Prisons and Host Communities
By Albert B. Kelly
It has been 20 years since
the subject of the State prison was first on Bridgeton’s radar screen. Back
when the project was initially discussed, before a shovel was set into the
ground or the land cleared of trees, the whole prospect of hosting a State
prison was framed in terms of benefits to the host community. These included PILOT
(payment-in-lieu-of tax) agreements, the presence of higher paying jobs, hiring
priority for Bridgeton residents, stabilizing the housing stock with new
homeowners, infusion of cash into the local economy through contracts and
procurement with local vendors, and inmate work crews that would be available
to the community to augment manpower on the street.
Twenty years later, I’m
not so sure about these benefits, though I’m increasingly mindful of the price
communities pay in hosting State prisons. To begin with, there’s the stuff they
don’t tell you; like the likelihood of families making the pilgrimage to be
near incarcerated loved ones or ex-offenders putting down roots because- if
that’s the life you live-here is just as good as there.
Don’t get me wrong, if
people have paid their debt to society, they are entitled to rebuild their
lives, but the thing never happens easily and I suspect that many more don’t
make a successful transition than do. Such success is dependent on a number of
things including available jobs, employers willing to take a chance on an
ex-offender, workforce training, and a support system to sustain them over the
long haul; all things in short supply in small cities like Bridgeton.
Unfortunately, tracking
such things- weighing and measuring these impacts on a community- is hard to
do, numbers are fuzzy and hard to come by and
the lines get blurred so that most of what we know is too anecdotal and too
easily dismissed; though perceptions are not. For communities hosting a State
prison, the facility and the souls who occupy it, becomes the thing the
community is defined by; it becomes the biggest truth about that community. But
what price do you put on perception or reputation? It’s the same problem that
arises when trying to attach a price to secondary and tertiary impacts; it’s
just not easily done.
Which is why such things
as PILOT (payment-in-lieu-of-tax) agreements, hiring preferences, buying from
local vendors, inmate work crews, and housing packages become so important;
they are the things that justify the negatives, they are the mitigating factors
to offset the aggravating ones. But for Bridgeton, the promised benefits to
host communities proved to be more theoretical than real.
Back in FY97, Bridgeton as
the host community for South Woods State Prison, received $752,964 as a PILOT,
our “payment- in-lieu-of-tax” specifically for the prison facility. In addition,
the City received $2.8 million in what is called CMPTRA (Consolidated Municipal
Property Tax Relief Aid). In addition to these, the City received Energy Tax
Receipts or ETR monies, which are given to communities statewide for such
things as utility substations and utility lines.
This “in-lieu-of-tax” PILOT
payment of approximately $752,000 (sometimes more) was something that we as the
host community for the prison, was set to receive each year and it was to be separate
and apart from any CMPTRA or ETR monies. However, beginning in 1998, the
“in-lieu-of-tax” PILOT payments that the City was to receive for the prison got
bundled into the CMPTRA aid; essentially making it all one big “CMPTRA package”.
To round out this revenue
picture; the State has an ongoing obligation, as it has had for the last
several years, to increase Energy Tax Receipts money by a certain variable percentage
each year. The States’ response over this time, as budgets have gotten tighter,
has been to reduce the CMPTRA revenue as a way to offset anticipated increases
in Energy Tax Receipts, and this has had the effect of providing “flat funding”
for the majority of communities statewide who receive such payments.
For us, the problem arises
because Trenton continues to reduce CMPTRA payments statewide so that at
present, the City of Bridgeton receives $1.4 million in CMPTRA aid, which
includes the prison PILOT payment, instead of two separate payments as was
originally the case in 1997. If Bridgeton was being compensated as originally
agreed to, we would receive $750,000 (or more) as a payment separate and apart
from whatever our CMPTRA would have been.
At this pace, CMPTRA aid may
well be reduced to the point that we are basically receiving nothing for the
prison because the bundling of the two payments has the effect of making the
original PILOT agreement null and void. I understand the need for creative
budget management, but I believe that communities that host prisons should
receive some consideration in these matters for the reasons previously
outlined.
In attempting to trace the
threads of the original agreement back over several administrations, both here
and in Trenton, an OPRA request netted documents from Treasury and Corrections
that had some significant redactions and the blacked out portions had the look
and feel of documents subpoenaed as part of Watergate. My point is that these
documents brought no real clarity to the situation.
In addition to the whole PILOT/CMPTRA
mess, there was the state’s “fact sheet” which left the impression that we
could expect approximately $4.5 million in locally purchased goods and
services. The fact sheet highlights approximately $2.5 million annually in
fruits, vegetables, medical supplies, household and maintenance supplies,
educational, and inmate store items. While this infusion of capital into the
local economy would be a good thing, there is nothing to ensure such
expenditures and it remains just a good intention rather than a near certainty.
And while we’ve had the
benefit of inmate crews over the years; the program has had its stops and
starts. Currently, to use an inmate crew, the City would be required to cover “supervisor
costs” of $450 per day; something our budget can’t absorb. While the community
appreciates the extra manpower, I also know that such inmate labor programs,
obvious as they may seem, are by no means a sure thing. The same holds true for
other purported benefits.
The bottom line is that
any community hosting a State prison should receive extra consideration with regard
to state aid. At the very least, these communities should receive the “in-lieu-of-tax”
PILOT payments (separately from CMPTRA) as originally negotiated and an
opportunity to match necessary goods and services with our local vendors who
supply them.
By its very nature, a State
prison suggests certain things for a community and many are not good, which is
why so many communities object and refuse to host these facilities. Following
through on commitments and special consideration on aid is a fair and
reasonable way to mitigate those impacts other communities seek to avoid.