New psychiatric facility near CSN campus in Las Vegas priced at $420 million
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A new psychiatric facility for criminal offenders with mental disorders is planned on land directly east of the College of Southern Nevada's West Charleston campus.
The Southern Nevada Forensic Facility, expected to open in 2029, carries a combined budget of about $420 million for construction and land acquisition near the southwest corner of Charleston and Jones Boulevard. The four-story facility would house 300 offenders — almost double the number currently at Muri Stein Hospital, which is adjacent to where the new building would go up.
Lawmakers listened Tuesday in Carson City as officials from the Nevada Public Works Division detailed the budgets for two projects connected to the new building. Both will be paid for entirely from state funds.
'Obviously, this is a significant investment for the state of Nevada,' Brian Walker, deputy administrator for professional services of the state Public Works Division, said.
A $38 million project would pay for the land, as well as design and construction to replace three buildings on the site that will be demolished to make way for new facilities. A solar array along the west side of Jones Boulevard will also be removed.
A $382 million project would fund the construction of the new building, with three wings for patients and a fourth for administration. It will be the state's first 'purpose-built' psychiatric facility for offenders, Walker said. Muri Stein Hospital and Lakes Crossing in Sparks were both converted to serve as psychiatric facilities. Currently, Stein has 153 people and Lakes Crossing has 86.
A budget for furnishings and fixtures is expected to be submitted in 2027, adding an estimated $28 million to the project.
The 300 beds will be divided into four categories:
30 intake and assessment beds
60 long-term beds
30 high-risk beds
180 competency restoration beds
'This building has also been planned with the ability to add a fourth patient wing in the future,' Walker said. That new wing would bring an additional 90 beds, he said.
Democrats Assem. Shea Backus and Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager asked about capacity and whether the fourth wing would be needed immediately. Public Works officials responded that there would be a 'methodical' transition and the new building will probably meet the needs initially. It is designed to serve all of Clark County and surrounding rural counties.
Stein is currently at 99% capacity, officials told lawmakers.
'It seems like we are always in the situation of not having enough beds,' Yeager said.
Muri Stein Hospital will eventually be demolished and turned over for Campus for Hope, a project that will address homelessness. That project was approved in January by the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED).
Another budget presented Tuesday would pay $5.5 million for a new building at Summit View Youth Center, located on Range Road just south of the I-15/215 Beltway interchange in northeast Las Vegas.
'The intake building will include a classroom, offices, restrooms and intake room, and this will enable the facility to establish a juvenile justice youth intake and assessment unit at Summit View,' Marla McDade Williams of the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) said.
That facility takes in youth offenders and assigns them to one of the state's sites to serve their sentence.
'They are youth who have been committed to us for detention in one of our facilities. So, yes, every youth in the state in that situation is either going to Elko, Caliente or Las Vegas,' McDade Williams said.
Currently, there is no housing dedicated for intake, so incoming youth get mixed in with youth assigned to the Las Vegas facility.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
How the Senate megabill could backfire on conservatives
A provision in a key Senate committee's version of the GOP megabill will backfire against Republicans by forcing red states to consider doing exactly what Republicans don't want them to: expand Medicaid, the CEO of the South Carolina Hospital Association told POLITICO. Republicans have sought to shelter the 10 conservative states that have declined to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people, as Obamacare encourages with generous federal subsidies. But the Senate bill, in an effort to find the savings needed to extend President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, would still blow a hole in the budgets of Palmetto state hospitals by reducing what insurers who contract with the state to provide Medicaid services can pay them. States and Washington share the insurance program's costs. 'It affects the viability of the whole system,' said Thornton Kirby, chief executive of the South Carolina Hospital Association, which estimates the Senate proposal will cost the state over $2.3 billion annually. 'If you take away this alternative way to balance the budget, you leave us with only one path…Medicaid expansion,' Kirby said. The Senate is rushing to complete its version of a bill that would enact Trump's agenda using a procedure that requires only a simple majority vote. Trump wants it done by July 4, but with the slim margins in both houses of Congress, the industries affected by the bill are hoping to peel off votes to save themselves from cuts. Republicans can lose no more than three votes in either chamber as long as Democrats remain united in opposition. To make the case that the restrictions on so-called state-directed payments need to go, the hospital association is leaning on three home state Republicans with clout: Sen. Tim Scott, who has a seat on the Finance Committee that has proposed the restrictions; Rep. Russell Fry, who's on the Energy and Commerce Committee that drafted the Medicaid provisions of the megabill the House passed last month; and Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina and, Kirby said, a personal friend. 'I don't want to put him in the hot seat,' Kirby said of McMaster. 'He doesn't want to see [Medicaid] upended.' Of Scott, Kirby said he's in touch at least every other day and that the senator and Trump ally 'has been a champion.' 'He understands…he doesn't want to go down that path' of Medicaid expansion, Kirby added. The three Republicans did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Expanding Medicaid could help replace the revenue the Senate provision would take away because it would make many more people — South Carolina now has one of the nation's higher uninsured rates at 9 percent — eligible for the program. Under Obamacare, the federal government picks up 90 percent of the cost for the new enrollees. Under the Finance Committee proposal, state-directed payments to hospitals serving Medicaid patients would fall by 10 percent each year until the total payment rate is only 100-110 percent of the Medicare payment rate. In South Carolina, the current payment rate is more than twice the rate paid by Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid would take an additional hit under the Senate proposal. The Finance Committee would lower the provider tax rate that the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid can levy on hospitals from 6 percent to 3.5 percent. States have used the taxes to boost their federal matching funds, which they have then sent back to hospitals in higher reimbursements. The Senate would freeze the tax rates in states like South Carolina that haven't expanded Medicaid, but would not require them to lower them. The version of the megabill the House passed would freeze the rates for all states, a plan Kirby was willing to accept. On Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) urged GOP leaders to strike the Finance Committee language on Medicaid, warning the crackdown won't clear the House. Republican senators hope to pass their version of the bill next week after which the House would need to pass it before Trump could sign it into law.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
Senate megabill will strengthen Obamacare, says red state hospital CEO
A provision in a key Senate committee's version of the GOP megabill will backfire against Republicans by forcing red states to consider doing exactly what Republicans don't want them to: expand Medicaid, the CEO of the South Carolina Hospital Association told POLITICO. Republicans have sought to shelter the 10 conservative states that have declined to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people, as Obamacare encourages with generous federal subsidies. But the Senate bill, in an effort to find the savings needed to extend President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, would still blow a hole in the budgets of Palmetto state hospitals by reducing what insurers who contract with the state to provide Medicaid services can pay them. States and Washington share the insurance program's costs. 'It affects the viability of the whole system,' said Thornton Kirby, chief executive of the South Carolina Hospital Association, which estimates the Senate proposal will cost the state over $2.3 billion annually. 'If you take away this alternative way to balance the budget, you leave us with only one path…Medicaid expansion,' Kirby said. The Senate is rushing to complete its version of a bill that would enact Trump's agenda using a procedure that requires only a simple majority vote. Trump wants it done by July 4, but with the slim margins in both houses of Congress, the industries affected by the bill are hoping to peel off votes to save themselves from cuts. Republicans can lose no more than three votes in either chamber as long as Democrats remain united in opposition. To make the case that the restrictions on so-called state-directed payments need to go, the hospital association is leaning on three home state Republicans with clout: Sen. Tim Scott, who has a seat on the Finance Committee that has proposed the restrictions; Rep. Russell Fry, who's on the Energy and Commerce Committee that drafted the Medicaid provisions of the megabill the House passed last month; and Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina and, Kirby said, a personal friend. 'I don't want to put him in the hot seat,' Kirby said of McMaster. 'He doesn't want to see [Medicaid] upended.' Of Scott, Kirby said he's in touch at least every other day and that the senator and Trump ally 'has been a champion.' 'He understands…he doesn't want to go down that path' of Medicaid expansion, Kirby added. The three Republicans did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Expanding Medicaid could help replace the revenue the Senate provision would take away because it would make many more people — South Carolina now has one of the nation's higher uninsured rates at 9 percent — eligible for the program. Under Obamacare, the federal government picks up 90 percent of the cost for the new enrollees. Under the Finance Committee proposal, state-directed payments to hospitals serving Medicaid patients would fall by 10 percent each year until the total payment rate is only 100-110 percent of the Medicare payment rate. In South Carolina, the current payment rate is more than twice the rate paid by Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid would take an additional hit under the Senate proposal. The Finance Committee would lower the provider tax rate that the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid can levy on hospitals from 6 percent to 3.5 percent. States have used the taxes to boost their federal matching funds, which they have then sent back to hospitals in higher reimbursements. The Senate would freeze the tax rates in states like South Carolina that haven't expanded Medicaid, but would not require them to lower them. The version of the megabill the House passed would freeze the rates for all states, a plan Kirby was willing to accept. On Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) urged GOP leaders to strike the Finance Committee language on Medicaid, warning the crackdown won't clear the House. Republican senators hope to pass their version of the bill next week after which the House would need to pass it before Trump could sign it into law.
