Let's think through the rush
to build a private prison in Encinal

By Donna Lednicky

Slightly over one year ago, the plans of the La Salle County Public Facility Detention Corporation (LSCPFDC) became widely known when La Salle County held an official groundbreaking ceremony for a new prison on the outskirts of Encinal, Texas (pop. 620). In Texas, sponsors (municipalities, counties, school districts, housing authorities, and special districts) can create nonprofit public facility corporations with the authority to issue bonds on their behalf.
The LSCPFDC was created by La Salle County specifically to issue bonds for prison projects. The LSCPFDC issued nearly $22 million in bonds last November to construct a 500-bed detention facility. Because the bonds will be repaid with the revenue from the project (in this case the US Marshals pay a per diem for each detainee held), there is allegedly no financial obligation to county taxpayers. Among the advantages to the developers and one of the disadvantages to citizens is that these projects may proceed without citizen approval or input.
The plans for a prison in southern La Salle County include a private prison operator (Emerald Correctional Management) and the housing of US Marshals Service (USMS) detainees, as well as consultants, bond counsel, builders, and engineers. The project is touted as economic development for an area sorely in need of economic development, although the folks making money from the project (see list above) are from places as close as San Antonio and as far away as Connecticut.
Locally, those in favor of the prison mostly argue that the facility will bring jobs, local people will be hired, and the city of Encinal (entirely left out of any decisions regarding the facility) will flourish. Hope. This is a facility built on hope. Hope for a better life. Hope for more prisoners. Hope that the federal government will pay more to detain people and keep increasing the number of people detained.
Without detainees and without the federal government significantly increasing the per diem rate to house those detainees, the project will not have sufficient income to repay the borrowed debt. Two of the factors contributing to the risk of this project are extremely high interest rates (10-12%) and a flat fee to the operator ($20,764 per day during year one) regardless of the number of detainees held. The operator will be paid the same amount whether there are 125 detainees or 495 detainees, but smartly the USMS only pays for the actual number of detainees held. Not so smart is the USMS encouraging the building of prisons without looking at the details and feasibility of the actual projects or the risk encumbered by the local government sponsor.
Rarely discussed are the costs outside of construction which become additional costs to the county. Items that were not previously budgeted, such as insurance related to the project and maintenance of the facility, now need to be paid for with county funds. Coupled with the fact that La Salle County routinely borrows money to make payroll and for months the Sheriff's department has been under pressure to eliminate some deputies for budgetary reasons, unforeseen costs to La Salle County can be devastating. Attorney fees related to this project must be astronomical, given all the lawyers and lawsuits involved.
This project has spawned no fewer than three lawsuits: a group of citizens sued the county for violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Open Records Act. A citizen is suing the US Marshals (who plan to contribute $3 million in construction funds, in addition to detainees once the facility is open) for not following federal environmental guidelines (NEPA). The bond underwriters, the private prison operator, and the engineers are suing the newly elected county judge for publicly raising questions about the project.
While the project continues under construction, the settlement of the open meetings case ensures more information will be made available to the public about the project. Key provisions of the settlement include, among others:
1) The county will now routinely send a copy of all county meeting agendas to the city of Encinal. The meeting agendas will be posted at Encinal City Hall, as well as at the county courthouse (which is 30 miles away).
2) All documents relating to the prison project are to be kept on file at the La Salle County Clerk's office, thus making information about the project easier for citizens to access.
3) The county admitted violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
The other two lawsuits are still in progress.
Even though the 500-bed prison project has been riddled with problems and continues to face financial disaster if the US Marshals' per diem rate is not increased, this has not stopped the LSCPFDC from pursuing an expanded facility of 2,800 beds and a separate 1,000-bed facility for INS detainees proposed for Cotulla. If developers and consultants have their way, the rural county of La Salle (pop. 5,849) may soon see an increase in total population, although nearly half the county will be behind bars. A few developers and consultants will see more money in their pockets. Jobs for the locals? We haven't seen any of those yet. And the project completion date has just been postponed from April to May.

(Donna Lednicky is executive director of Hecho en Encinal, a non-profit arts foundation in Encinal.)