I'll probably
pontificate on that more later.
But we only have 200 maximumsecurity prisoners in the state
of South Dakota.
So why do we need?
Yeah, on average about 200.
Right now we have 200.
Why do we need 1,500 beds,maximum security?

(18:16):
Now, at the governor's addressshe said, well, this will be
medium and maximum securityprison, medium and maximum
security prison.
But at appropriations meeting,the Dunn group out of Texas that
was spearheading all of thissaid that every cell would be
maximum security and a maximumsecurity level would cost an
extra $400 million to make theentire facility maximum security

(18:40):
.
Now, that's on record, that'sin appropriations, and that was
just a couple of months ago.
So there's, you know, I can seethe wheels turning there, but
there's so many more questionsthan answers and that's why a
few weeks ago, I really startedconnecting the dots and say,

(19:01):
okay, what's the real plan here?
Because everybody to a person,except for maybe one or two,
everybody says this makes nosense.
It makes no sense to take thisand move it 12 miles out of town
.
You're going to be 17 milesfrom the nearest medical

(19:22):
facilities.
Lincoln County now has to pickup any fires, which is volunteer
fire departments, toby.
I could go on and on and onabout everything that's wrong
with this, and I often do youknow there's so many things to
talk about but, like you say, toanswer your question, really it
had to come from theadministration.

(19:43):
On Corrections Commission, ifyou look at the state law,
corrections commission says themission says or the law says the
corrections commission shallassist the Department of
Corrections in assessing policyproblems in the prison, updates,
work with the judicial systemto make sure that you know our

(20:11):
laws for incarceration arestaying in line.
And as far as I know, talkingto some of the corrections, the
current corrections commissionpeople, they were just as
stunned as the rest of us with alot of this.
They were never informed.
In fact, at a recent CorrectionsCommission meeting that I

(20:32):
joined online as a spectator, Iguess they were questioning why
all this was happening.
In fact, everybody on theCorrections Commission was kind
of stunned.
And then I think in my comment,open comment, I kind of
mentioned that the CorrectionsCommission really had no

(20:54):
opportunity to say anything oranything to do with this and
Secretary Wasco flat out said Idon't answer to the Corrections
Commission, I answer to GOAC.
Well, that's not necessarilytrue and I kind of gave her a
pass because maybe she doesn'tunderstand the difference

(21:15):
between a commission and anadvisory council and those kinds
of things in South Dakota law.
But the Corrections Commissionshould have been involved in all
of these decisions all alongand they were not.

Speaker 1 (21:30):
Well, wow, yeah, there's a lot of information
there to unpack and I think inorder to begin the process of
doing that, we have to kind ofstep back and take a 10,000-foot
view, so to speak.
You know, and Americans allover the country started kind of

(21:55):
losing some freedoms and someliberties.
It took a while, but inhindsight a lot of people were
able to look back and go, well,wow, we should have kind of seen
some of the warning signs,right, I feel like that's kind
of happening real time here withthis prison thing.
Like I don't care whatanybody's opinion is, I don't
care what your role is, ifyou're a citizen, if you're a

(22:17):
state senator or a member of thehouse, it doesn't really matter
.
If you just look at what yousaid, kevin, we have 200 on
average, roughly 200 maximumsecurity prisoners at any given
time in our current facilitysecurity prisoners at any given
time in our current facility.
Yet we are wanting to build a,you know, nearly $1 billion

(22:39):
prison that can house 1500.
So roughly seven and a halftimes the amount of of maximum
security prisoners that wecurrently have.
Like that alone is that wecurrently have?
Like that alone is so alarming.

(22:59):
Did they think that people werejust like not going to pay
attention Because, generallyspeaking, like and I count
myself in this like the generalpublic, right, and I'm a member
of the general public largelyfor the last 50 years Like,
generally speaking, we go towork, we go to church, we go
have a beer on Friday after workwith our friends and we don't
pay much attention to thesethings, kevin.
That's why we vote for greatpeople like you.

(23:21):
And so did they think peoplejust weren't going to notice and
they were just going tosteamroll this thing through.
Because, on the surface, I'mnot saying whether we need a new
prison or existing.
Personally, I don't have enoughinformation yet I surface I'm
not saying whether we need a newprison or existing.
I, personally, I don't haveenough information.
Yet I'd like to take a tour ofthe existing prison.
I'd really like to do what youdid, kevin, and really dig in
and make my own decision.
In the meantime, I can tell youas an outsider, just looking at

(23:44):
that fact alone tells me thatwe have to do a lot more digging
and we have to talk to peoplelike you you know, one of the
things I've been suggesting isthat if you look at the current
prison system, you know theJamison, you know.

Speaker 2 (23:59):
Let me back up a little bit.
I'm just going to say at thegovernor's address she said, she
made a comment that really,really kind of stung and she
said the current prison is olderthan the state and falling down
.
Well, the first part's onlypartially true.
It's the oldest building, isolder than the state, but it's

(24:20):
not falling down.
I want them to show me anengineering report that says
that the structure is unsafe.
It's not.
We spend millions of dollars andmillions of dollars upgrading
that.
We put in all new gates, we putin all new locks, all new sheet
rocking, all new lighting, allnew cameras, air conditioning a
few years ago.
The facility is as current asit could be for a building that

(24:44):
age.
But that's only a part of it.
The Jameson Annex, which holds745 prisoners, was opened in
1993, so that's only 31 yearsold.
Then we have the D-Pod, whichadded 192 beds.
That was opened in 2006.
And then, in 2020, we spent $8million building a new infirmary

(25:05):
medical unit on the JamesonAnnex.
So the Jameson Annex, even ifyou go with the original 745,
the end of November we only had460 inmates in there.
So we do have, and they moved abunch of them from Sioux Falls
down to Springfield.
Now Springfield's a little bitovercrowded and we know that,

(25:29):
but the numbers just don't addup.
And what I really startedlooking at is the DOC owns 2,000
feet to the north of thecurrent Jameson prison.
We own 28.6 acres.
The entire Jameson sits on 22.5acres.

(25:50):
Jameson Annex type prison,2,000 feet away, which is only
1,000 feet away from the SiouxFalls sewage treatment facility,
and we could build a two-storyand house a minimum of 1,500
people right there.
And that's why this locationout of town.
It only makes sense.

(26:12):
It only makes sense and I'lldrop my bomb right now it only
makes sense if this prison isbeing designed for an
immigration deportation centerthat, as Trump rounds up all the
terrorists, murderers andrapists, you have to have a
place to house them whilethey're being processed before

(26:36):
deportation.
So if you look back, I think Isent you a couple links CNN and
MSNBC, who are no fans of Trump,both reported a few weeks ago
that Trump's looking for 41,000maximum security beds around the
country.
That as they round up the worstof the worst, the ones that

(26:59):
have been released from prisonsin other countries, the known
terrorists.
We have to have a place tohouse them while we go through
the deportation process.
We can't just throw them on abus and send them south.
So you look at the location outthere Okay, so there's 1,300
more beds, so we could take1,300 of them.

(27:23):
And if you look at the locationbeing out, just a mile off of a
state highway and close enoughto the interstate where the
buses could run up and downwithout any threats or security
issues of driving through SiouxFalls four or five miles to get
to the interstate, you know I'vebeen saying this now for over
two weeks that if you look ateverything that makes sense,

(27:44):
that's probably the one thatmakes the most sense.
Because when I look at thelogistics and the cost of
running our current system outin the country on farm ground,
there's so many things thatdon't make sense, especially if
the plan is to keep the JamesonAnnex open, and that's what
they've been telling us allalong.
So, as we, I know there's somuch more here to unpack.

(28:09):
In fact, sometimes I talk forseveral hours on this because
there are so many issues.
I think the smart thing to dofor our legislators and what I'm
asking them to do is just let'stake a timeout.
Why do we have to have thisopen by 28?
Why do we have to have shovelsin the ground at the end of
March, early April, so anotheryear to study this and look at

(28:36):
the feasibility of building inSioux Falls in place, but they
refuse to even talk about it.
I mean, they don't talk aboutthe current location because of
the pending lawsuit.
Of course the group suedbecause they didn't have to go
through the process of zoning oranything like that.
The state's position is thatthey allow the counties to zone

(28:59):
so that they don't have tofollow those rules, and that's
basically what the lawsuit'sabout.
And now it's under appeal, butthat appeal probably won't be
heard until next summer.
So again, they wanted to haveshovels in the ground before the
end of April for sure.
So it's going to take atwo-thirds vote in both houses
to release that funding.

(29:20):
But you're a businessman I knowyou're a very astute businessman
.
So if your employees came toyou and said let's build another
building, we're going to buildanother facility.
Oh, and, by the way, it's goingto cost three or four times
what you think it's going tocost.
But we need you to startbuilding right now.
But you have no idea what thedaily operational costs are

(29:42):
going to be.
Well, what's it going to costto operate that?
It's going to be exponentialover our current costs and just
the sewage system alone.
They're promising Lenox $50,000a month into perpetuity to tie
into their sewage system.
That's 13 and a half miles away.
We're only 1,000 feet away ifwe build right in Sioux Falls.

(30:05):
I've heard a lot of people inSioux Falls, just you know they
say, well, part of it's themayor don't want it.
Well, it's not the mayor'sprison.
You know I've never talked tothe mayor about this, but this
is our prison and we should bedoing what the people of South
Dakota want, not just what theadministration wants.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
Yeah, I mean like, well, we're going to go back to
your theory here in a moment,but a wise person once told me,
toby, if it's a good idea today,it'll be a good idea a year
from now, and I have used thatadvice most of my career.
I'll get you know, hey, let'sdo this, or this seems like a
great idea, and oftentimes ourbest deals, kevin, that we make

(30:47):
are the ones that we don't make.
You know what I mean it's like.
Take the amount of time toprocess it, and if it's a good
idea today, it'll be a good ideaa year from now.
But so so it's your theory, andand and certainly a lot of the
data you know points to to thisbeing a at least a reasonable

(31:11):
theory is that you know this new1500 bed, you know maximum
security prison could be used asa large deportation center for
the worst of the worst illegalimmigrants that are here.
If that's the case and I talkedabout this this weekend because
I had seen you say that inanother interview we spent me

(31:33):
and some of my family spent acouple hours talking about this
this weekend because I had seenyou say that in another
interview we spent me and someof my family spent a couple
hours talking about this thisweekend, and it was so
perplexing to me because, ifthat's true, okay, and we don't
know, but it's a legitimatetheory based on the evidence and
I agree with you that that is avery good possibility.
That's what's happening.
But if that's true, this wouldhave had to have been a

(31:56):
multi-year backroom type of deal.
Because, number one to myknowledge, there's very little,
if any, federal funding goinginto this prison, which, if it's
going to be used for massdeportation, the federal
government should be footing agood chunk of this bill, right?
So that's number one.
Number two it would indicatethat this thing's not going to

(32:18):
be operational until near theend of Trump's term.
Okay, so we're assuming thatthe Democrats aren't going to
get back into office afterTrump's four years and
completely reverse all thisnonsense again and open up the
border right.
And then, thirdly, it assumesthat Governor Noem is willing to

(32:40):
build a $1 billion facility atthe behest of in this case, you
know Trump or Trump's team, notknowing if we're actually ever
going to use it.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Yeah, and I know that's.
You know, that's one of thereasons that it does seem like
this would be a very odd way todo this.
I also have heard comments.
Well, we agree with Trump, wewant these people out of here,
we want to get rid of them.
So why shouldn't we go headaway and do this and I agree

(33:15):
with you 100% if this was goingto be used for federal issues
the other, you know.
Another side note is that maybethis could be a privatized
prison at some point, that weyou know to use an expression
I've heard before sell the bedsto the feds, so it becomes a
federal facility.
But the bottom line is why arethey asking you and I to pay for

(33:39):
it?
Well, here's part of the issueI believe with that is, if
you're going to use federalfunds, they went about it the
wrong way, because to do that,you would have to maybe propose
a site and there would have tobe an open comment period for at
least 60 days, um, and ifthere's federal money involved,
then we've got to talk about allof the uh, the unions and

(34:02):
everything else that would haveto be involved, and it would
really complicate the process.
So, if we can get it built andthen fill it with federal
man-mates.
I guess they could come backand say, well, it's going to be
cost neutral.
But the problem is we didn'tfix any of our other falling

(34:23):
down, the real falling downfacilities.
In fact I'm projecting if webuild this, if we go ahead and
sign off on that money in thissession, they're going to come
right back around and say weneed another $300 million to fix
these other facilities, becauseone of the big pushbacks from
the local people, people thathave family in the prison is

(34:45):
they might have a minimumsecurity inmate in their family
or a medium and we're puttingthem into a maximum security
facility.
Well, I think we've probably allseen what a maximum security
facility, well, I think we'veprobably all seen what a maximum
security prison looks like andit's.
There's no way minimum securitypeople should be in there.
And then what about your work,release and all these other
people?
So you know, you know what I'msaying is a logical thing and I

(35:08):
think that's part of it.
But when you talk about thehistory behind this, if, if we
look back at June or July of 21,when Kristi Noem first went
down to the border and kind ofmade national news that she was
going to the border and then inJuly she sent our National Guard
troops down there.
She's been down there severaltimes and at the same time she's

(35:30):
been campaigning for Trump andprobably in good favor of Trump.
And then, like I say, she senther guards down there three
times and one could speculatethat she's built a national
persona about being hard on theimmigration and wanting to shut

(35:53):
down the border and good, I mean, that's all well and fine, but
if this prison is tied to that,then I think it's a little bit
of smoke and mirrors, bait andswitch.
There's just again.
You know, I'll just keep sayingnobody's come up with a good,
logical reason to build out inthe country.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
Yeah, no, I certainly haven't heard one.
So let's talk about Kelly Wascohere for a moment.
You know I absolutely do notbelieve in coincidences.
No-transcript Like were youable to find or did you look for

(37:03):
a connection to Governor Noemand Kelly Wasco prior to her
being appointed to this position?
Is there a pass between thosetwo ladies?

Speaker 2 (37:12):
Well, maybe, but I think the path would go through
Texas.
Maybe In Colorado Kelly Wascowas.
I think she was commissioner ofprisons, I can't remember her
exact title there, but they werelargely privatizing and turning
the beds to feds.

(37:32):
Privatizing and turning thebeds to feds.
And this group from Texasthat's proposed it has done a
lot of the background work onthis.
It's probably well aware ofKelly Wasco's credentials.
And again, I'm just speculating.
You know, there's so many thingsthat have been happening
through Texas over the last twoor three years that possibly she

(37:55):
was introduced to somebody thatcould come in and do this.
We've gone through several or acouple of wardens in the
meantime and one of the previouswardens told me that he was
just called up relatively out ofthe blue and said we don't need
your services anymore, we'regoing in a different direction,

(38:17):
you know.
And then the last warden thatwe had was pretty much shown the
door, also without much fanfareor knowing exactly why.
I'm just I'm speculating thatthey were pushing back and
saying we don't need to do thisand then they were replaced.

(38:37):
And again, historically there'sbeen some individuals that have
been involved with the Normanadministration excuse me, that
did push back a little bit andthey were replaced.
You know and that's an observersaying this, but it sure

(38:59):
appears that way, and I won'tname names, but it just seems
like that there's a plan by thegovernor and it's going to
happen and I think SecretaryWasco was just the right person
to bring in to do this becauseof the background that she has.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
Yeah, real quick, I've got something specifically
I want to ask you, but you justsaid something that I think
bears delving into a little whenyou said it appears from your
perspective that dissenters ofGovernor Noem's agenda seem to

(39:39):
just kind of get pushed to thewayside.
Right Like, she came out with abook earlier this year that she
is mostly recovered from, butit was disastrous.
Right, you know there was.
You know that she had shot herdog and all this stuff.
And when you sat down andrealize how many levels of
people that had to go throughthe sign off on that book, right
Like, I mean dozens of peopleall of it.

(40:01):
So, like, right there, thattells you that she is surrounded
by yes, people.
Because if she had any strong,independent people on her
leadership team, they would havesaid Christy, like, you can't
put this in the book, people aregoing to be furious.
But anybody that tries to talkagain this is as an outsider.
I don't know her personally.

(40:22):
I'm just telling you whatpeople have told me that if she
wants to hear you say, yes,madam Governor, that's a great
idea, let's do that.
And people that say otherwise,they either get shoved out of
the inner circle or they losetheir job altogether.
So let me transition back toKelly Wasco quick.

(40:42):
So Wasco was hired in 2022.
A simple Google search, whichI'm not going to get into the
details, but she's had somelegal issues in the past.
You can search Oakley versusRamish.
It's a 2014 case some prettyserious allegations.
She then shows up in SouthDakota in 2022.
And ever since she's been here.

(41:04):
If you Google Kelly Wasco, itisy.
After controversy, there areDepartment of Correction
employees, even high-ranking DOCemployees, that have not only
questioned her leadership, buthave overtly questioned her
leadership so far as to accuseher of loosening and weakening

(41:28):
specific policies at the prisonto get a desired outcome of
chaos to build momentum for thenew prison.
Can you speak on behalf of that, kevin?
Did you dig into any of that?

Speaker 2 (41:43):
Absolutely, absolutely.
I can speak to that.
I have spoken with numerous,numerous corrections officials,
former wardens and inmates thathave come out since she came in.
We don't, I guess, to put itbluntly, we don't need a new

(42:06):
prison as much as we need to goback to our previous policy
decisions.
It's been policy decisions thathave created the chaos
decisions.
It's been policy decisions thathave created the chaos.
Just for an example, you know,in appropriation she says we're
fully staffed, but I believethey've already run out of
overtime for the whole yearcoming up.

(42:27):
We've already run out ofovertime.
So what happened in one of theearly policy changes was that
where four guards were needed orrequired by previous policy on
a certain post, they reduced itto two.
Where there was two guards orofficers involved or should be
involved, they reduced it to one.
We had one guard beaten almostto death by a couple of inmates

(42:53):
and there was a lawsuit thatactually came Finally.
Actually, those two inmateswere arrested for attempted
murder and this fall they wereconvicted of attempted murder of
this young man.
In July one of our I'll callhim one of our early
whistleblowers that came out andsaid these policies are going

(43:13):
to get somebody hurt.
Well, he got jumped in June orJuly, hospitalized.
That one never even made thenews and then he received a
settlement and part of thatsettlement according to him and
I haven't had a chance to factcheck it, but according to him.
I told him he couldn't go tothe media about this.

(43:33):
But yeah, I've had, I know.
As I was knocking on doorscampaigning around the district
I talked to a number ofofficials that work in the
prison and they all said thesame thing.
It appears that the policychanges are designed to get
somebody hurt and I hate theymake that accusation because it

(43:55):
it just.
It's so not humanistic.
I mean, it's not not what aChristian would do, I mean.
So part of me just says thatcan't be true.
But but on the other hand it ishappening.
And then when we look at they,they moved a bunch of prisoners
from Sioux Falls down toSpringfield, which created a

(44:18):
significant overcrowding.
But what they moved down there?
According to the officers andaccording to some other staff
they moved and from familymembers, from the people in
Springfield, inmates inSpringfield.
They moved a bunch of gangmembers down there and then
shortly afterwards we saw thoseriots in Springfield and the
people, the prisoners that hadbeen there on, you know, minimum

(44:41):
security, medium security, werescared to death to even come
out of the rooms because thegangs were taking over.
But of course, you knowcorrections won't talk about any
of this.
You know they keep hidingbehind that lawsuit and I hate
to say they're hiding behind it,but they definitely won't talk
about the location.
But you know I hear these littlethings all the time, that, like

(45:04):
even in appropriations that youknow, she says they're fully
staffed.
And again, I'll go back tobeing a.
You're a business person.
Let's say you have a restaurantand it takes three fry cooks to
run a 24-hour shift, but youcan never fill that third spot.
So you reduce your policy tosay, okay, we're going to have
two to run 12-hour shifts, nowI'm fully staffed.

(45:25):
And that's what I believehappened is we reduced the
number of people on post thatshould be there to the ones that
we have.
And then we can say we're fullystaffed and I, you know I
invite them to come back andtell me I'm absolutely wrong on
this.
You know, I'd love them to showme proof that we are fully
staffed and that we have safeworking conditions, but people

(45:48):
on the inside are saying thatit's dangerous.
We have people now that eventhe ones that work there that
don't feel safe there, and whenwe you know, we have a former
warden that used to go down andhave lunch with the inmates and
walk around and never had a fearof anything, and now all of a
sudden, everybody's afraid to bein there.

(46:09):
So again it comes back down.
It's all policy change that'scausing all this, and one of the
things I'm asking for is againa timeout and then reverting our
policies back to where we wereand let's figure this thing out.
I hate to say it, but somebodymight get killed, and if we're

(46:32):
creating a dangerous situationto say this is why we need a new
prison, and if we're creating adangerous situation to say this
is why we need a new prisonit's all smoke and mirrors it is
because we, the D.
I'll just go back one stepfurther here.
I talked about the D wing, the Dpod, which was added in 2006.
It was designed to add a secondfloor.
In fact, kelly Wasco flat outdenied it, denied it, denied it

(46:59):
for months and finally I hadsomebody on the inside say, yes,
it was because there's a spacethat's left for an elevator.
There's no elevator shaft butthere's a space for it and
they're using it for sportinggoods storage right now.
And then we got a hold of thedesigner, the engineers, and
they said yes, absolutely, itwas designed for a second floor,
but she's.
And then finally she had toadmit that it was.

(47:21):
But now she's saying that theFAA would have to approve it.
Now there's no way those planswere approved, you know, 18
years ago, if FAA hadn't beenNow I'm a pilot, I've flown in
on that, I've been on that glidepath many times that building
could handle a second floor andstill be way out.

(47:42):
The new site.
The site 2,000 feet away is wayoff the glide path and there's
already buildings out there,already taller than that.
We did have one of our membersin the Lincoln County group down
here contact one of thesupervisors for FAA and they
said, well, nobody's comeforward and even asked.
And if they did, that decisioncould be made within 60 days.

(48:04):
But I'm absolutely convinced Iknow enough about TCAs, terminal
control areas, and that I knowenough to know that it would not
be a problem on that glide pathand it's far enough off that
the total height of thatbuilding would not be a problem
on that glide path and it's farenough off that the height, the
total height of that building,would still be less than the
current prisons, the old portionof the prison.
So I know I rambled on a littlebit about that, but there's so

(48:27):
much here to unpack that Ididn't even know yeah sometimes
I don't even know where to startand stop yeah, the faa stuff is
just nonsense.

Speaker 1 (48:34):
We fly into that airport all the time too, and I
mean there's towers and all.
It's absurd that adding another15 or 20 feet to the top of a
building is somehow going tomake it dangerous for incoming
flights.
So what really caught myattention on this story, kevin,
and again, man, thank you somuch.
Nobody in the state has evenscratched the surface of what

(48:58):
you've been able to uncover andI'm hoping that you, coming on
here today, you know we've beenaveraging, you know, roughly
about 400,000 listens or viewsper month and almost exclusively
those are in South Dakota.
So we have a really bigfootprint here.
I think we had 150,000engagements on social media from

(49:21):
our Bitcoin episode.
So I'm really hoping that we'reable to put the information
that you put the hard work in todig up and we're able to lay
that out in front of folksaround the state so they can
kind of make up their own mind.
But as a developer, we look at,I look at projects all the time

(49:41):
Like this is one of my careers.
So you know, we, you know, hey,you know we want to expand, we
want to buy more property, wewant to build more apartment
complexes, all this kind ofstuff.
So we go look like what are theavailable projects there that I
can get involved with.
So we go look like what are theavailable projects there that I
can get involved with.
And, without exception, Ialways, if there's a choice, I
will always look for a projectof a preexisting condition.

(50:02):
My infrastructure is there.
I'm in a, I'm in a betterneighborhood almost always.
Like all the new construction,you know they go out of town.
You know Aberdeen's buildingapartments way on the north side
of town, basically in thecountry, but you know they keep
annexing more and more so theycan build these homes and they
put the apartment buildings outthere Like we buy apartment

(50:22):
buildings.
In fact, we're doing a largecomplex right now.
It's like a multi-block complexof apartment buildings that
were built right after World WarII.
Kevin, these things were builtlike fortresses Concrete walls,
concrete floor, concretereinforced concrete footings
about twice what you would seetoday.

(50:43):
And everybody in town, like alot of the developers like Toby,
just tear it down, start over.
Why would I tear down a rocksolid group of buildings when I
can completely renovate theminto new like properties and
keep the existing location andkeep the infrastructure?

(51:03):
It saved me millions of dollars.
And when I looked at thisproject, kevin, I'm like there
is nobody on planet earth thatis going to convince me that
abandoning what you've done atthat prison the last 30 or 40
years.
You mentioned a lot of the newfacilities that have been built
in the last 30 years.
You mentioned a lot of theupdates that have been done to

(51:24):
the existing facilities.
There is not a private sectordeveloper that I've ever met
that would look and sit down atthis project and think, oh yeah,
let's just kick everythingwe've done the last four decades
to the curb and go start fromscratch.
It's a losing proposition for afor-profit developer and this

(51:51):
is, I guess, why people hategovernment so much is because
government entities, generallyspeaking, have this attitude
that they are above reproach andit doesn't have to make fiscal
sense in order to do something.
Well, I am the opposite of that.
I think government should berun like a business.

(52:11):
I think government should beable to sit down and go here's
how much money we have to spend,here's our bills, and their
goal should be to have moremoney left over after they pay
their bills, like that, like.
To me that just seems likecommon sense.
So like what?
What feedback have you gotten,generally speaking, kevin, from
from your constituents as towhether they would like to see

(52:34):
the prison stay in its currentlocation and be renovated,
versus the new prison south ofSt Paul's?

Speaker 2 (52:42):
Well, in Lincoln County, almost to a person.
Like I say, I've only talked toone person.
That's absolutely all in forthe new prison.
But, like you said, a lot ofour legislators are farmers,
they're ranchers, they'rebusiness people.
They're business people.
Like you said, a lot of ourlegislators are farmers or
ranchers.
They're business people.
They're business people.
You know, like you, and for themto vote for this, as you well

(53:04):
stated, it makes no sense.
You know, you mentionedinfrastructure From day one.
When they told me that this wasgoing to be out in the middle
of Lincoln County, I said butthere's nothing there.
There's no infrastructure.
It's going to take.
Well, the original proposalsaid 150,000 gallons of water a
day.
Well, now, the most recentproposal is it's going to be

(53:24):
250,000 gallons of water usedfrom our local water system
every day and 223,000 gallons ofsewage being pumped over to
Lenox.
But the nearest water line thatwe could tap into is southeast

(53:45):
water and I believe it's goingto be about seven or eight miles
of pipeline to run the waterover there.
There's no infrastructure there.
We are going to have to runsome major, major power lines
over there that are not therenow.
And then, one of the things Iknow they wanted to put in
geothermal.
They've already done some ofthe geothermal testing, but you

(54:08):
still have to have a natural gaspipeline and nobody's even
talked yet about where they'regoing to tap into that and how
much that's going to cost.
But we're talking about are wegoing to be using eminent domain
or are we going to be runningalong the roads and the easement
areas?
None of that's even laid out.
Maybe they have plans for that,but virtually nobody in the

(54:31):
county has seen those.
I don't think even the LincolnCounty commissioners have seen
these.
In fact, to go back way to theback to the beginning, most of
the Lincoln County commissionerswere telling me they were left
in the dark too.
They didn't know this was thisproposed site was going to
happen until it actually did.
But you're right, it makes froma business standpoint it's

(54:54):
almost ludicrous because again,we have idea and they will not
even give us a proposed dailyoperational increase or cost.
Basically they said, well, wemight know in January, but they
want us to vote for it, probablyin January.
And I tell you what.
It makes no sense and what Idon't understand is how many

(55:18):
people are good business peoplethey're good people in the
legislature and how they wouldeven consider voting for this,
not having any idea what theramifications are going to be
and the total operational costs.
And you know we could go backover.
You know the Senate Bill 201 andthe RL21 debacle and why so

(55:43):
many of those people that votedfor it are not there anymore,
because it was to me, it was abad business decision to
undermine the people.
When we start undermining thepeople, our constituents, we
deserve to be gone.
We deserve to be gone andnobody in my, all my
constituents, you know everythere isn't a day goes by.

(56:04):
I'm not in town or any area andsomebody isn't thanking me for
bringing all of this to thefront, because it's not just a
horrible location as far asdestroying land values and
everything within 10 miles of itand especially for those that
live close.
But this isn't a four-yearproject.

(56:25):
This is a 100-year project andthis thing isn't going to be
there for four years and go away.
It's going to be there for mostof our life.
Well, it'll be there all of mylifetime and probably my kids'
lifetime, most of our life.
Well, it'll be there all of mylifetime and probably my kids'
lifetime.

(57:02):
No-transcript.
So it will have an impact andthe other thing that nobody's
really just one more thing thatnobody really seems to be
focusing on is you can't build apresent out in the middle of
nowhere for 1,500 people 400, Imean 400 support staff,
basically a small town of 2,000people, and not expect that

(57:24):
there's going to be hotels andgas stations and everything
popping up around it, which willreally really be totally
disruptive to Worthing,harrisburg and Canton, really be
totally disruptive to Worthing,harrisburg and Canton or any
future development.
We elect our countycommissioners to protect us from

(57:47):
urban sprawl and to make surethat everything makes sense when
it gets built.
And this just all of a sudden,it just throws a wrench into
everything for the next 50 yearsfor Lincoln County.

Speaker 1 (57:55):
Yeah, the landowner thing, Kevin, is a great point,
because the landowners are goingto get screwed two ways.
One, their assessments aregoing to go up, leading to
higher taxes, but conversely,the actual value of the property
is going to decrease, becausepeople aren't going to want to
buy property right next to theprison.
It's like the double-edgedsword for the landowners.

(58:15):
You mentioned the statelegislature Again.
This isn't fact and I want tomake sure people understand that
this is my opinion based onwhat I know and what I have read
, and certainly what Kevin hasshared today.
The leadership of thelegislature changed 180 degrees

(58:37):
going into the 2025 session, andI think most people watching
this probably already know this.
But we had every singlelegislature leadership position
changed from the 2024legislation session to the 2025
upcoming session.

(58:57):
Why?
Because of who was and who wasnot elected in the June primary
and the November generalelection.
So we have a far moreconservative group of leaders in
the state legislature than wehad in prior years.
I can only assume, Kevin, thatthe governor's office and the

(59:19):
governor's team, when theylooked at the prior leadership
team in the legislature who wereall very close confidants to
the governor's office, that'swell known they didn't
anticipate any issues withgetting the two-thirds vote
needed to get this extra fundingfor the prison?

(59:42):
Is that a safe assumption thatGovernor Noem thought she was
going to walk through this votein the upcoming session because
of the existing leadership andthen, of course, found out this
year that we have all newconservative leadership and it
would seem to me gettingtwo-thirds of the vote in
January is going to beimpossible and this project's

(01:00:04):
going to stall.

Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
I agree.
I think and I hate to go backto it, but I think it was Senate
Bill 201 that really made thedeciding factor and the use of
eminent domain and the use ofcarboninent domain and the use
of carbon summit solutions justwalking on people's rights was
very, very frustrating to a lotof people.
It brought a lot ofconservative people that believe

(01:00:29):
in the state and they believein people's rights because we
all work for them in people'srights, because we all work for
them.
You know we don't work.
I should say the people don'twork for our legislature.
The legislature works for thepeople and I think the unswell

(01:00:52):
of putting conservatives in ifyou look back at the primary
vote, I think almost to a person.
The ones that were lost intheir primaries voted for Senate
Bill 201, which was tobasically thumb their nose at
people's rights, and I thinkyour assertion is probably
correct that the governorthought she was going to keep
those same people and she wouldhave her two-thirds.

(01:01:15):
I think the two-thirds rightnow in the Senate is extremely
questionable.
I've talked to a lot of senatorsand incoming senators and they
all you know, as I talk to them,you know this isn't a vendetta
against the administration?
By all means, it's not.
I'm not out after anybody.
What I'm out after is commonsense, what makes sense.

(01:01:39):
And no matter how many times Itwist this and turn it, I cannot
make that location make sense.
And I think it's the same istrue with a lot of new
legislators.
What really has been very, Iguess, invigorating for me is
how many West River legislators,even though it's not in their

(01:02:01):
backyard you know, nimby, not inmy backyard Even though it's
not in their backyard, theyunderstand that it still has to
make fiscal sense.
And that's where I think wehave a lot of new people.
You know, we have a lot ofpeople that are realtors and
business owners and ranchers,and they all know that they have

(01:02:22):
to make a balance sheet work intheir own life.
We need to make a balance sheetwork here, and I think in the
house they're going to have ahard time getting it through
there, I think, unless theystart negotiating with people
and I hate to use that word, butif less, you know, if the
administration startsnegotiating with legislators and

(01:02:44):
I think you know what I mean bythat um, I think it's going to
be a very, very hard sell to geta two-thirds majority in the
senate.
Um, I will say this I'm.
My guessing from a tacticalstandpoint is they'll probably
the other vote that has tohappen is to approve the
location.
Now, location will only take asimple majority.

(01:03:04):
So if they run the bill for thelocation first, it does
complicate things a little bit,but then any bill can be amended
, any bill can be.
You know, we can, we can bringany bill back up and amend or or
or repeal it.
But that would be my guess onthe tactical side that that's

(01:03:25):
what they would do.
But I think, when it comes downto I, I I've talked to
legislators that think, well,this vote's going to happen in
the first week.
And then I talked to otherlegislators that say this is
going to drag on all out, toright to the last minute, to the
last day of session, and I'mkind of leaning more to the

(01:03:45):
latter that it will drag onthrough the whole session, but
right now, and one of thereasons for that would be that
maybe they can convince a coupleof these people to change their
votes in the meantime.

Speaker 1 (01:03:54):
So let's talk about the people here.
One real quick.
Have you seen any polling?
Has anybody done any polling inthe state of South Dakota to
find out what the majority ofresidents or how they feel about
the stupid prison project?

Speaker 2 (01:04:13):
I have not seen any.
But one thing I know aboutpolling is you can.
You know.
I had a financial guy tell meone time when I was in work at
the corporate level.
He said don't tell me how muchmoney you want to make, just
tell me how much you want tospend, or something like that.

(01:04:33):
How much you want to spend orsomething like that.
To that is basically you can.
You can make any.
You can make any survey work inyour advantage, based on the
questions and who you call.
We all know.
You know like at thepresidential elections they they
tend to lean heavily in callingdemocrat districts, so their
surveys are skewed if it dependson how you frame that question.
If you call people and say doyou want to deport people, well

(01:04:57):
sure they're going to say yes,let's build something.
They're going to say.
If we're going to say do youwant to build a prison, not
having any idea what it's goingto cost, I think the average
South Dakotan would say no.
So again, I haven't heard of asurvey.
I'd be really skeptical.

Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
I'd want to know the questions.
Yeah, that's a good point aboutpolling, so let me just ask you
the same question a differentway.
You've been at the forefront ofthis.
You've talked to people allover the state.
Is it your opinion that themajority of residents are likely
not for the new prison or, atthe very least, would like to

(01:05:35):
see more research done on theexisting facility?

Speaker 2 (01:05:40):
It's kind of a loaded question because I think, as
you started, most people onlyknow what they've heard in the
news or read in the papers.
And locally here, even in theSioux Falls, minneapolis,
lincoln County area, we reallyonly have one TV station that's
kind of taken a lead on puttinginformation out and the others

(01:06:02):
have kind of just kind ofignored it.
When I get 10 minutes withpeople and explain to them
what's going on, they changetheir mind.
But most people say, well, yeah, we've heard that it's
overcrowded and things arefalling down.
When the governor says thebuilding is falling down and

(01:06:23):
that's what they hear, but theydon't get to hear the other side
then yeah, I think you couldprobably get a lot of people
saying that we need somethingnew.
And then of course, you getlegislators that say, well, we
have to build it somewhere, andI don't disagree, but let's
build it where we are instead of, you know, somewhere.

(01:06:43):
That doesn't make sense.
I think if people even had fiveminutes of education they'd
understand what the realproblems are.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
Well, I think it's important to note a couple of
things.
One, I'm going to look into'thave proof of this, because I
haven't done it.
I believe strongly that thisproject of just, you know,

(01:07:33):
blindly going to build this newprison without really looking at
the other options, I thinkwould be very unpopular.
Okay, and so with, with, withthat hypothesis as the
background, um, you know you,you mentioned, you know, uh,
state legislature, statelegislators excuse me, you know
negotiating all this kind ofstuff.

(01:07:53):
For the first time in thehistory of South Dakota politics
, we have an apparatus now where, if a politician runs for state
senate or state house and runson a platform of conservatism
and I'm going to protect thetaxpayers' rights, I'm going to
protect landowner rights, I'mgoing to protect the size of our

(01:08:16):
government and make SouthDakota more efficient these are
all the things our people ran on.
For the first time in thehistory of South Dakota, we have
an apparatus where, if theydon't live up to their promises
to the voter, people like mehave the resources to make sure
they don't get reelected in twoyears.
So that would be the warning.
You see people like CharlieKirk doing this nationally, and

(01:08:39):
this isn't a threat or anythingelse, it's just a fact.
My job as the chairman of DakotaFirst Action and getting
involved in this, kevin, was toput my time, my money, my energy
and my resources intoprotecting the citizens and the
voters of South Dakota.
And if there's somebody that Ihelped get elected and there was
a lot of them and they go topeer and they sell out their

(01:09:03):
constituents, I willsingle-handedly take them back
out of office.
And so I hope the people thathear that when they get
approached by people to say, hey, what would we have to get,
what would you have to get toget your vote on this prison
thing, I hope they remember thatbecause and I think they will
like the people that largely wonoffice and beat the incumbents

(01:09:28):
are really good, solid Christianlike, just like the guy next
door, the gal next door, justgood earthly people, and so I
don't think we're going to havethat issue.
But this also goes to therhinos.
You know this goes to the.
I know you have to be a littlemore careful than what I do, but
Will Morton, casey Crabtree,taylor Ray Felt, michael Roll

(01:09:51):
all these people that we knoware going to support the prison.
They supported RL 21.
All these people that we knoware going to support the prison.
They supported RL21, likethey're on notice too, because
you know we took control of thepower back in the state.
You know, with all of ourconservative leaders, and I
don't know what our 2026priorities are going to be yet,

(01:10:12):
kevin, but if they continue topush back against what the
people of South Dakota and intheir districts want, we're
going to find people to runagainst those folks too.
So I don't need you to respondto that.
I just wanted to say thatbecause that's how passionate I
feel about it.
If I do polling, good polling,unbiased polling and 65% or 60%

(01:10:32):
or 55% of South Dakotans want anew prison and they have all the
information and that's thedecision they've made, then I'll
support a new prison.
Like that's the way our systemworks.
We are elected to represent thepeople, right, and so whatever
the people want largely is whatwe should do.
But sometimes the people don'thave the right information and

(01:10:52):
that's the point you were making.
It's a great point.
A lot of people might think, oh, we need a new prison only
because they've seen one side.
Amendment H, in the general, wasthe same way Amendment G.
They got out the pro-amendmentG, the pro-amendment H.
People got out in front andearly on were leading.
We saw it in polling and by thetime people like me and you and

(01:11:22):
others were able to get thatanti message out.
Like you said, 10 minutes witha voter, kevin's like I can flip
them on the prison, 10 minuteswith a voter.
We flipped them on H and weflipped them on G because they
didn't understand the bills.
So a couple of last things,kevin, and I think these last
couple are important.
Number one have youspecifically, specifically, or
has anybody you knowspecifically reached out to the
governor's office for a commenton why they are ignoring the DLR

(01:11:46):
study for upgrading andrenovating and building new
facilities all over the state ata fraction of the price of the
new prison?
Have you attempted to talk toNome's office directly and, if
so, have you heard back?

Speaker 2 (01:12:02):
Well, ryan Bruner.
I've known Ryan Bruner for along time, even before
legislature, but when he wasschool and public lands
commissioner we worked on a lotof projects together.
So I have reached out to Ryanand right now, as far as the
location goes, they will noteven discuss it because of the

(01:12:24):
lawsuit.
They're hiding behind thelawsuit on that one.
And I have asked Ryan basicallywhy we've thrown that study out
and it's just politely, justjust no, this is the direction
we're going.
You know, I don't get a logicalexplanation.
Um, when I look at when Italked to, I held a press

(01:12:44):
conference about five or sixweeks ago and out of that whole
a little over an hour pressconference, the only pushback I
got was from ryan and basicallysaid my timeline on one of the
issues was off, but he didn'tdispute anything else that I
said.
So I don't know.
I think they're probably justavoiding public comment of any

(01:13:06):
kind and it's befuddling.
I mean it just kind of goesunexplained.
It's befuddling, I mean justkind of goes, it goes
unexplained.
I have a couple of timesquestioned the secretary and I
got pushed back that basically Iwas wrong.
But you know, like to go backto your earlier comment for any

(01:13:29):
legislator to vote for this notknowing what the future cost is
going to be and I think I saidit early on it's going to be the
most fiscally irresponsiblevote.
You can't vote to spend futuregenerations money into
perpetuity without even having aclue how much it's going to
cost, and I think that's what alot of people need to know.
Again, they won't even discuss.

(01:13:52):
I started early on asking whythey didn't look at the DLR
study and they just refused toeven talk about it.
Basically because part of thatDLR study was to be upgrading
current facilities and theywon't even absolutely will not
even talk about the possibilityof building near the current

(01:14:13):
Jamison prison.
As far as the incominglegislators seven of the new
legislators going into theSenate are probably exactly as
you have described.
They're grassroots, they'reconcerned about spending,
they're concerned about themoney.
One of the things that justthrows me off the deep end is

(01:14:39):
the governor needed to come upwith $258 million more to add to
the $659 million to be able tofully fund the $825 million.
Well, $175 million of thatmoney is coming from other
people's money, not just taxes,but these are people.
That is the unclaimed property.
We got about $229 millioncoming into the unclaimed

(01:15:01):
property fund this year and shewants to take $175 million of
that and move it over to theprison fund.
Now this is done.
All the time Been working withthe treasurer's office and I
think at this point right now,if they got my numbers right, we
have about $600 million inliability on the balance sheet

(01:15:25):
already that if people would allcome forward and claim their
money, we still have to pay that.
So we take that $175 millionout to build a prison.
All of a sudden those peoplecome back and say, hey, I want
my $175 million, we've got tofind it.
We've got to find that moneybecause we are liable for it.
One of the things we're goingto be subjecting is putting the

(01:15:47):
unclaimed property money into atrust fund and only being able
to move the interest off thataccount into the general fund
and protecting those dollars,because right now every
administration's done it to acertain level.
You know it's frustrating whenwe end up at the end of the year
with a $85 million surplus or a$90 million surplus 110.

(01:16:09):
Covid years we had a lot more,but it's been pretty much done
by every administration and whatwe call it?
We call it sweeping funds.
You sweep funds from an accountthat hasn't been used for a
while.
I've seen that happen a fewyears, a few times, and it just
strikes me as wrong.
It's not our money.
It's not our money but we takethat money out of somebody

(01:16:30):
else's fund and put it into thegeneral fund because it hasn't
been used for a while.
Fiscally, there's so manythings.
I think a lot of these newlegislators are going to wake up
and they're going to see someof these things and they're
going to.
It's a head scratcher.
You know, we fund.
Obviously it's hard to fund ourgovernment, but you know what?
We don't have a taxing problem.

(01:16:50):
We've got a spending problem.
People have heard that over andover and over, but I think in
this case this is going to be aspending problem and it's not
going to go away.

Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
We're going to be stuck there for decades.
Yeah, don't get me started onthe unclaimed property.
I've been digging into that formonths now and I'm going to
talk about it at a future date.

(01:17:20):
But so many of our leaders inthis state specifically
governors for many years havemismanaged the unclaimed
property that should have beenput in a trust.
Many, many years ago.
South Dakota had the opportunitythe last 20 or 30 years to be
the most self-sufficient.
Dakota had the opportunity thelast 20 or 30 years to be the
most self-sufficient, frugal,shrunk down government in the

(01:17:41):
history of the United Statesfrom a state perspective.
And what did we do?
We got more bureaucratic, wegot larger and we got more
reliant on sources like thefederal government, sources like
unclaimed property.
It's beyond frustrating.

(01:18:03):
Let me leave you with this lastquestion, kevin, because I mean
, at the end of the day, I thinkthis is what people want to
hear from you as somebody whohas done as much, if not more,
research into this prison in thestate the last year.
If I could wave a magic wandtoday, what exactly is it that
you would like to see done?

Speaker 2 (01:18:21):
moving forward, Well, I'd like to see a timeout on
the funding.
What I'd like to see is arollback to our a slow rollback
to our policies within theprison back to the 2020-21.
And not because of COVID-2020when I say that, but when we
look back at 2018, 2019-20, wedid not have the riots, we did

(01:18:44):
not have guards being threatened.
We had a bit of a staffingissue because we weren't paying
enough, but what I'd like to dois see the policies rolled back,
prisoners moved back to wherethey belong.
In fact, we have the only deathrow inmate in the state of
South Dakota is supposed to be,by law, separated from the rest

(01:19:08):
of the facility and that personhas been allowed to walk around.
I think we're violating statelaws by not keeping that person
under lock and key, and you canargue the humanity of that, but
state law says they're supposedto be separated.
Then what I'd like to see isthat we take the D wing.
I'm just speculating.

(01:19:31):
$20, $25 million.
We could add that second floorunder the D-Wing, add 192 beds
right there.
We could maybe build a 300-bedmedium security facility in
Yankton, kind of go back to theDLR study.
But let's get back to whereit's safe.
Let's get back to where guardsare not afraid to go to work in

(01:19:52):
the morning.
Let's pay a decent salary, getstaffing back up to level and
then look at actually buildingat that 28 acres to the north.
I think it's very doable andvery affordable.
I think one pushback I've heardis well, we already have $59
million in contracts, roughly.

(01:20:13):
You know we're too far along tothrow that money away.
So I ask them I say well, ifyou gave me $59 million today
and I turn right around and giveyou $300 million, would you
take that deal every day of theweek, right?
So yeah, maybe we've squandered$59 million, but if we can save

(01:20:34):
$300 million, I think it's wellworth it.
Let's take a timeout.
Let's change our prisonpolicies.
Everything we've heard negativeabout policy came after South
Jerry Wasco came, and all thepeople in the same former
wardens will tell you the samething.
You know we got a lot of peoplethat will tell me that.
A lot of them don't want to goon record, of course, but they

(01:20:56):
have.
I held a meeting in Canton witha bunch of with I invited 25.
I got eight legislators to showup.
We had seven correctionsofficials openly speak about the
policies and the changes andwhat was bad and and I wish I
could have gotten more there, Iwish I could get more
legislators to listen to thisstuff, and I wish I could have

(01:21:31):
gotten more there, I wish Icould get more legislators to
listen to this stuff.
But actually I've kind of laidout place for that facility.
Just because of the locationit's hard to staff.
But I think in the long runlet's get the facility up to
speed.
Where you know people want towork there, let's pay a salary
where people want to work thereand I guess going forward that

(01:21:54):
would be.
My hope is that we could justnot pull a plug on the whole
prison issue but go back andlook at what makes most sense
with the dollars and put some ofthose dollars back into the
taxpayers' pockets and not into.
You know I know there's, youknow we're looking at property

(01:22:15):
tax issues right now and youknow I know there's a proposal
to raise the state sales tax.
That's a two-edged sword.
That's a battle we're going tohave to fight.
But property taxes are a hugeissue and I think if we could
use some of that money and giveit back to the taxpayers you
know $300 million if we couldsave that and I guess again, I'm

(01:22:38):
just basing it on the fact thatyou know they want $825 million
for the prison.
Then we're going to have theongoing expenses and what we're
not talking about is how many$100 million it's going to cost
to redo the roads and build newroads and infrastructure, and
all of that.
In fact, on January 6th there'sgoing to be a meeting.
Dot is holding a meeting thatthey're going to.

(01:23:00):
They want to improve five milesof the highway between Highway
115 and Highway 11, one mileaway from the prison.
If we weren't building a prison,would we need to be looking at
those millions of dollars inexpense?
So much of that is going to beadded on top of the $825 million
, and I've been projecting fromday one that this is going to

(01:23:22):
end up costing somewhere between$1.2 and $1.4 billion when you
look at everything.
And that's just to get thedoors open.
So again, you asked my idea.
I've laid out a plan.
Of course I don't have anyarchitectural drawings, I don't
have anything rock solid, but Ithink it makes sense.
It's just common sense.

(01:23:42):
Let's add 200 beds to where wecan right now.
We could get that done in alittle over a year and relieve
the overcrowding, and then let'shave a real conversation about
where we need to go have a realconversation about where we need
to go.

Speaker 1 (01:24:01):
Amen, brother, very, very well said.
Thank you again for being onwith us.
Of course, this again was KevinJensen, senate-elect Kevin
Jensen, who is actually justbasically finishing out his
existing term in the state house.
Kevin, thank you for all thework you've done on this.
Merry Christmas to you and yourfamily, and I'm sure we'll talk
soon.

Speaker 2 (01:24:19):
Thank you very much and Merry Christmas to you and
your family.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
Yes, sir, take care, Kevin.
Thank you, yep, yep.
Thank you for listening to TobyDoden Unfiltered.