Grand Forks County could budget $3 million for sheriff's office

Mar. 27—GRAND FORKS — Absent a referendum or a significant increase in property values, Grand Forks County will have approximately $3 million in funding to spend on a new sheriff's office.

That's according to an estimate from County Auditor Debbie Nelson, based on this year's budgeted spending on capital improvements projects.

Most of the county's capacity to spend on capital construction is locked up in existing capital improvements projects, which could complicate efforts to build or renovate space for the Grand Forks County Sheriff's Office

in time for its planned 2026 move

out of the Grand Forks Police Department's Fifth Street headquarters.

County Administrator Tom Ford is openly skeptical of whether the available funding will be able to fund any significant capital improvement project for the sheriff's office.

"As of right now, in black and white, there is not enough capacity for a major capital construction project," Ford said.

According to Nelson, the county is set to spend $3.1 million this year alone to pay for the bonds and Bank of North Dakota loans that are

financing the expansion of the Grand Forks County Correctional Center and construction of a new Regional Youth Assessment Center,

as well as the renovation of the Grand Forks County Courthouse dome.

That $3.1 million represents "100%" of the estimated value of the property tax levy allocated to capital construction projects in 2024, Nelson said.

The county is currently spending close to the maximum levy it can allocate toward capital construction in a given year. The $3.1 million in spending is equivalent to 8.27 mills of gross taxable value; under state law, counties can levy up to 10 mills without a referendum.

Grand Forks County is also expected to continue paying around $3.1 million per year until 2035, Nelson said, after which payments will drop to $1.2 million per year.

"It will be about the same for 10 to 12 years, and then it will drastically drop, because at that point we'll have the bonds paid off and we'll still have the loans to pay," Nelson said.

But that means, absent a significant increase in property values across the county, most of the capital construction fund will go toward making those bond and loan payments for the next decade.

Using this year's budgeted figures, Nelson estimates the remaining 1.73 mills the county can levy — equivalent to about $674,000 in 2024 — could finance a "little over $3 million" capital improvement project at current 20-year bond rates.

It's worth noting these figures are all estimates. New property value estimates won't be available to the County Commission until July, and bond rates could become more favorable to the county by that time.

County staff are also still in the early stages of determining the cost of renovating existing county property, like space in the county office building expected to be vacated by Grand Forks Public Health, or purchasing new space for the sheriff's office. Ford participated in a walkthrough of the old county jail on Monday to determine if the space could one day house the sheriff's department.

He thinks it's unlikely the county can fund new construction with the existing mill levy limits.

"As of right now, the county would not have the capacity to build a building," he said. "So you have to look at what is cost-feasible outside of building a building."

Any project, Ford said, will likely cost multiple millions of dollars. Comprehensive repairs to the county parking ramp, for instance, have been pegged at $3.6 million; the county has set aside $3 million in ARPA funds for that project.

Renovations to Grand Forks City Council chambers last year

cost $1.8 million alone.

Commissioner Mark Rustad last week proposed as a cost-cutting measure the county consider drawing a plan to incorporate the sheriff's office into the correctional center expansion.

He made the case to the Herald last week that county staff's concerns about litigation from contractors or subcontractors resulting from a change order was unfounded, since the county was a more reliable business partner to work with than private individuals.

"Suing would be cutting off your nose to spite your face," Rustad said. "(Contractors) love to work for municipalities because they're going to get paid."

That plan, however, would exacerbate the shortage of beds at the county jail that's expected to remain an issue even after the expansion is completed. It's also unclear how much time and money a change order would cost.

Another avenue commissioners could pursue is putting a referendum on the ballot in November to increase the amount of property taxes the county can levy for capital construction — or putting out a sales tax referendum like the one that failed by a handful of votes in 2022.

There's little enthusiasm among commissioners for another referendum right now, however. Rustad has said he is opposed to a tax increase while even Commissioner Bob Rost, who championed the sales tax referendum — and has been vocal about his frustration with its failure — said he didn't plan to push for another referendum because he doubted voters would support it.

Commissioners could also consider dipping into the general fund to boost its budget for a new sheriff's department space, or delay decision-making for more fortunate financial circumstances, though those pose their own problems.

For now, however, county staff are expected to focus on assessing the cost of any new capital improvements. Hard numbers — and hard decisions — will have to wait until July.

"Right now what we have to do is find a place, find how much it's going to cost, and then find out what the commission is going to do," Nelson said.