Little Rock, Arkansas – In a surprising turn of events, Arkansas lawmakers voted against a $750 million spending bill intended to fund the construction of a new prison in Franklin County. Senate Bill 354, introduced by budget chair Sen. Jonathan Dismang and Rep. Lane Jean, needed a three-fourths majority to pass the Senate but fell short of this requirement during Tuesday afternoon’s vote.
The vote represents a significant setback for the prison project, which has faced growing concerns over its ballooning costs. Initially, the bill was part of a broader legislative effort to address the state’s overcrowded prison system, but lawmakers have expressed concerns about the escalating price tag. These concerns deepened after representatives from the Arkansas Department of Corrections (DOC) were unable to provide a clear estimate of the project’s total cost during a meeting on February 27.
The absence of a definitive cost estimate led to widespread uncertainty, which likely influenced the final vote. However, just days later, the DOC unveiled a preliminary estimate from Vanir Construction Management, which placed the total cost of the Franklin County prison project at a staggering $825 million. The Vanir report outlined the necessity of funding for several key elements, including housing units, administrative offices, inmate programming areas, security infrastructure, and even an on-site wastewater treatment plant to ensure the prison’s operation.
This estimate fueled further concerns, leading to growing opposition in the state legislature. On March 13, Sen. Jimmy Hickey proposed an amendment that would have set aside a $1 billion restricted reserve fund for the project. The goal of the amendment was to ensure that there would be sufficient funds in reserve, should additional expenses arise. However, the amendment failed to pass the Special Language Subcommittee, just one hour before the Joint Budget Committee approved the original $750 million appropriation bill on March 20.
Despite these hurdles, Sen. Jonathan Dismang, the primary sponsor of the bill, sought to reassure his colleagues that the funding being requested was not directly tied to immediate expenditures. “This is the appropriation only. It does not have funding directly tied to that. That would be an additional discussion — even including the $330 million that’s already been set aside in the restricted reserve,” he explained during the discussion.
The fate of the bill took a dramatic turn when it came up for a vote in the Senate. At the April 1 meeting, Sen. Bryan King, who represents part of Franklin County, voiced strong opposition to the measure. “Every decision we talk about down here comes down to money,” King said, underscoring the fiscal challenges of such a significant commitment. King further argued that the state’s focus should be on preventing crime rather than simply building more prisons. “If we don’t start controlling crime on the front end, we will never get out of this mess,” he added, making a passionate case for proactive crime prevention measures.
In contrast, Sen. Bart Hester expressed his support for the project, pointing to specific cases where overcrowding in Arkansas prisons had led to the early release of offenders. He mentioned the case of Shawna Cash, who was convicted of the killing of Pea Ridge Officer Kevin Apple. Hester emphasized that Cash had been released multiple times due to overcrowding, despite a history of prior charges. “This is a bad business decision,” Sen. John Payton remarked about the plan to fund the prison, suggesting that the financial ramifications were not being fully considered.
Ultimately, the bill failed to secure the necessary three-fourths majority vote in the Senate, leaving the Franklin County prison project in a state of uncertainty. The failure to pass the $750 million appropriation bill represents a significant blow to those advocating for the project, as well as to efforts to address the state’s overcrowded prison system.
While lawmakers remain divided on the best course of action, it is clear that the future of the Franklin County prison project remains in jeopardy. The debate over the bill’s passage is likely to continue as lawmakers consider the state’s long-term needs, the rising cost of construction, and alternative solutions for addressing overcrowding within the prison system. As the situation develops, Arkansas residents will be watching closely to see if a more sustainable approach to prison reform can emerge.
