Title: Proponents Of Opening Empty Jail Unit Owe Explanation.

 

Dear Editor,    

 

The Sheriff’s Department budget, in an August 19th Baraboo News article titled “Budget Includes New Jail Section”, omits the annual cost of about $2.4 million of debt service and utilities for the new law enforcement center (includes jail), mainly because the county budget book puts it into a different budget. Furthermore, 80-90% of the revenue in the Sheriff’s budget typically comes from property tax dollars—not from rent. Since 2003, the Sheriff’s department spent an amount of tax dollars equal to more than half of the property tax dollars spent by the county.

 

The proponents of opening the empty unit of the Sauk County jail owe all of us an explanation. For over a year, they have urged the opening of the empty unit. Their past claims that it will generate profit for the county were based on limited and flawed analysis that resembles Enron accounting and voodoo economics. While I haven’t yet seen their “new” proposal in the  2006 budget to open the empty jail unit, read on to understand why I expect this “new” proposal to be just an old unsatisfactory recycled proposal.

 

Until my detailed analysis of Sauk County jail costs, no one had a reliable and comprehensive understanding of the cost per inmate day, etc. This should have been understood before deciding to build the jail. Now, several years later, the proponents still seem to lack this understanding. Proponents are also still overestimating the inmate population growth rate.

 

My analysis shows that added costs would exceed added revenue (especially in the long run) if proponents’ previous proposals were adopted. My analysis also showed (18 months ago) that for added revenue to exceed added costs in the long run, we need something equivalent to $65 per inmate day for all the beds in the unit for a guarantee of more than five years. No renter has come close to meeting these conditions and proponents urge us to settle for far less. .

 

In May, the proponents requested and received County Board approval to negotiate with potential renters (presumably to see if any renters would meet the conditions I outlined). Any “deals” remain subject to county board approval.

 

Instead of negotiating with potential renters to date, the proponents have prepared the 2006 Sheriffs Department budget to include the opening of the empty unit. This is putting the cart before the horse—a common tendency of proponents. Proponents ought to explain why they haven't yet tried to negotiate a better deal.

 

The Finance Committee will review all 2006 proposed department budgets on September 13-15, 2005. The Finance Committee can recommend modifications to department budgets. The County Board can change the budget between Sept. and Nov. before adopting a budget at the Sauk County Board regular meeting at 6:00 PM on November 8, 2005.

 

The above meetings are open to the public. So are my analyses.  I can further explain all the above points but not within a 500 word limit. 

 

Sincerely

 

Tom Kriegl
Member of the Sauk County Board Finance Committee