Residents urge transparency, question selected site after Clark County jail levy fails

A broad swath of Clark County residents urged the Board of Clark County Commissioners on Nov. 5 to pause the planned acquisition of land for a proposed safety complex and to provide clearer information about how the parcel was selected and valued.

Dan Freeman, speaking "on behalf of residents," asked the commissioners for "a real town hall meeting," a full site-selection matrix, a temporary pause on any land purchase and "a defined mitigation" plan for neighbors if the acquisition proceeds. He told the commissioners the recent sales-tax levy did not merely fail but "failed by nearly 80%," and said that margin indicated a lack of public trust in the process rather than a blanket rejection of a new jail.

Katy Ryan Schilke, a lifelong Springfield Township resident, said she supports a new safety complex in principle but questioned the county’s selection process and the proposed price for the roughly 29.71-acre parcel. She presented recent Clark County parcel sales from 2022–2024 and argued those comparables imply a different per-acre valuation. "Residents deserve open, fair communication about how the property was decided upon," she said.

Other residents pressed similar themes. Diana Daniels said voters are "tired of being taxed" and urged the Board to reconsider the location. Melissa Skinner asked why more meetings are not held in the evenings, questioned the county’s past maintenance of the current jail and said she had not received a return call from the county administrator after leaving a voicemail. Marti Auckerman said the process felt "backwards," that the county asked for funding before disclosing possible sites and that lack of clear, organized information had eroded public trust. Several speakers suggested mediated public review and compensation or mitigation for neighbors near the proposed site.

Commissioners responded that the failure of the levy effectively paused acquisition activity. Commissioner Melanie F. Wilt said there was a letter of intent and limited steps taken but explained that land-acquisition discussions are constrained by legal privacy limits; she also traced deferred maintenance decisions on county buildings to budget pressures in earlier decades and said a renovation of the older jail would not be prudent. Commissioner Sasha L. Rittenhouse said there were no immediate plans to proceed, noted an incoming new commissioner in January and invited individual residents to follow up after the meeting.

The meeting reflected a persistent divide: multiple speakers said they accept the need for a modern safety facility but rejected the way the decision about site and process was handled, while the commissioners emphasized legal limits on disclosure during acquisition talks and budgetary trade-offs that shaped earlier maintenance choices. The board took no formal vote on the facility or land acquisition during the meeting; officials said next steps depend on new political and legal developments and that acquisition is paused following the levy defeat.

The county’s preliminary next steps were limited to internal review and no immediate purchase actions; the commissioners encouraged continued public contact with staff and said the county will consider the public feedback as planning moves forward.