|
|
Sixty percent of Howard County voters chose to reject a proposed $10 million, 144-bed jail last November. However, an overwhelming majority of voters this election season, about 70 percent, decided to approve a proposed $11.57 million, 96-bed jail.
Several factors contributed to residents' reversal of opinion. But according to proponents of the measure two of the primary reasons for its success were better planning and better presentation of the proposal to voters. Howard County officials relied upon the advice of Port Arthur-based consulting firm Carl Griffith and Associates -- the same firm currently assisting Midland County and recommended by Midland County Judge Mike Bradford -- to craft a more palatable plan and educate the public about the necessity of a larger jail.
"Whenever we started this process I didn't know anything about a jail, we thought the best thing would be to get an architect and some consultants," Howard County Judge Mark Barr told the Reporter-Telegram.
Barr said consultants with Griffith and Associates apprised the project's architect of design features and materials possible for a lower construction price and lower operational costs, a result of a layout that will allow staff to do their jobs more efficiently. Griffith said he and his staff emphasize the construction of low-cost jails that still provide proven security. As an example, Griffith said a metal exterior costs much less than a brick and concrete exterior but works just as well.
Griffith told the Reporter-Telegram they are also considering purchasing pre-fabricated jail cells for faster construction and lower building cost. Although the smaller jail proposal has a higher price, Griffith said if the proposal rejected last year was implemented now it would cost about $13 or $14 million because of an increase in labor and material costs over the past year.
Prior to the election, the public was able to attend public meetings during which the consultants presented their recommendations and outlined the benefits of constructing a new jail. A report from the consulting firm was made available to the public, Barr said, and a town hall meeting was held shortly before early voting to provide voters an opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns.
Barr said the bottom line was that building a new jail with an annual debt service of around $863,000 will be cheaper than paying $1 million or more per year to house inmates in other counties. But for voters that were unconvinced or unsure of this claim, public outreach and education played a vital role to win support for the referendum. Such outreach likely will be pivotal in the push for a jail expansion likely to take place in Midland within five years.
"The town hall meeting was a turning point in my mind. Before that I was not encouraged; my feeling before that was negative," Griffith said.
Last year critics dubbed the proposed jail a "Taj Mahal" and, according to Griffith, disseminated information to voters that was untrue. He said proponents of the project did little to respond to these claims, assuming that, because the claims were false, it was unnecessary to answer them.
That was a mistake, and in order to ensure that it was not repeated, Griffith said, he had two men who are in the media in other states study newspaper accounts from last year. Those accounts provided insight to prepare for concerns and criticism that inevitably emerge when construction of a public facility is considered.
"Being able to answer the critics ... when we got through with the town hall meeting it was clear they had lost their momentum," he said. "It was Taj Mahal no longer because it's a metal building. There was no question it would cost more to do nothing, and that fact got to the public in spite of written materials mailed out to the contrary."
In Midland the campaign for a new jail is likely to be free of some obstacles present in Howard County but may ultimately be more of an uphill battle. Last year in Howard County, members of the Commissioners' Court were not united in the belief that a new jail was needed. Since then, Howard County officials reached a consensus that the project was needed, facilitating the success of the referendum. Midland County officials are already in agreement on the need for a new jail, putting Midland County one step ahead of Howard County from the start.
"I think Midland County is starting out ahead of where we were in Big Spring," Griffith said.
However, Midland is also a larger county, and it likely will require more public meetings and more effort to convince voters jail expansion is needed, he said. Additionally, the need for a new jail is more pressing in Howard County than it currently is in Midland County. Recommendations made by Griffith and Associates have already been implemented recently to reduce the number of inmates in custody on an average day.
"Midland County has not, but (Howard County) had reached the point where housing prisoners out of their community was going to exceed their bond costs. When you get in that predicament that's pretty telling," Bradford said. "Midland County has not done that yet. I believe we're still near our bond cost. We've been able to cut our out-of-county housing down through a number of methods and will introduce other methods. But in the long run a growing community, just by natural aggression, will have a growing need for a jail."
Although the financials may not make the need for a new jail crystal clear to voters yet, the public will also have to take into consideration the potentially higher cost of construction and labor when weighing whether to pursue construction now or postpone it. Bradford said that all county officials can do is make available the best possible information to the public, which is ultimately responsible for deciding whether to approve a jail expansion in the near future. Bradford indicated Howard County officials should be commended for their efforts to educate their public.
"They did a fine job of explaining their needs," he said.
