Voters shoot down jail proposal

Wednesday, December 31, 2003

As the summer reached its zenith and temperatures soared so did tempers as Vernon Countians argued over a 1/2 cent law enforcement tax, placed on the Aug. 5 ballot, that would have provided money for a new jail and a county wide E911 system.

The law enforcement facility was to be located at the corner of Austin and Centennial on a 6-and-a-half-acre parcel. It was to have 98 inmate beds and house the city and county law enforcement administrative offices. This would have replaced the current 22 bed facility the county is now using.

In a series of three public meetings citizens gathered to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed tax and the repercussions it could have on Vernon County.

In the fist meeting, at Schell City, 24 voters gathered and discussed three main jail issues: The possibility of lawsuits being raised by prisoners; having to let criminals free because of lack of incarceration space; and safety issues raised by the inability of the old jail to act as a secure incarceration facility.

Presiding County Commissioner Charlie Johnson expressed concerns about the possibility of lawsuits arising from jail conditions. "This is truly a liability for Vernon County, not to mention the safety aspect. Safety for prisoners and safety for those who work there."

In the second meeting, at Sheldon, the atmosphere and attitude towards the proposed tax took a more negative turn. This meeting held a substantial element of opposition to the new tax, including concerns about the proposed building site, the final price of the new jail and the ongoing cost of the E911 system.

Concerns were raised about the suggested locations proximity to the Nevada Head Start and what would happen to the displaced tenants that are currently renting houses on that land. Several attendees felt that the better locations could be obtained for less monitary impact on the residents of Vernon County.

Questions were also raised on how the E911 system would have operated and how much it would have cost to implement and support the system.

Another major concern was the fact that while the law enforcement tax would drop from a half cent to three eighths in 15 years, some in attendance did not like the idea that the tax would be ongoing. During the first fifteen years 76 percent of the tax revenue would go towards paying off the loan but after that time period is over the tax was ongoing and not firmly designated to anything other than law enforcement.

Of the three public meetings on the law enforcement tax, the Nevada meeting was the most balanced with many citizens speaking about the need for a new jail facility and some expressing concerns about the proposed building site and the feasibility of the E911 system.

One question that was raised several times over the course of the public meetings was why was the corner of Austin and Centennial the best site for the public safety facility. The county commissioners used 10 criteria to decide on a site. These were: Provision for facility growth for the long term, land use buffering, adjacent property uses, neighborhood enhancement, emergency vehicle access, adequacy of public and private parking spaces, provision for functionally diverse building accesses, minimization of initial development cost, access to related county government facilities, provisions of accessibility in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act and minimization of land accusation cost. Johnson said, "In a nutshell, we had these 10 different things that we knew that any site we looked at would rank. And it's all subjective."

There were also many holes pointed out in the E911 plan. It called for the placement of road signs to provide physical addresses, even though there was no money budgeted for it, and would have included a digital mapping of the county and a caller identification to let emergency responders know the location and layout of houses they will be responding to. The E911 system called for two dispatchers to be working at all times and were to be employed by the city even though the city had not yet agreed to the plan. In addition, there was no medical dispatch available in the proposed system.

In the end the people of Vernon County spoke and they did not want a law enforcement sales tax, at this time.

Of the 11,868 active voters in Vernon County only 21 percent, or 2,540, of the voters attended the polls. Of the 27 precincts in the county not one voted in favor of the proposed tax. County wide the law enforcement tax received 28.42 percent Yes votes and 71.57 percent No.

Johnson was very disappointed at the failure of the law enforcement tax. He said that it was too bad that so few voters effected such an important decision.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: