Commissioners split over siting: county 'Poor Farm' vs. more visible, accessible location

County leaders debated whether to leverage the county‑owned "Poor Farm" property for a jail and locate the justice center at a more visible, accessible site, or to co‑locate both on a single site. One commissioner pressed that a downtown or highly visible location could generate long‑term asset value and easier access for residents, even if it raises upfront infrastructure costs.

A committee member who led site evaluation work said the committee conducted a thorough, transparent study with architects and engineers and that previous scoring favored a different site. "We made our recommendation, spend our time in good faith," the committee member said, urging the court to state whether it would accept that recommendation. The Chair replied the court had considered the recommendation but changing needs—particularly jail capacity—required reevaluation.

Arguments turned on measurable tradeoffs: the committee noted that bringing utilities and roads to remote sites like Tintop can be costly, while a downtown site with a parking garage would raise parking costs (quoted at roughly $39,000 per garage space) but could save money by avoiding underground parking and by enabling disposal of older county properties. Another commissioner argued the Poor Farm has room for expansion and signals the county is using its own land, noting potential partnerships with Weatherford College and local economic development opportunities.

Commissioners asked the committee to return with comparative utility, roadway, and acquisition cost estimates for the candidate sites so the court can make a definitive site determination before finalizing bond amounts.