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.”