<font color="red">Butcher:</font> Emerald receptive to negotiations

<h3>Detention center back on front burner after council's vote revives project</h3>

<b>By Christin Coyne</b><br><a href="mailto:ccoyne@mineralwellsindex.com">ccoyne@mineralwellsindex.com</a>

The project to bring an immigration detention facility to Mineral Wells began moving ahead again Wednesday after the city council gave the go ahead Tuesday night.

Less than two months after the same agenda item failed for lack of support, the city council approved a resolution Tuesday night authorizing the Mineral Wells Local Government Corporation to continue negotiations with Emerald Correctional Management to build a detention facility in Mineral Wells.

Steve Butcher of the Industrial Foundation told the Index Wednesday afternoon the project seems to be moving ahead again.

Butcher said he had a brief conversation with Steve Afeman, chief operating officer for Emerald, and was told they would be gathering paperwork and getting back to the Industrial Foundation next week.

Afeman was reportedly out of the office Wednesday and has not returned several recent voice-mail messages left by the Index.



Council meeting

Former mayor Clarence Holliman began pushing for the council to reconsider the idea about two weeks ago, saying he believes the city needs the jobs and economic benefit of the project.

Council members Deartis Nickerson, who did not support the item at the Oct. 6 meeting, and Chris Crawford, who was absent at that meeting, recently requested that the item be reconsidered by the city council and Mayor Mike Allen instructed that the item be placed on Tuesday’s agenda

By a vote of 4-2 – with council member Bill Terry and Tommy Blissitte voting against and council member Margaret Hill Colton absent – the council passed the resolution handing negotiations for the project to the LGC.

The vote came after vigorous discussion by city council members and others attending the meeting.

Mayor Mike Allen initially told the room it would be strictly council discussion because the topic was public financing, not whether a prison should be located in Mineral Wells.

“Did anyone sign up to speak?” council member John Ritchie asked before two other council members chimed in to support allowing time for those who wished to speak.

At least one community member asked a city staff member about signing up to speak before the meeting and was told it would be up to the mayor because it was not an official public hearing.

Several people spoke, both for and against the project.

“It has a potential to give the city a black eye,” Brandon Johnson said about any potential default of the project if funded though LGC issued bonds. “I don’t see it having a positive impact on the city.”

He said he might think otherwise if Emerald were able to finance the project on their own.

“We need more diversity [in the type of jobs], not another prison facility,” Donnie Lemons told the council.

“Public financing does not mean taxpayer dollars from the city,” Holliman said.

“People are not going to bring their company to Mineral Wells just because we have a high rate of unemployment,” Holliman said. “I am totally in favor of us doing something to improve our economy.”

Ellen Hargle told the council Emerald has a history of not working well with other cities and emphasized that it would be a maximum security prison.

“There are people against this,” Hargle said.

“I thank the council for putting it back on the agenda,” Richard Ball, president of the Industrial Foundation, said. “It’s very frustrating when you’ve worked so long … it makes us look bad.”

Council member Tommy Blissitte read from several documents in opposition to the project, expressing concerns about whether there would be detainees to fill the facility, whether a default on the project would negatively affect the city, and whether the project would help the city’s economy and unemployment rate.

“I’ve been pretty much against the prison thing from day one,” Council member Bill Terry said, and added he was disappointed “when they lowered what they said the startup fee would be.”

“I don’t think a prison is what I would like to see for Mineral Wells,” Terry said.

“I asked that it not be put on an agenda for six months to a year,” Terry said.

“I’ve been here quite a few years,” Council member Deartis Nickerson said. “I’ve always heard the reason Mineral Wells doesn’t grow … is because of the city council.”

He said the council had an opportunity Tuesday night to dispel that myth, true or not.

Nickerson said he has had some misgivings about the project in the past, such as when the impact fee was lowered, but said he supported it because the city needs jobs.

“If the good outweighs the bad, you stick with it,” Nickerson said.

“How can we?” Terry said. “There’s no good column here.”

“Why are they begging us?” Terry asked. “Why aren’t they going to every other place?”

“They spent two years doing this [taking soil samples and looking at the property],” Allen said, adding that they spent more than just the $100,000 cost to move the project from the airport site to Fort Wolters.

“Have you heard the old adage, nothing ventured, nothing gained?” Council member John Ritchie said.

Terry said he doesn’t think the project will make or break the Mineral Wells economy.

“They still can’t fill those jobs at [Corrections Corporation of America],” Terry said.

“No, again,” Blissitte said when the vote was taken as he and Terry voted against the resolution.

“We’re not making a decision tonight to put this here [just to talk with them],” Crawford said after the vote. “Our decisions may change a lot.”

Text Only