We received a copy of the response filed by the City to our law suit filed. You can view the law suit and the City's response by clicking on the links below.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
How Can YOU Help?
1. Learn! Educate yourself about the issue by reviewing our website.
2. Talk! Tell everyone you know about our search for justice. Direct them to our website for more information.
3. Write! Send letters to the county commissioners asking them to select a new jail site at least 1/4 mile away from ALL residential areas. For County Commissioners contact information, please CLICK HERE.
4. Donate! Unlike the city, we do not have unlimited funds. And legal fees are not cheap. Contribute to our cause by participating in our fundraisers or sending contributions to our account.
2. Talk! Tell everyone you know about our search for justice. Direct them to our website for more information.
3. Write! Send letters to the county commissioners asking them to select a new jail site at least 1/4 mile away from ALL residential areas. For County Commissioners contact information, please CLICK HERE.
4. Donate! Unlike the city, we do not have unlimited funds. And legal fees are not cheap. Contribute to our cause by participating in our fundraisers or sending contributions to our account.
Is This Really the Best Jail Site?
Below is a letter submitted by Luwana Brewster and published in the Examiner Enterprise.
Dear Editor,
After attending the county commissioner’s meeting on Monday (November 10th), I became overwhelmingly aware of some things that I would like to bring to the attention of the voters.
Neighbors for Justice have been trying for months to get copies of the individual scoring sheets from the site selection committee with no luck. The only thing the county would provide was a single sheet with the final scores. We have come to realize that they have no documentation as to how they came up with their final scores. All we currently have is the county's word because they have either lost, discarded or destroyed the original documents. Those documents are public record. I believe the county should be forced to provide the documentation proving that this site scored the highest.
However, even if the commissioners could show documentation that this site scored the highest of the six, I would argue that the process they used for choosing the six was not a fair process to begin with. There were only six sites chosen based on recommendations by the committee to be scored. Five of the six sites chosen were on the WEST side of Bartlesville and the sixth was in a flood plain. There was not one individual on the selection committee representing the West side of Bartlesville. Does this not seem arbitrarily stacked against the West side of Bartlesville?
Why were no other viable locations scored, like for instance, the Industrial Park? Well, sources from the site selection committee were quite open about the fact that there was one particular individual who would not allow the Industrial Park to be on that list, even though some members of this committee believe that it is the best place to build the jail.
We know that the Industrial Park has up to 8 available acres for sale- - -it is listed on the city’s website. It is on a major highway with utilities already available, it is away from all residential areas and the city already owns it. A city official said they and the county are “dipping into the same pocket” to fund this new jail, then, I believe that the city and the county need to come together and work out a deal to get this jail built at the Industrial Park and keep the cost of this proposal to a minimum.
It is obvious to county voters that the processes used thus far have FAILED! Thus it is time for NEW processes. It is time for a new site selection committee that is not biased, it is time for a new architect and new consulting. It is time to research surrounding counties to see what has worked or not worked for them. It is time for us to research more cost effective ways of building this jail.
Luwana Brewster
Bartlesville, OK
Dear Editor,
After attending the county commissioner’s meeting on Monday (November 10th), I became overwhelmingly aware of some things that I would like to bring to the attention of the voters.
Neighbors for Justice have been trying for months to get copies of the individual scoring sheets from the site selection committee with no luck. The only thing the county would provide was a single sheet with the final scores. We have come to realize that they have no documentation as to how they came up with their final scores. All we currently have is the county's word because they have either lost, discarded or destroyed the original documents. Those documents are public record. I believe the county should be forced to provide the documentation proving that this site scored the highest.
However, even if the commissioners could show documentation that this site scored the highest of the six, I would argue that the process they used for choosing the six was not a fair process to begin with. There were only six sites chosen based on recommendations by the committee to be scored. Five of the six sites chosen were on the WEST side of Bartlesville and the sixth was in a flood plain. There was not one individual on the selection committee representing the West side of Bartlesville. Does this not seem arbitrarily stacked against the West side of Bartlesville?
Why were no other viable locations scored, like for instance, the Industrial Park? Well, sources from the site selection committee were quite open about the fact that there was one particular individual who would not allow the Industrial Park to be on that list, even though some members of this committee believe that it is the best place to build the jail.
We know that the Industrial Park has up to 8 available acres for sale- - -it is listed on the city’s website. It is on a major highway with utilities already available, it is away from all residential areas and the city already owns it. A city official said they and the county are “dipping into the same pocket” to fund this new jail, then, I believe that the city and the county need to come together and work out a deal to get this jail built at the Industrial Park and keep the cost of this proposal to a minimum.
It is obvious to county voters that the processes used thus far have FAILED! Thus it is time for NEW processes. It is time for a new site selection committee that is not biased, it is time for a new architect and new consulting. It is time to research surrounding counties to see what has worked or not worked for them. It is time for us to research more cost effective ways of building this jail.
Luwana Brewster
Bartlesville, OK
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Voters reject funding for new Washington County Jail
Voters reject funding for new Washington County Jail
By Tim Hudson E-E County Reporter
Voters resoundingly voiced disapproval with the proposed Washington County Jail, voting down both proposals on the project Tuesday and leaving officials scrambling to come up with their next move.
“We’ve got some tough decisions we have to make, and we want to get out as quick as we can on another ballot,” Washington County District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap told the Examiner-Enterprise this morning.
Voters shot down both jail ballot propositions — one for an ad valorem tax increase and another that would have resulted in a half-penny sales tax increase — effectively saying “No” to a proposed $18 million public safety facility.
The proposition for the ad valorem sales tax increase — which required 60 percent approval to pass — drew just 50.99 percent of the vote in support, while 49.01 percent of voters said “No.”
Proposition 2, seeking the sales tax increase, got just 49.34 percent approval, while 50.66 percent voted against the proposition.
“Obviously we’re disappointed,” Dunlap said. “We pulled 50 percent, though. We almost got there.”
He added that Monday morning’s commissioners’ meeting “will be interesting.”
“We will discuss options of where we are headed with the project. We’ll likely have the sheriff and the officials that are involved there,” he said.
Dunlap said that at some point there will be an “analysis of the election.”
He also noted that he had not heard from State Jail Inspector Don Garrison regarding the outcome of the vote.
At a League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 14, Garrison made it abundantly clear what could be facing the county if the county jail fails to comply with state regulations.
“Things could happen a whole lot more severe to your county, and when they do, you folks as citizens will be paying for it,” he said at the forum.
Garrison said there are two options that the health department has concerning the jail — one of them is that an ACO, or an administrative compliance order, has already been used on Washington County requiring the jail to put inmates in other counties to get down to the required capacity.
“It’s costing your county every day to put those inmates somewhere else, so those counties can have your money,” Garrison said.
He said communities typically get serious about building a jail once the attorney general gets involved.“
We could ask the attorney general to close this facility completely,” Garrison said at the forum.
“I don’t know if we will hear from Mr. Garrison this week or not,” Dunlap said today. “I would not be surprised, though.”
The road to Tuesday’s defeat had been tumultuous, and wrought with controversy and conflict. Discussions of the new county jail began in earnest when commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project at a May 16, 2005 board meeting.
The project later hit a major public relations stumbling block when questions of an open meetings act violation surfaced as a result of a July 13, 2006 closed committee meeting attended by numerous city and county officials.
The total price tag for the jail designed by consulting firm BKL Inc., was originally announced in June at $21,529,000 with annual maintenance costs estimated at $3,148,250 per year — numbers that had citizens and officials shaking their heads.
“I know the price tag has floored the whole community,” Dunlap said at the time. “No one, including myself, wants to spend $20 million on a jail.”
The price tag was later trimmed to the current $18 million number.
The project then took another hit on May 27, when the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny a request to rezone the land selected for the jail and the site itself, a 5.4-acre tract bordered by Oak Avenue on the west, Adams Boulevard on the north and the railroad tracks on the east and south commonly known as the “railroad spur.”
In August, the Washington County Correctional Facility Trust appealed the MAPC’s decision to the Bartlesville City Council, which considered the issue and initially voted 3-2 to deny the appeal. Due to a petition signed by residents within 300 feet of the site, a four-fifths majority was required to pass the measure.
However, the council reversed its decision a week later and voted 4-1 to approve the request.
The latest and still unanswered problem for the project has been a civil lawsuit filed against the City of Bartlesville and the Bartlesville City Council by a group of citizens who live in close proximity to the jail’s site.
The lawsuit, filed by Neighbors for Justice LLC, seeks a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
Nancy Strong of Neighbors for Justice told the E-E that she was very pleased with Tuesday’s outcome.
“The jail needs to be built, certainly, but I think the location has to do with it.”
She said there had been “some difficulty with city and county getting along” and “perhaps now with (Sheriff) Rick Silver getting into office, he will have more involvement with the jail plan.”
She said Neighbors for Justice plans to go forward with the lawsuit “unless there is a change” with the site selection.
Dunlap said he doesn’t know what changes would be made to the proposed project, but that the commissioners would have to keep coming back to the voters until there is a package they can approve.
“I don’t’ know what changes we will make,” he said. “The site is certainly going to have to be on the table as well as the size and cost; those issues have to be addressed — even the ballot proposal may have to change.”
By Tim Hudson E-E County Reporter
Voters resoundingly voiced disapproval with the proposed Washington County Jail, voting down both proposals on the project Tuesday and leaving officials scrambling to come up with their next move.
“We’ve got some tough decisions we have to make, and we want to get out as quick as we can on another ballot,” Washington County District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap told the Examiner-Enterprise this morning.
Voters shot down both jail ballot propositions — one for an ad valorem tax increase and another that would have resulted in a half-penny sales tax increase — effectively saying “No” to a proposed $18 million public safety facility.
The proposition for the ad valorem sales tax increase — which required 60 percent approval to pass — drew just 50.99 percent of the vote in support, while 49.01 percent of voters said “No.”
Proposition 2, seeking the sales tax increase, got just 49.34 percent approval, while 50.66 percent voted against the proposition.
“Obviously we’re disappointed,” Dunlap said. “We pulled 50 percent, though. We almost got there.”
He added that Monday morning’s commissioners’ meeting “will be interesting.”
“We will discuss options of where we are headed with the project. We’ll likely have the sheriff and the officials that are involved there,” he said.
Dunlap said that at some point there will be an “analysis of the election.”
He also noted that he had not heard from State Jail Inspector Don Garrison regarding the outcome of the vote.
At a League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 14, Garrison made it abundantly clear what could be facing the county if the county jail fails to comply with state regulations.
“Things could happen a whole lot more severe to your county, and when they do, you folks as citizens will be paying for it,” he said at the forum.
Garrison said there are two options that the health department has concerning the jail — one of them is that an ACO, or an administrative compliance order, has already been used on Washington County requiring the jail to put inmates in other counties to get down to the required capacity.
“It’s costing your county every day to put those inmates somewhere else, so those counties can have your money,” Garrison said.
He said communities typically get serious about building a jail once the attorney general gets involved.“
We could ask the attorney general to close this facility completely,” Garrison said at the forum.
“I don’t know if we will hear from Mr. Garrison this week or not,” Dunlap said today. “I would not be surprised, though.”
The road to Tuesday’s defeat had been tumultuous, and wrought with controversy and conflict. Discussions of the new county jail began in earnest when commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project at a May 16, 2005 board meeting.
The project later hit a major public relations stumbling block when questions of an open meetings act violation surfaced as a result of a July 13, 2006 closed committee meeting attended by numerous city and county officials.
The total price tag for the jail designed by consulting firm BKL Inc., was originally announced in June at $21,529,000 with annual maintenance costs estimated at $3,148,250 per year — numbers that had citizens and officials shaking their heads.
“I know the price tag has floored the whole community,” Dunlap said at the time. “No one, including myself, wants to spend $20 million on a jail.”
The price tag was later trimmed to the current $18 million number.
The project then took another hit on May 27, when the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny a request to rezone the land selected for the jail and the site itself, a 5.4-acre tract bordered by Oak Avenue on the west, Adams Boulevard on the north and the railroad tracks on the east and south commonly known as the “railroad spur.”
In August, the Washington County Correctional Facility Trust appealed the MAPC’s decision to the Bartlesville City Council, which considered the issue and initially voted 3-2 to deny the appeal. Due to a petition signed by residents within 300 feet of the site, a four-fifths majority was required to pass the measure.
However, the council reversed its decision a week later and voted 4-1 to approve the request.
The latest and still unanswered problem for the project has been a civil lawsuit filed against the City of Bartlesville and the Bartlesville City Council by a group of citizens who live in close proximity to the jail’s site.
The lawsuit, filed by Neighbors for Justice LLC, seeks a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
Nancy Strong of Neighbors for Justice told the E-E that she was very pleased with Tuesday’s outcome.
“The jail needs to be built, certainly, but I think the location has to do with it.”
She said there had been “some difficulty with city and county getting along” and “perhaps now with (Sheriff) Rick Silver getting into office, he will have more involvement with the jail plan.”
She said Neighbors for Justice plans to go forward with the lawsuit “unless there is a change” with the site selection.
Dunlap said he doesn’t know what changes would be made to the proposed project, but that the commissioners would have to keep coming back to the voters until there is a package they can approve.
“I don’t’ know what changes we will make,” he said. “The site is certainly going to have to be on the table as well as the size and cost; those issues have to be addressed — even the ballot proposal may have to change.”
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
KOSG-FM hosts Jail Debate: Mon., Nov. 3rd 8 AM
KOSG-FM 103.9 hosts Jail Debate: Mon., Nov. 3rd at 8 AM - Local Radio Statioin
KOSG 103.9-FM and local TV station Tri-City TV Channel 59 will air a debate about the upcoming jail vote on Monday, November 3rd, the day before the election. Ty Hager will host the debate live at 8AM from the KOSG studio atop the Pioneer Building. The debate will be simulcast on http://www.1039rocks.com/. Tri-City TV will then broadcast the debate later in the day at 7pm on cable channel 59.Participating in the debate will be County Commissioner Mike Dunlap, a staunch supporter of the poposed new facility, and LuWana Brewster, spokesperson for Neighbors for Justice, which has filed suit in District Court seeking an injunction to prevent the jail from being built at its proposed West Side location.The debate will be moderated by KOSG's morning show host Ty Hager, who has interviewed both Dunlap and Brewster separately on his 8 AM Interview Hour in the past. "It definitely won't be your typical debate," Hager promises. As avid listeners to his morning News Bites know, Ty will surely deliver on this promise!
KOSG 103.9-FM and local TV station Tri-City TV Channel 59 will air a debate about the upcoming jail vote on Monday, November 3rd, the day before the election. Ty Hager will host the debate live at 8AM from the KOSG studio atop the Pioneer Building. The debate will be simulcast on http://www.1039rocks.com/. Tri-City TV will then broadcast the debate later in the day at 7pm on cable channel 59.Participating in the debate will be County Commissioner Mike Dunlap, a staunch supporter of the poposed new facility, and LuWana Brewster, spokesperson for Neighbors for Justice, which has filed suit in District Court seeking an injunction to prevent the jail from being built at its proposed West Side location.The debate will be moderated by KOSG's morning show host Ty Hager, who has interviewed both Dunlap and Brewster separately on his 8 AM Interview Hour in the past. "It definitely won't be your typical debate," Hager promises. As avid listeners to his morning News Bites know, Ty will surely deliver on this promise!
Why Vote NO on Jail Funding?
Editor,
Everyone knows Washington County needs a new jail. They know the City is being sued over the proposed location of the new jail. And they also know on Nov. 4th they will have to vote yes or no to raise sales tax and property taxes to pay for the new jail. All the while, the City Council and City Attorney pretend they have no idea what's going on. Confusion abounds. Who is doing what to whom and why? I want to try and shed some light on exactly what is happening.
The law suit petition, which is public information, can be found on several web sites so if I can find it, so can you. Google is our friend!
Several months ago, Washington County asked the City to re-zone 5.4 acres at Oak and Adams to build a new jail. Fifty-one percent of the property owners within a 300 foot radius signed a petition protesting a jail in their neighborhood. At the zoning hearing, the MAPC denied the County's request for rezoning. Washington County appealed the MAPC decision to the City Council on August 18th. The City Council denied the appeal by a 3 to 2 vote. One week later, on August 25th, the City Council reversed their vote and approved the County’s re-zoning request. Council member Vic Holcomb changed his vote under pressure from people in his ward. Just before he voted, Vic asked City Attorney Jerry Maddux if what they were about to do was legal. Mr. Maddux said that under "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" they can re-vote until they came to a "final, final" decision. Shorty thereafter, folks in the immediate neighborhood formed Neighbors for Justice, found legal representation and sued the City of Bartlesville asking for a permanent injunction against building the new jail at Oak and Adams.
Here's why the City is being sued. Our City Charter says any ordinance, other than an emergency, goes into affect "the day following publication" in the local newspaper. (Oklahoma Statute Title 11, 1-102(8)(a) also references this.) On August 19th, the day after the City Council's vote to deny Washington County's re-zoning request, the Examiner-Enterprise reported on the denial in its daily edition. Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions and State zoning decisions make it clear zoning laws have the same weight as an "ordinance." This makes the August 18th vote the elusive "final, final" decision Mr. Maddux was looking for.
The City also violated Bartlesville Municipal Code when they re-voted August 25th because a denied re-zoning request can not be brought back for reconsideration for one year after it is denied.
Not only did the illegal revote of August 25th violate the "wait one year" rule but OK Title 11, sec 43-106 requires a "twenty (days) notice prior to the hearing by mailing written notice" to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the proposed rezoning area. Bartlesville Municipal Code Appendix A, sec 7.653 also requires a 20 day notice and public hearing. The City violated OK Title 11 and Municipal Code by failing to give written notice and hold a public hearing. You can't cram 20 days into one week no matter how hard you push.
Are you still with me? I'm almost done. Washington County presented a different development plan to the City Council than the one they originally presented to the MAPC. Once again the City violated their own Municipal Code which requires the final site plan be substantially the same as the preliminary site plan.
So what does all this mean? Did I mention I'm not a lawyer? But if I can read and understand this stuff, so can you.
What this all means is that the City Council re-voted just because they wanted to and thought no one would notice. Well, the neighborhood certainly noticed. They noticed that their right to due process had been denied "just because" Washington County and the City Council wanted to build a new jail where they thought it could be put without protest. I think a lawsuit can be considered a protest, don't you? If this were in your neighborhood, I doubt if you would say, sure, cool, build the new jail right across from my house.
Mr. Maddux stated that "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" gives the Council the authority to vote again until they reach a "final, final" vote. That seems ridiculous to me because the Council has never adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their governing authority. Besides, since when does Robert’s Rules or “general law” trump Oklahoma State laws, Bartlesville City Charter and Municipal Code? The City should be nervous, very nervous.
Nov. 4th we are being asked to approve a half cent sales tax increase AND a property tax increase to build a new county jail. But we have no idea where it will be built because of this lawsuit. Does this make sense to you?
Don’t let the County or the City or anyone else tell you that the State requires we build a new jail. Don Garrison, State Jail Inspector, stated at the League of Women Voters’ forum that no one has mandated that the county must build a new jail. “I don’t care … that you ever build a new jail, but you’ve got to correct (the) problems in the jail now,” he said. That can mean farming out prisoners or fixing the old jail – or building a new jail.
What can YOU do? Tell Washington County to find a location for the new jail at least 1/4 mile from any residential neighborhood BEFORE they ask you to vote on new taxes. Wait to find out what the real costs will be if the lawsuit is successful and the jail site is forced to move. As County Commissioner Mike Dunlap has so helpfully pointed out, the tax approval ballot will be "yellow" to distinguish it from the others. Vote NO on the yellow ballot!
George Henshaw
Bartlesville
Everyone knows Washington County needs a new jail. They know the City is being sued over the proposed location of the new jail. And they also know on Nov. 4th they will have to vote yes or no to raise sales tax and property taxes to pay for the new jail. All the while, the City Council and City Attorney pretend they have no idea what's going on. Confusion abounds. Who is doing what to whom and why? I want to try and shed some light on exactly what is happening.
The law suit petition, which is public information, can be found on several web sites so if I can find it, so can you. Google is our friend!
Several months ago, Washington County asked the City to re-zone 5.4 acres at Oak and Adams to build a new jail. Fifty-one percent of the property owners within a 300 foot radius signed a petition protesting a jail in their neighborhood. At the zoning hearing, the MAPC denied the County's request for rezoning. Washington County appealed the MAPC decision to the City Council on August 18th. The City Council denied the appeal by a 3 to 2 vote. One week later, on August 25th, the City Council reversed their vote and approved the County’s re-zoning request. Council member Vic Holcomb changed his vote under pressure from people in his ward. Just before he voted, Vic asked City Attorney Jerry Maddux if what they were about to do was legal. Mr. Maddux said that under "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" they can re-vote until they came to a "final, final" decision. Shorty thereafter, folks in the immediate neighborhood formed Neighbors for Justice, found legal representation and sued the City of Bartlesville asking for a permanent injunction against building the new jail at Oak and Adams.
Here's why the City is being sued. Our City Charter says any ordinance, other than an emergency, goes into affect "the day following publication" in the local newspaper. (Oklahoma Statute Title 11, 1-102(8)(a) also references this.) On August 19th, the day after the City Council's vote to deny Washington County's re-zoning request, the Examiner-Enterprise reported on the denial in its daily edition. Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions and State zoning decisions make it clear zoning laws have the same weight as an "ordinance." This makes the August 18th vote the elusive "final, final" decision Mr. Maddux was looking for.
The City also violated Bartlesville Municipal Code when they re-voted August 25th because a denied re-zoning request can not be brought back for reconsideration for one year after it is denied.
Not only did the illegal revote of August 25th violate the "wait one year" rule but OK Title 11, sec 43-106 requires a "twenty (days) notice prior to the hearing by mailing written notice" to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the proposed rezoning area. Bartlesville Municipal Code Appendix A, sec 7.653 also requires a 20 day notice and public hearing. The City violated OK Title 11 and Municipal Code by failing to give written notice and hold a public hearing. You can't cram 20 days into one week no matter how hard you push.
Are you still with me? I'm almost done. Washington County presented a different development plan to the City Council than the one they originally presented to the MAPC. Once again the City violated their own Municipal Code which requires the final site plan be substantially the same as the preliminary site plan.
So what does all this mean? Did I mention I'm not a lawyer? But if I can read and understand this stuff, so can you.
What this all means is that the City Council re-voted just because they wanted to and thought no one would notice. Well, the neighborhood certainly noticed. They noticed that their right to due process had been denied "just because" Washington County and the City Council wanted to build a new jail where they thought it could be put without protest. I think a lawsuit can be considered a protest, don't you? If this were in your neighborhood, I doubt if you would say, sure, cool, build the new jail right across from my house.
Mr. Maddux stated that "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" gives the Council the authority to vote again until they reach a "final, final" vote. That seems ridiculous to me because the Council has never adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their governing authority. Besides, since when does Robert’s Rules or “general law” trump Oklahoma State laws, Bartlesville City Charter and Municipal Code? The City should be nervous, very nervous.
Nov. 4th we are being asked to approve a half cent sales tax increase AND a property tax increase to build a new county jail. But we have no idea where it will be built because of this lawsuit. Does this make sense to you?
Don’t let the County or the City or anyone else tell you that the State requires we build a new jail. Don Garrison, State Jail Inspector, stated at the League of Women Voters’ forum that no one has mandated that the county must build a new jail. “I don’t care … that you ever build a new jail, but you’ve got to correct (the) problems in the jail now,” he said. That can mean farming out prisoners or fixing the old jail – or building a new jail.
What can YOU do? Tell Washington County to find a location for the new jail at least 1/4 mile from any residential neighborhood BEFORE they ask you to vote on new taxes. Wait to find out what the real costs will be if the lawsuit is successful and the jail site is forced to move. As County Commissioner Mike Dunlap has so helpfully pointed out, the tax approval ballot will be "yellow" to distinguish it from the others. Vote NO on the yellow ballot!
George Henshaw
Bartlesville
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tom Holland Interview with Ty Hager
Is it true that if voters choose to VOTE NO for funding the new jail that the State will come in and build a new jail and leave us with the bill?? Listen to Tom Holland try to defend this stance with a caller on the Ty Hager show. After listening, we are sure you will realize that this is UNTRUE.
State jail inspector Don Garrison is quoted saying this, "if citizens had heard that he or the health department had said that the county has to build a new jail, that it was “totally erroneous.”“I don’t care … that you ever build a new jail but you’ve got to correct (the) problems in the jail now,” he said.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Luwana Brewster's Radio Interview with Ty Hager
Luwana Brewster recently was interviewed on the Morning Show with Ty Hager on 103.9 FM. To listen to interview, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
LWV to host public meeting on proposed jail
(This is a copy from an Examiner news article. We wanted to add that Nancy Strong will be at the meeting representing Neighbors for Justice.)
By E-E Staff Report
The League of Women Voters of the Bartlesville Area will hold a meeting to discuss the proposed new Washington County jail, LWV spokespersons said this week.
The meeting will be held from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Tuesday in the second floor meeting room of the Bartlesville Public Library in downtown Bartlesville.
Funding proposals for the new jail will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot, when voters will be asked to approve two ballot measures to fund the facility.
Funding proposals include an ad valorem tax to total $13.5 million of the projected $18,650,000 cost of the facility, and a half-cent sales tax — one quarter-cent to fund the remaining amount of construction and one quarter-cent, which will be permanent, for ongoing maintenance and operation. If approved the facility will be constructed near Eighth Street and Oak Avenue.
By E-E Staff Report
The League of Women Voters of the Bartlesville Area will hold a meeting to discuss the proposed new Washington County jail, LWV spokespersons said this week.
The meeting will be held from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Tuesday in the second floor meeting room of the Bartlesville Public Library in downtown Bartlesville.
Funding proposals for the new jail will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot, when voters will be asked to approve two ballot measures to fund the facility.
Funding proposals include an ad valorem tax to total $13.5 million of the projected $18,650,000 cost of the facility, and a half-cent sales tax — one quarter-cent to fund the remaining amount of construction and one quarter-cent, which will be permanent, for ongoing maintenance and operation. If approved the facility will be constructed near Eighth Street and Oak Avenue.
The following people are expected to participate in the meeting:
- Mike Dunlap, Washington County Commissioner District No. 3.
Dunlap serves as chairman of the County Commissioners. Prior to his election as commissioner, he served three years on the Bartlesville City Council. - Don Garrison, director of Jail Inspections with the Oklahoma State Department of Health.
- Rick Silver, Washington County sheriff. Silver served with the Bartlesville Police Department until his election to sheriff in July. His most recent work has been in the area of illegal drug enforcement.
- Bettye Williams, member of the Public Safety Facilities Advisory Committee. Williams has been a member of the committee since it was founded in 2005. Williams, a longtime resident of Bartlesville, retired from Phillips Petroleum in 1995 and has served the community as assistant to the Washington County Election Board and as a member of the board of directors of the Salvation Army and the Agape Mission.
The moderator of the panel will be Kathy Hinkle, member of the Tulsa Metro League of Women Voters. She is former president of the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma, and is presently a Tulsa Metro League of Women Voters board member and the League’s Voter Service chairman.
There will be time for audience questions and answers after the presentations.
This meeting is open to all. Attendees may bring lunch and a drink if desired.
Friday, October 10, 2008
103.9 Rocks Interview
Luwana Brewster will be interviewed on 103.9 FM Friday morning from 8:00-9:00 am by Ty Hager. Click on the link above to listen live.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Suit Filed Against City & City Council
Neighbors for Justice Support New Jail:
But not in our back yard, say residents
In what at first appears to be a contradiction of the lawsuit it filed against the City of Bartlesville
and the Bartlesville City Council, Neighbors for Justice (NfJ) issued a statement proclaiming its
support for a new jail in Washington County.
“We absolutely believe that a new jail must be built. However, we also believe there should be
some conditions regarding where it is built,” said Luwana Brewster, one of the spokespersons for the new citizen group in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The new jail should not be across the street from our homes and play areas." Currently, the proposed jail site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on the north, west, and south sides.
A civil suit was filed against the City of Bartlesville and the Bartlesville City Council on September 23 seeking a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
The NfJ suit was filed with Washington County District Court on Tuesday, September 23, 2008
by Tulsa law firm, Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican and Hart. This firm also successfully
represented the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (STCC) in a three-year battle to stop the
construction of a privately owned toll bridge. In January 2008, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
ruled unanimously in favor of STCC.
NfJ has also created a legal fund to help pay legal fees that will be incurred during the legal
battle, which may be long and arduous.
The following is quoted from the September 24 Examiner Enterprise:
“If the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will have been denied the ability to participate in their government in a way guaranteed by state and municipal authority,” the suit contends. “Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages fail to account for a city and its government acting beyond its authority and for Plaintiffs’ denial of their rights to participate in their local government.”
The suit also maintains that an injunction would “force the Washington County Correctional Facility Trust Authority to follow proper statutory procedure or select a new location for the county jail.”
The suit additionally contends that by voting to rezone the area, the Bartlesville City Council violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering. According to the suit, Bartlesville municipal code requires that when “an application for amendment to the regulations is denied, said application shall not be eligible for reconsideration for one year subsequent to such denial.”
The suit also contends that the Bartlesville City Council did not follow Oklahoma statutes by not giving 20 days prior notice to some property owners in the area and similarly violating the municipal code.
The suit additionally posits that the council is in violation of the requirements of the final site development plan and calls the re-vote “arbitrary and capricious.”
To view the complete petition that was filed, click HERE.
But not in our back yard, say residents
In what at first appears to be a contradiction of the lawsuit it filed against the City of Bartlesville
and the Bartlesville City Council, Neighbors for Justice (NfJ) issued a statement proclaiming its
support for a new jail in Washington County.
“We absolutely believe that a new jail must be built. However, we also believe there should be
some conditions regarding where it is built,” said Luwana Brewster, one of the spokespersons for the new citizen group in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The new jail should not be across the street from our homes and play areas." Currently, the proposed jail site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on the north, west, and south sides.
A civil suit was filed against the City of Bartlesville and the Bartlesville City Council on September 23 seeking a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
The NfJ suit was filed with Washington County District Court on Tuesday, September 23, 2008
by Tulsa law firm, Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican and Hart. This firm also successfully
represented the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (STCC) in a three-year battle to stop the
construction of a privately owned toll bridge. In January 2008, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
ruled unanimously in favor of STCC.
NfJ has also created a legal fund to help pay legal fees that will be incurred during the legal
battle, which may be long and arduous.
The following is quoted from the September 24 Examiner Enterprise:
“If the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will have been denied the ability to participate in their government in a way guaranteed by state and municipal authority,” the suit contends. “Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages fail to account for a city and its government acting beyond its authority and for Plaintiffs’ denial of their rights to participate in their local government.”
The suit also maintains that an injunction would “force the Washington County Correctional Facility Trust Authority to follow proper statutory procedure or select a new location for the county jail.”
The suit additionally contends that by voting to rezone the area, the Bartlesville City Council violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering. According to the suit, Bartlesville municipal code requires that when “an application for amendment to the regulations is denied, said application shall not be eligible for reconsideration for one year subsequent to such denial.”
The suit also contends that the Bartlesville City Council did not follow Oklahoma statutes by not giving 20 days prior notice to some property owners in the area and similarly violating the municipal code.
The suit additionally posits that the council is in violation of the requirements of the final site development plan and calls the re-vote “arbitrary and capricious.”
To view the complete petition that was filed, click HERE.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Attorneys Have Been Secured
Neighbors for Justice recognizes that the Bartlesville City Council has been faced with controversial situations and challenging times in recent months and years. The neighbors appreciate the service of each of the council members to the community of Bartlesville and the vital function that this council provides to the health and growth of this city.
However, the neighbors believe the action taken by the council on August 25, 2008 was unacceptable. This vote overturned a previous denial for zoning to allow a jail in a residential neighborhood. The neighbors do not see any opportunity at this time to correct that mistake other than via legal action.
With that being said, Neighbors For Justice would like to announce that they have secured the law firm Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican & Hart to defend their cause.
This firm also represented the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition who fought against having a toll bridge built and were victorious this year at the Supreme Court.
However, the neighbors believe the action taken by the council on August 25, 2008 was unacceptable. This vote overturned a previous denial for zoning to allow a jail in a residential neighborhood. The neighbors do not see any opportunity at this time to correct that mistake other than via legal action.
With that being said, Neighbors For Justice would like to announce that they have secured the law firm Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican & Hart to defend their cause.
This firm also represented the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition who fought against having a toll bridge built and were victorious this year at the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Time Line
May 2005 Discussions of a new county jail begin as commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project at a board meeting
2006 Treanor report is provided by consultants to the county describing recommended action regarding new jail facility.
On page 25, the report states this:
Proximity to Residential
Setting this facility away from residential areas insures that the eventual development in Washington County has the ability to be appropriately zoned for development near the facility in the future.
The Treanor Report scores possible locations on a scale of 0 to 6 possible. This report gives a 0 score for anything within 500 feet. There will be a number of residents living within 300 feet of this jail facility.
2006-2008: Various 'committees' work on 'matrices for appropriate sites' and select the current proposed site.
May 13, 2008: County Commissioner Mike Dunlap holds required public 'informational' hearing with property owners 300' or less from the perimeter of the proposed site. (City planner says the minutes submitted from the meeting reflected positive support from the neighbors - our observation was that 2-3 neighbors in support vs. 30-40 in opposition)
May 27, 2008: MAPC (Metro Area Planning Commission) holds public hearing, and votes 4-3 to deny re-zoning request after neighbors voice opposition.
June/July/Aug 2008: The county plans to appeal the MAPC vote to the city council. Neighbors collect signatures for the required 50% plus one to require a super-majority 4-1 vote to pass the appeal of the county at upcoming city council hearing.
Aug 18, 2008: County advises city council that if they deny the appeal, it will go to court. 'Mr. Maddux, city attorney, advises the city would 'almost certainly' lose in court after ~ 4 months of legal proceedings. City council proceeds to vote 3-2 to deny the county appeal anyway.
Aug 20, 2008: City announces that the item will be revisited on the agenda at the Monday, August 25th special meeting after council member Vic Holcomb 'received calls from his constituents urging him to reconsider.'
August 25, 2008: City council reverses its' decision even after ignoring many citizens and their legal concerns about the revote being illegal. Mr. Holcomb and Mr. Gorman both change their votes from no to yes.
September 23, 2008: Civil suit is filed against the Cityof Bartlesville and the City Council seeking a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
November 4, 2008: Voters reject the Ballet Proposals for tax increases to fund the county jail.
November 24, 2008: City filed a response to the civil suit.
January, 2009: Trial date is set for March 23
March, 2009: Neighbors were adviced by counsel to drop the suit in leu of city council elections. Since that time, the neighbors have not been able to come up with the money to continue with a law suit.
June 9, 2009 - Voters will again be asked to fund a jail in the same residential location.
2006 Treanor report is provided by consultants to the county describing recommended action regarding new jail facility.
On page 25, the report states this:
Proximity to Residential
Setting this facility away from residential areas insures that the eventual development in Washington County has the ability to be appropriately zoned for development near the facility in the future.
The Treanor Report scores possible locations on a scale of 0 to 6 possible. This report gives a 0 score for anything within 500 feet. There will be a number of residents living within 300 feet of this jail facility.
2006-2008: Various 'committees' work on 'matrices for appropriate sites' and select the current proposed site.
May 13, 2008: County Commissioner Mike Dunlap holds required public 'informational' hearing with property owners 300' or less from the perimeter of the proposed site. (City planner says the minutes submitted from the meeting reflected positive support from the neighbors - our observation was that 2-3 neighbors in support vs. 30-40 in opposition)
May 27, 2008: MAPC (Metro Area Planning Commission) holds public hearing, and votes 4-3 to deny re-zoning request after neighbors voice opposition.
June/July/Aug 2008: The county plans to appeal the MAPC vote to the city council. Neighbors collect signatures for the required 50% plus one to require a super-majority 4-1 vote to pass the appeal of the county at upcoming city council hearing.
Aug 18, 2008: County advises city council that if they deny the appeal, it will go to court. 'Mr. Maddux, city attorney, advises the city would 'almost certainly' lose in court after ~ 4 months of legal proceedings. City council proceeds to vote 3-2 to deny the county appeal anyway.
Aug 20, 2008: City announces that the item will be revisited on the agenda at the Monday, August 25th special meeting after council member Vic Holcomb 'received calls from his constituents urging him to reconsider.'
August 25, 2008: City council reverses its' decision even after ignoring many citizens and their legal concerns about the revote being illegal. Mr. Holcomb and Mr. Gorman both change their votes from no to yes.
September 23, 2008: Civil suit is filed against the Cityof Bartlesville and the City Council seeking a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
November 4, 2008: Voters reject the Ballet Proposals for tax increases to fund the county jail.
November 24, 2008: City filed a response to the civil suit.
January, 2009: Trial date is set for March 23
March, 2009: Neighbors were adviced by counsel to drop the suit in leu of city council elections. Since that time, the neighbors have not been able to come up with the money to continue with a law suit.
June 9, 2009 - Voters will again be asked to fund a jail in the same residential location.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Journey via The Examiner Enterprise
Here is a list of news articles from the Examiner Enterprise concerning the Jail Project since May 2008. If you would like to read the complete article, click on the title and it will bring you to the article. There are also some excerpts of important points in italics after some of the articles.
May 20: County okays agreement with consultant on jail project
May 23: Jail Issues Debated: County officials, citizens weigh pros and cons of current plan
Some citizens questioned the site of the proposed facility which is a 5.4-acre tract bordered by Oak Avenue on the west, Adams Boulevard on the north and the railroad tracks on the east and south.The area is commonly known as the “railroad spur” on Bartlesville’s west side.“If we were going to do this in Colonial, it wouldn’t happen, but because of where it is, it is going to happen,” said one area resident. “They wouldn’t even let low income housing even come down by Colonial in 2004.”Herndon responded, “Modern jails make wonderful neighbors.”
May 25: Jail: How did we get here?
May 28: Jail Plan Hits Snag: MAPC denies rezoning request; Dunlap says no July 29 election
A halt in progress on the project could put the county in a precarious situation with the state jail inspector and the state fire marshal. The jail inspector may use the Administrative Compliance Act, to levy fines against a county for up to $10,000 per day.Commissioners are also looking down the barrel of a recent jail visit by the State Fire Marshal. The fire marshal report stated, “the number of inmates shall be reduced immediately.” The report, dated May 20, requires that a plan of correction be submitted within 30 days.
June 4: Jail Cost Debated: Committee members call for reduction in project price tag
“I’ve been doing this for a long time. People say, ‘that’s too much.’ The longer you put this off, you’re increasing the cost of your jail.”
June 17: Commissioners grapple with jail issues, purchase
Amid pressure from state officials and citizens, members of the Board of Washington County Commissioners say they are working to complete the proposed county jail in a expedient and cost effective manner.
Dunlap said he still liked the proposed site and added that if the site changes then “the amount changes.”“The same processes we went through to get to this point would have to happen again,” he said.Commissioners voted to purchase the land in question before contracts on the parcels expire.
June 18: Neighbors Unhappy: Residents near proposed jail site voice displeasure
“You don’t live next door, you live across the tracks,” one resident told District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap. “I live next door and I don’t think this will benefit me at all.”“I’m not going to argue with you; I respect your opinion,” Dunlap responded
“Anybody in here knows that a resident does not want a jail in their front door, their back door, or their side door — period,” said one resident.
“Putting the jail in that particular area, it’s a residential area. We all have children, we all have loved ones. We do not want a jail there, first and foremost. You put a jail in my front yard — I have an issue with that, and I guarantee that anyone in here, no matter how much you try to pretty it up and make it sound good, you don’t want a jail in front of your front door either. Put it in your neighborhood and tell me that you wouldn’t feel the same way that we do.”
The woman also opined that the jail would not help the immediate community surrounding it.
“Is anything being offered to the community besides him (Dunlap) trying to tell me that it is going to beautify the neighborhood? I’m sorry that’s just not flying with me,” she said.
Another resident, “Since you all decided that it is going to be there, it is going to be there and there is nothing we can do … there’s nothing that we can do about it — it’s decided. It’s your world … you know how things run.”
Bartlesville City manager Ed Gordon commiserated with citizens, saying, “Do I want a jail next door to me? Of course not.”
June 27: Jail Views Aired: Some officials express frustration
“We’re two years in the past; we’ve got to move forward,” said committee Chairman Bill Beierschmitt. “We’ve got a time bomb, if you will, and it’s ticking. We’ve got to do whatever it takes to move it forward.”
July 8, 2008: Washington County Commission postpones new jail discussion item
“On Monday, Dunlap said that he didn’t want to delay the project any further. Discussions of a new county jail have been ongoing since commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project in 2005.”
July 9: Jail Costs Trimmed: County officials reduce total square footage, cut price tag
July 15: Jail Funding Proposed: Committees call for combination of property, sales tax to pay for facility
District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap gave a brief report on a recent meeting with residents of the proposed jail site.
“I would love to sit here and tell you that they were 100 percent in favor and ready to jump forward but that wasn’t the case...” said Dunlap. “It’s not 100 percent supported but it wouldn’t be anywhere in Bartlesville.”
He added that with the addition of the jail “there’d be more of a law enforcement presence in the area obviously so that’s a plus.”
August 5: County Commission expects to close on jail property Friday
**Our Note: The County chose to close before the land was approved for rezoning- - In our opinion, they could have waited to close on the property until AFTER the land was rezoned.
August 12: Fines Threatened: State orders county officials to correct jail overcrowding
Washington County District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap announced at the board’s weekly meeting on Monday that the Department of Health could begin fining the county $500 per day, per prisoner over capacity not to exceed $10,000 a day. Unless the situation is addressed, the fines could begin in as little as two weeks.
“Obviously, it’s serious” said Dunlap of the order.
Officials were given two weeks to address the overcrowding issues.
August 17: City to consider jail site appeal, renaming park
(notice what Max Lutke/realtor says about west side property)
August 17: Not in My Backyard: Neighbors opposed to jail site
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS GOOD!!
August 19: Appeal Denied: City Council shoots down county request to rezone property for jail
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD!
Much discussion Monday centered around the current zoning of the proposed jail site, with City Attorney Jerry Maddux pointing out several types of businesses, including a public or private dump, that could be located there with no further action by the city. He (Maddux) also said that if the appeal was denied by the council, the county can challenge the ruling in district court, and that the city would have a hard time proving the jail would have more of a negative impact on the surrounding community than some other uses for which the property is already zoned.
(OUR NOTE: The property we are looking at is a residential and NONE of the above things are allowed in residential zoning. Mr. Maddux is talking about the 59% of land in this 5.4 acre tract that is zoned industrial- - -thus this argument is not valid)
“Zoning is what you call a legislative matter, which simply means that when the City Council makes a decision on zoning, the courts are supposed to sustain whatever decision the council makes if that decision is not arbitrary or capricious, or unreasonable,” Maddux said.
“Someone that challenges in court a decision of the City Council has a high burden of proving that the decision of the City Council is arbitrary and capacious and unreasonable. In this particular case, the burden for the City Council, if this (is) denied, would be to explain to the court why we would allow — and I’m sure you probably have the list … of what you call ‘bad’ or ‘horrible’ uses that are currently allowed.
“If the council were to deny this, we would have to be able to present a reasonable argument in court as to why these uses are acceptable to the council … and why a jail is unreasonable,” Maddux said. “Frankly, it would be a hard burden for us to sustain.”
There was also discussion about whether payment for a “westside development plan,” currently in the process of getting under way by the city, could be made a condition of approval of the rezoning. Maddux told the council such a condition would not be legal. (is this true?)
Holcomb also struggled with the issue, recalling the construction of a mental facility in a neighborhood in which he resided in Ponca City, due to a vote of the City Council. Holcomb said he moved from the area soon after, but returned later to find the neighborhood had deteriorated.
“I can’t do that to somebody,” he said. “But then again, we’ve got to have the jail. And it’s got to go somewhere.“This is the most difficult decision I’ve been faced with as a council member. I still don’t know how I’ll vote when my name is called.”
Holcomb followed Nikkel in voting “No,” resulting in applause from the audience as the four-fifths majority had not been met.Washington County Commissioners are expected to challenge the council decision in district court.
August 19: Dunlap: County to move forward; court challenge could be next “Obviously we’re disappointed,” Dunlap told the newspaper this morning. “We’ve got to move forward. We’ve got two large committees that were unanimous in their decision that was the best place to put the jail.”
The city attorney said that he thought we would win if the county challenged this in court,” said Dunlap. “That’s on the table as a possibility, but it’s something that we will discuss in our weekly meeting.”Despite the City Council’s decision, Dunlap said he still believes the site selected is appropriate.“I’m still committed to the site,” he said. “I fully believe that it is the right place to build a jail.”
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD & FULL OF INFORMATION
In response to the statements, City Attorney Jerry Maddux said the council legally had a right to reconsider the matter, as long as it was brought forth by a council member who initially voted in the majority and that it be revisited at the next available meeting.“Any legislative body has a right to reconsider the action that is has taken,” Maddux said. “Generally, the motion to reconsider must be presented by a person who voted in the majority on the first vote, and it must be done at the next available meeting.“That’s generally the law. We don’t have any written rule, it’s whatever the council decides. But generally, under Robert’s Rules of Order and others, the council does have the right to reconsider.”
(OUR NOTE: In an article dated May 20, 2008 Mr. Maddux says the council does not follow Robert’s Rule of Order. Click HERE to see that article. In our opinion, it seems the city choses what to follow based on what suits their agenda at the time)
Mr. Dronyk is exactly right,” Maddux said, “But then the question comes in, what is ‘denied?’ Is it a final denial? It is not a final denial when the council still has the ability to reconsider the issue.”
August 28: Jail Proposals Discussed: Gorman, Dunlap weigh in on budget issues
September 2: Dunlap: Old hospital not an option for jail
September 3: Jail Question Set for November Election
September 7: New jail will be a tough sell
The newspaper certainly agrees a new jail is desperately needed. However, other factors could still derail it. There is talk of a lawsuit by west side residents against the Bartlesville City Council which recently approved rezoning the much-debated jail property.
Any remaining controversy concerning the project will only make it that much more difficult to pass. In the next 60 days, supporters must embark on an intense information blitz to sell this project to the voting public.
August 24, 2008: Citizens File Suit: Residents living near proposed jail site seek a permanent injunction
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by Neighbors for Justice LLC, seeks a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
“If the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will have been denied the ability to participate in their government in a way guaranteed by state and municipal authority,” the suit contends. “Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages fail to account for a city and its government acting beyond its authority and for Plaintiffs’ denial of their rights to participate in their local government.
The suit additionally contends that by voting to rezone the area, the Bartlesville City Council violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering. According to the suit, Bartlesville municipal code requires that when “an application for amendment to the regulations is denied, said application shall not be eligible for reconsideration for one year subsequent to such denial.”
September 28, 2008: Jail plan hits another obstacle
A group of west side residents finally pulled the trigger on an anticipated legal challenge to the City of Bartlesville’s decision to allow rezoning of property selected by Washington County officials for a new jail.
The civil lawsuit has been filed against the Bartlesville City Council by a group of citizens, “Neighbors for Justice LLC” who live in close proximity to the 5.4-acre tract just southwest of downtown. The citizens, who don’t want the new jail built near their neighborhood, seek a permanent injunction on grounds that the city violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering its action.
Readers will recall in May, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission denied the county’s initial request to rezone the property. The Washington County Correctional Facility Trust appealed that decision to the Bartlesville City Council, which voted 3-2 to deny the appeal. However, the council reversed its decision just a week later and voted 4-1 to approve the request.
Citizen support for this jail plan was already shaky at best. This latest legal wrangling further clouds the issue, making voter approval in November very questionable.
May 20: County okays agreement with consultant on jail project
May 23: Jail Issues Debated: County officials, citizens weigh pros and cons of current plan
Some citizens questioned the site of the proposed facility which is a 5.4-acre tract bordered by Oak Avenue on the west, Adams Boulevard on the north and the railroad tracks on the east and south.The area is commonly known as the “railroad spur” on Bartlesville’s west side.“If we were going to do this in Colonial, it wouldn’t happen, but because of where it is, it is going to happen,” said one area resident. “They wouldn’t even let low income housing even come down by Colonial in 2004.”Herndon responded, “Modern jails make wonderful neighbors.”
May 25: Jail: How did we get here?
May 28: Jail Plan Hits Snag: MAPC denies rezoning request; Dunlap says no July 29 election
A halt in progress on the project could put the county in a precarious situation with the state jail inspector and the state fire marshal. The jail inspector may use the Administrative Compliance Act, to levy fines against a county for up to $10,000 per day.Commissioners are also looking down the barrel of a recent jail visit by the State Fire Marshal. The fire marshal report stated, “the number of inmates shall be reduced immediately.” The report, dated May 20, requires that a plan of correction be submitted within 30 days.
June 4: Jail Cost Debated: Committee members call for reduction in project price tag
“I’ve been doing this for a long time. People say, ‘that’s too much.’ The longer you put this off, you’re increasing the cost of your jail.”
June 17: Commissioners grapple with jail issues, purchase
Amid pressure from state officials and citizens, members of the Board of Washington County Commissioners say they are working to complete the proposed county jail in a expedient and cost effective manner.
Dunlap said he still liked the proposed site and added that if the site changes then “the amount changes.”“The same processes we went through to get to this point would have to happen again,” he said.Commissioners voted to purchase the land in question before contracts on the parcels expire.
June 18: Neighbors Unhappy: Residents near proposed jail site voice displeasure
“You don’t live next door, you live across the tracks,” one resident told District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap. “I live next door and I don’t think this will benefit me at all.”“I’m not going to argue with you; I respect your opinion,” Dunlap responded
“Anybody in here knows that a resident does not want a jail in their front door, their back door, or their side door — period,” said one resident.
“Putting the jail in that particular area, it’s a residential area. We all have children, we all have loved ones. We do not want a jail there, first and foremost. You put a jail in my front yard — I have an issue with that, and I guarantee that anyone in here, no matter how much you try to pretty it up and make it sound good, you don’t want a jail in front of your front door either. Put it in your neighborhood and tell me that you wouldn’t feel the same way that we do.”
The woman also opined that the jail would not help the immediate community surrounding it.
“Is anything being offered to the community besides him (Dunlap) trying to tell me that it is going to beautify the neighborhood? I’m sorry that’s just not flying with me,” she said.
Another resident, “Since you all decided that it is going to be there, it is going to be there and there is nothing we can do … there’s nothing that we can do about it — it’s decided. It’s your world … you know how things run.”
Bartlesville City manager Ed Gordon commiserated with citizens, saying, “Do I want a jail next door to me? Of course not.”
June 27: Jail Views Aired: Some officials express frustration
“We’re two years in the past; we’ve got to move forward,” said committee Chairman Bill Beierschmitt. “We’ve got a time bomb, if you will, and it’s ticking. We’ve got to do whatever it takes to move it forward.”
July 8, 2008: Washington County Commission postpones new jail discussion item
“On Monday, Dunlap said that he didn’t want to delay the project any further. Discussions of a new county jail have been ongoing since commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project in 2005.”
July 9: Jail Costs Trimmed: County officials reduce total square footage, cut price tag
July 15: Jail Funding Proposed: Committees call for combination of property, sales tax to pay for facility
District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap gave a brief report on a recent meeting with residents of the proposed jail site.
“I would love to sit here and tell you that they were 100 percent in favor and ready to jump forward but that wasn’t the case...” said Dunlap. “It’s not 100 percent supported but it wouldn’t be anywhere in Bartlesville.”
He added that with the addition of the jail “there’d be more of a law enforcement presence in the area obviously so that’s a plus.”
August 5: County Commission expects to close on jail property Friday
**Our Note: The County chose to close before the land was approved for rezoning- - In our opinion, they could have waited to close on the property until AFTER the land was rezoned.
August 12: Fines Threatened: State orders county officials to correct jail overcrowding
Washington County District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap announced at the board’s weekly meeting on Monday that the Department of Health could begin fining the county $500 per day, per prisoner over capacity not to exceed $10,000 a day. Unless the situation is addressed, the fines could begin in as little as two weeks.
“Obviously, it’s serious” said Dunlap of the order.
Officials were given two weeks to address the overcrowding issues.
August 17: City to consider jail site appeal, renaming park
(notice what Max Lutke/realtor says about west side property)
August 17: Not in My Backyard: Neighbors opposed to jail site
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS GOOD!!
August 19: Appeal Denied: City Council shoots down county request to rezone property for jail
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD!
Much discussion Monday centered around the current zoning of the proposed jail site, with City Attorney Jerry Maddux pointing out several types of businesses, including a public or private dump, that could be located there with no further action by the city. He (Maddux) also said that if the appeal was denied by the council, the county can challenge the ruling in district court, and that the city would have a hard time proving the jail would have more of a negative impact on the surrounding community than some other uses for which the property is already zoned.
(OUR NOTE: The property we are looking at is a residential and NONE of the above things are allowed in residential zoning. Mr. Maddux is talking about the 59% of land in this 5.4 acre tract that is zoned industrial- - -thus this argument is not valid)
“Zoning is what you call a legislative matter, which simply means that when the City Council makes a decision on zoning, the courts are supposed to sustain whatever decision the council makes if that decision is not arbitrary or capricious, or unreasonable,” Maddux said.
“Someone that challenges in court a decision of the City Council has a high burden of proving that the decision of the City Council is arbitrary and capacious and unreasonable. In this particular case, the burden for the City Council, if this (is) denied, would be to explain to the court why we would allow — and I’m sure you probably have the list … of what you call ‘bad’ or ‘horrible’ uses that are currently allowed.
“If the council were to deny this, we would have to be able to present a reasonable argument in court as to why these uses are acceptable to the council … and why a jail is unreasonable,” Maddux said. “Frankly, it would be a hard burden for us to sustain.”
There was also discussion about whether payment for a “westside development plan,” currently in the process of getting under way by the city, could be made a condition of approval of the rezoning. Maddux told the council such a condition would not be legal. (is this true?)
Holcomb also struggled with the issue, recalling the construction of a mental facility in a neighborhood in which he resided in Ponca City, due to a vote of the City Council. Holcomb said he moved from the area soon after, but returned later to find the neighborhood had deteriorated.
“I can’t do that to somebody,” he said. “But then again, we’ve got to have the jail. And it’s got to go somewhere.“This is the most difficult decision I’ve been faced with as a council member. I still don’t know how I’ll vote when my name is called.”
Holcomb followed Nikkel in voting “No,” resulting in applause from the audience as the four-fifths majority had not been met.Washington County Commissioners are expected to challenge the council decision in district court.
August 19: Dunlap: County to move forward; court challenge could be next “Obviously we’re disappointed,” Dunlap told the newspaper this morning. “We’ve got to move forward. We’ve got two large committees that were unanimous in their decision that was the best place to put the jail.”
The city attorney said that he thought we would win if the county challenged this in court,” said Dunlap. “That’s on the table as a possibility, but it’s something that we will discuss in our weekly meeting.”Despite the City Council’s decision, Dunlap said he still believes the site selected is appropriate.“I’m still committed to the site,” he said. “I fully believe that it is the right place to build a jail.”
August 21, 2008: City to Reconsider: Council will revisit county jail property zoning appeal
In an unprecedented move, the Bartlesville City Council plans to revisit its vote on a rezoning appeal that, if passed, could make way for a new county jail, according to an agenda posted Wednesday.
The rezoning is necessary to move forward with plans to construct a county jail on the site. Washington County officials had hoped to put funding options for the project before voters in November
“As you know, I was quite torn on which way to vote on the item,” Holcomb told the newspaper this morning. “After the vote (last week), I was talking to a number of my constituents in Ward 5, who felt like that location was the best location.
“I know (the reconsideration) is somewhat of a novel concept, but I am ultimately responsible to the citizens of my ward. Since I was so torn on which way to vote, the ultimate decider for me was to represent my ward.“Since they asked me to reconsider my vote, I’m going to do so,” he said.
Asked if he plans to change his vote on Monday night, Holcomb said, “I think that’s obvious.”
August 26: Decision Reversed: City Council approves county’s jail property rezoning requestTHIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD & FULL OF INFORMATION
In response to the statements, City Attorney Jerry Maddux said the council legally had a right to reconsider the matter, as long as it was brought forth by a council member who initially voted in the majority and that it be revisited at the next available meeting.“Any legislative body has a right to reconsider the action that is has taken,” Maddux said. “Generally, the motion to reconsider must be presented by a person who voted in the majority on the first vote, and it must be done at the next available meeting.“That’s generally the law. We don’t have any written rule, it’s whatever the council decides. But generally, under Robert’s Rules of Order and others, the council does have the right to reconsider.”
(OUR NOTE: In an article dated May 20, 2008 Mr. Maddux says the council does not follow Robert’s Rule of Order. Click HERE to see that article. In our opinion, it seems the city choses what to follow based on what suits their agenda at the time)
Mr. Dronyk is exactly right,” Maddux said, “But then the question comes in, what is ‘denied?’ Is it a final denial? It is not a final denial when the council still has the ability to reconsider the issue.”
August 28: Jail Proposals Discussed: Gorman, Dunlap weigh in on budget issues
September 2: Dunlap: Old hospital not an option for jail
September 3: Jail Question Set for November Election
September 7: New jail will be a tough sell
The newspaper certainly agrees a new jail is desperately needed. However, other factors could still derail it. There is talk of a lawsuit by west side residents against the Bartlesville City Council which recently approved rezoning the much-debated jail property.
Any remaining controversy concerning the project will only make it that much more difficult to pass. In the next 60 days, supporters must embark on an intense information blitz to sell this project to the voting public.
August 24, 2008: Citizens File Suit: Residents living near proposed jail site seek a permanent injunction
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by Neighbors for Justice LLC, seeks a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
“If the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will have been denied the ability to participate in their government in a way guaranteed by state and municipal authority,” the suit contends. “Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages fail to account for a city and its government acting beyond its authority and for Plaintiffs’ denial of their rights to participate in their local government.
The suit additionally contends that by voting to rezone the area, the Bartlesville City Council violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering. According to the suit, Bartlesville municipal code requires that when “an application for amendment to the regulations is denied, said application shall not be eligible for reconsideration for one year subsequent to such denial.”
September 28, 2008: Jail plan hits another obstacle
A group of west side residents finally pulled the trigger on an anticipated legal challenge to the City of Bartlesville’s decision to allow rezoning of property selected by Washington County officials for a new jail.
The civil lawsuit has been filed against the Bartlesville City Council by a group of citizens, “Neighbors for Justice LLC” who live in close proximity to the 5.4-acre tract just southwest of downtown. The citizens, who don’t want the new jail built near their neighborhood, seek a permanent injunction on grounds that the city violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering its action.
Readers will recall in May, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission denied the county’s initial request to rezone the property. The Washington County Correctional Facility Trust appealed that decision to the Bartlesville City Council, which voted 3-2 to deny the appeal. However, the council reversed its decision just a week later and voted 4-1 to approve the request.
Citizen support for this jail plan was already shaky at best. This latest legal wrangling further clouds the issue, making voter approval in November very questionable.
Jail Issues Addressed at League of Women Voters Forum
Garrison(state jail inspector) began the meeting by saying if citizens had heard that he or the health department had said that the county has to build a new jail, that it was “totally erroneous.”“I don’t care … that you ever build a new jail but you’ve got to correct (the) problems in the jail now,” he said.When questioned on the issues of the acreage, Strong said the county paid almost $37,000 per acre for the site.
“I think that we could look at many different places in Bartlesville and find five acres for less than $37,000 an acre,” she said.
Another question concerned the price difference between the Delaware facility and the proposed Washington County facility.
“Delaware is dorm-style, whereas ours is a cell style,” Dunalp said. “It’s not apples for apples on the comparison.”
Monday, September 1, 2008
Our Mission
As concerned citizens, we want a responsible approach for a jail in Washington County.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it is built in a non-residential area.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it will not detrimentally affect the growth and financial condition of the area where it is built.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County follow proper zoning regulations and standard procedures for zoning changes and zoning appeals.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County attribute equal amounts of respect and dignity to all citizens of Bartlesville.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it is built in a non-residential area.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it will not detrimentally affect the growth and financial condition of the area where it is built.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County follow proper zoning regulations and standard procedures for zoning changes and zoning appeals.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County attribute equal amounts of respect and dignity to all citizens of Bartlesville.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
