- So we're going to go ahead and get started. I'm going to do you want to go ahead and bring the council
- to order? Good evening, everybody. Today is Thursday, January 22, 2026. And I call the joint session
- of the county commissioners and county council to order.
- here we have a quorum because we have myself, um, counselors, Iverson, Fido, Wilts, and Deckard. I believe,
- um, counselor Henry is going to be late and I'm not certain, uh, if counselor Hawk is joining us either
- virtually or in person. So we will see, but either way, we've got a quorum. Thank you, madam president.
- Um, I'm going to call the board of commissioners to order and I will note that we have
- Commissioner Jones joining us online and Commissioner Madeira and myself here in the NETU Hill Room.
- Excuse me, I do see Marty Hawk online if TSD could promote her. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.
- Excellent. We do have a hard stop at 830 and we want to just be respectful of everyone's time and
- get through everything that we can today. So I just have a couple of things to state at the outset.
- We have all read Mr. Falk's letter. So if you haven't, please do so. We all know that the state legislature
- has erected barriers and obstacles. And both Mr. Falk and the state legislature are creating issues
- related to timing, ironically not in the same direction. So I would ask today that other than recognizing
- a sense of urgency that I don't think it's a good use of our time to try to read the tea leaves about
- what the legislature is going to do, what a
- to address those issues as needed later, but to speculate on them today and try to machinate around
- how it might all fall out, I don't think is a good use of our time. This is the meeting to determine
- where we are at following the council vote of October of 2025. We're trying to understand the council's position.
- The five questions posed on the agenda are from the November meeting with the council that the commissioners
- held. And I really would say that because we don't have the sheriff's department and the board of judges
- at the table, that we really can't address number five yet regarding a location. I think they need to
- be at the table. But we do have a question after that, which is next steps.
- we can address those kinds of things. So with that, Ms. Turner King is offered to take notes for us
- on the white boards, and if there's no objection, can we just run through the questions? I think some
- of them might be quicker than others. Yeah, can I mention it, Thomas? Sure. Just as a
- as we before we go ahead and get started I would agree I think of course we know that time is of the
- essence but of course not to belabor because I've been in this kind of mindset and after watching so
- much football over the past several weeks I just kind of have a game day idea and game plan of that
- if you will and I think that just
- I want to ask just a couple of clarifying questions for you before we get started. I understand we want
- to go over the questions here. My question before we get started is, what do commissioners do with these
- questions and possible answers of these questions after we are all done this evening? I think that falls
- into next steps, which is question six.
- And I don't think there's going to be a magic answer. But I do think that there will obviously have
- to be further discussion. And again, mostly those are held in executive session. But the legal parameters
- are not for mine to judge. But I do think we need to have a conversation with the board of judges and
- the sheriff once we get through questions one through five.
- Um, because that will help us figure out our next steps too. Okay. Okay. Um, no real plan. Sure. Sure.
- No plan. Okay. And then, um, sorry, I'm trying to connect to the teams meeting and it's doing all these
- other things. Okay. Um, yeah, that's it.
- Okay, so our first question is, do you believe, regarding constitutional care and safety standards,
- do you believe our current facility is meeting constitutional care requirements, providing the safest
- possible working environment for Monroe County jail personnel? Anybody? Well, I'll go ahead and start.
- Obviously, we wouldn't be in the lawsuit. If we were meeting our constitutional care, I know the sheriff
- since stepping in office nearly four years ago has done, and staff has done a tremendous job with that.
- But they also have expressed to us several times that they are bursting at the seams. And then I dare
- to say that with
- really radicalized ideas that are happening through the state house right now where we have another
- bill that's coming through like last year it you know died with related to respect to um making homeless
- sleeping or is making those that are sleeping outside a crime that died last year it's back just like
- a terrible sequel um all of these things could potentially have a cause and effect to our current jail
- as it stands right now
- And that's what I'll say to that. So you don't believe that it's meeting. Requirements going with what
- the chair said, OK, so we can just go around if you'd like. Yeah, or I mean, we are all we want to do
- it. Yeah, however you want to do it. Raise their hand and step in. Yes.
- In the interest of speed, my answer is, do I believe this? No. I agree that we are not. Commissioner
- Redira? Yes, I would say absolutely not. OK. And so just for the idea, for those that are watching at
- home, the poster boards here are ideally maybe, as we are answering the questions, I think my idea is,
- If there's anything that we need to say that we can go back to and take a look at, it would be ideal
- for us to have that here, especially when it kind of comes to next steps. Because again, my idea is
- the wood is and to keep it moving. So like it. I like that. Shall I? Shall I just call on? Okay.
- Are we? We're still on this first question, right?
- I want to say this. I think the sheriff has done a valiant job at improving conditions in that jail.
- I think that's been well narrated out to the public. I think it was highly illustrated on the tour that
- we took. Some of us took with Ken Falk of the Indiana ACLU. That said, as has been noted in
- the correspondence to us, there are still remaining issues that prevent that.
- facility from being a full constitutional care and those situations have to be remedied so if I if I
- were to ask be asked do I believe it is meaningful constitutional care I would say they're valiantly
- trying to do that but the things that have been noted by the ACLU still remain outstanding in every
- regard. So that's a no.
- Are we meeting constitutional care? Do you need us to say yes, no? Is that going to satisfy or? Sure.
- I mean, it's no for folks in the public. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Obviously, it's about the
- building, not the people. This is a question about the building, right? But I mean, I don't know how
- it could be any clearer to say that they're valiantly attempting to meet constitutional care, but they
- can only do so much. It'd be like if the sheriff were
- trying to keep water cupped in his hands, it's going to get through. Others? I do not believe that we're
- providing constitutional care. I think that it's not possible with our current facility.
- in no way reflects on the sheriff. It's just that it can't be done with our current facility.
- Thank you. Others want to chime in? OK, so yeah, so.
- I do not believe that it meets it as well, based on what I've seen and what I know and what I understand
- about everything. So no, ultimately it does not. Okay. All right. Question two, are the accommodations
- in the jail consistent with our community's values regarding humane treatment?
- and rehabilitation opportunities. What do you think? I think no. And again, it's a building issue, not
- a personnel issue. Council Henry? Except it's more than a building issue, it's a systems issue. The
- investment of the county in a criminal justice system that addresses these steps
- is part of the problem, right? So if the facility itself is at the end point for choices in the judicial
- system to say, well, what do we do with somebody who has been convicted of something in the community?
- In this case, it is more than a building's issue about community values alignment.
- And so the facility, and we should be careful. This question asks about the jail, and that's good. The
- previous question asked about the jail, which is good. But I would just highlight here that when we're
- talking about the capital investment, the last estimate, 225 to 257 million, this has to also include
- the other options that we would want to pursue to make sure that we have humane treatment, and especially
- the last phrase, rehabilitation opportunities.
- those might not occur in that building. And it's worth noting, of course, the DLZ design as of late
- removes some of those rehabilitation opportunities from the building. They're not co-located there,
- and they're not expanded in ways that I think previous versions of the council have hoped to see in
- terms of diversion programs and the like.
- Yeah, I think to that point, I think about our previous conversations that we had with respect to JFAC
- and some of the recommendations that we heard where we wanted to, as we kind of thought about this project,
- like, you know, the building of the jail
- and other mechanisms to really try to work to reduce recidivism. I understand there's lots of things
- that we are doing, but also can we, as we think about this project, can we think outside the box of
- what else can we do to accommodate our community values? Again, I just will be brief. My answer is no.
- And I agree with my colleagues on the reasonings. And I do believe that that's an excellent point. And
- I think we do need to look at other avenues for rehabilitation. But at the same time, we have a pressing
- issue. And we have other issues. And money is going to be an object, sadly.
- and but I do agree that we should be creative in problem solving outside the jail to address community
- needs to prevent recidivism or to prevent people from even entering in the first place. Yes, I'll just
- add that that conversation grows more critical not only with legislative measures like President Crossley
- mentioned earlier,
- But also with majors like the constitutional amendment that just passed out of committee on January,
- I believe on January 13 seven to zero that may likely be on the but on the.
- the state. And so while our hands are sort of tied at the local level, it is really imperative that
- we do what we can at the local level to reduce recidivism and also get people out of these car
- anything they want to add. Councilor hawk is online with her hand up. Okay. I'm just listening. Okay.
- There's some other folks with hand rate. This is a work session so we don't typically take public comment
- at work sessions and we've made notes about where and how to offer public comment but we have a very
- short time frame and a lot to cover for those who are joining us online. Okay. And then that brings
- us to, if we're good with question two. That brings us to question three about the feasibility of renovating
- the current facility. We have studies by RJS and RQEW.
- The letter from Mr. Falk, do you agree that the current facility cannot be renovated to be made larger
- and or to meet the constitutional requirements? Anybody want to speak to that question? I'll kick off, I guess.
- agree that the current facility cannot be renovated to serve as a jail. I mean, I think the facility,
- there's possibilities for that space. There's possibilities for that property. So I don't want to say
- that. But specifically to this conversation, yeah, I've had lots of conversations with people about this.
- I am convinced that ship has sailed. We've seen the inside of the building. We've seen the cramped space.
- You cannot make it bigger than it is. And even, I think, renovations that might move the courts or lots
- of cool ideas aren't going to address some of these other
- building health systemic systemic to the building problems. So I think it's. Yeah, I just don't think
- that's. A viable option. All right. Yeah, I was going to say the same thing, like with respect to the
- jail, because the crux of the lawsuit is the jail. So the jail is the the main
- issue that I don't I mean, obviously, who would have thought 40 years ago we would have a jail on top
- of a building and we've seen the issues that it's caused the entire justice building as well. But again,
- I think my scope and the way that I want to think of these questions is to respect to what is the county
- being tasked to do and it is to focus on the jail.
- You made a good point the other day, because we talked about the studies that say you can't renovate.
- And I think your point was that there's nothing that says we can either. There's no design out there
- that says this is how to renovate it. Right. Yes. Yeah. There is no particular, yeah, I forget actually
- that exact point.
- But it was a good one. I think I just made it for you. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I think basically, too,
- there is no study that has looked at taking that building down to studs. And we may well think that
- that building taken down to studs is more expensive than building something from scratch. But since
- we're not really considering that, and I don't think there's any time really that's viable being spent
- furthering that discussion.
- I think it's been stated by my colleagues, but the way that question reads to say current jail cannot
- be renovated, I would agree with that statement. Facility, we've just covered in a variety of different
- ways. And we don't need to relitigate or go over root cause issues as to why the building has collapsed
- as it did over a 20- or 30-year period in terms of maybe just
- not maintenance being done on the first two floors of that facility carpets that haven't been replaced
- in the generation, things like that that are not really the scope of this conversation today. But if
- it's current jail cannot be renovated to make larger or meet requirement, I would agree with that statement.
- I'll agree with the statement as well. I think that structurally it has many, many, many structural
- issues, plus the design and the size of many of the spaces are not adequate.
- Yeah, and I'm on board. I'm on board. You know, you can't really, I wouldn't put it down as a maintenance
- issue. I'd put it down as a design issue and engineering. That was cool in the 80s, but you know, isn't
- working anymore today. And I think our staff does a great job keeping things together.
- And actually, as I've been talking with several people over the course of the past week, it was hastily
- constructed to begin with. And it has had several renovations over the past decades to accommodate larger
- numbers of incarcerated individuals. So those renovations have not always been skillfully done. I was
- just going to say, to kind of echo that, the things that
- made us able to save this courthouse which then turned into expanding our campus in different ways and
- into that building that were the solutions for their time put a very difficult design to all the sheriffs
- that that proceed sheriff martay and the rest of the building issues one thing though i will say is
- i mean at one point the county had sort of a plan for all this whether people agree with the plan or
- not we had a plan for this
- And the state did change things. And one thing that while the state is not necessarily a party to our
- lawsuit, many of their policies so robustly affected that I sometimes wonder why the Indiana ACLU is
- not looking at adding a party. Their sentencing effects can affect our judicial system and increase
- our populations at the same time.
- we've been told what we can and cannot bond and it is not always clear to this council what we can and
- cannot bond for or when we can do it or what the law will be like be a crystal ball or otherwise or
- even interpretation of many of our associations so they the burdens of many decades start hitting to
- different different portions but we know that at even adding an elevator shaft to appease the sheriff's
- overwhelming one of many concerns is just not even physically feasibly possible because we've heard
- it in our own ears on the tour. The minute you do that, you lose space that they need for moving people
- around. We know that the medical bay, while valiant in its effort to do that, it's not enough. It's
- not enough space. And so I think that that alone would make renovation difficult
- because of the, the structure, the footprint and any direction you go. I mean, yeah, because we were
- leaving there, we were talking about putting an elevator shaft on the outside of the building is an
- option, which is crazy to imagine. We were like, we kind of laughed about it, but it was like, but that's
- the only place you could do it. I mean, I brought it up and I was asking,
- to force that point, to force that conversation, because you want to think outside the box. And people
- come to us with really crazy ideas that just might work. And so it's important, I think, that we acknowledge
- these different crazy ideas. And who knows? If we could build a skywalk and a tunnel and all that, why not?
- terrible terms. All right. Anybody disagree? I don't see any hands. All right. So now we get to the
- probably the meatiest question of all, which is question four, which has multiple prongs. And I don't
- know if we should address these individually or maybe the first
- Maybe the first two together would make sense. And again, trying to keep the legislature out of it,
- trying to keep a federal judge out of it. If you had your druthers, maybe a good way to think about
- this. Thank you, Madam President. So the premise of this question is a little vague.
- And I don't think that the council's will to support something is entirely up to us. And I want to go
- back all the way to an August long term finance committee meeting where we have three options before
- us. And this is discussed in a public meeting. So those documents are available. If we need to email
- those out, we can. There were three options. We can go through the red friend and process.
- We can wait for the legislature to pass new legislation, or we can use what we have now. That's the
- 25% of the lit that we talked about ad nauseam. Right now, it is estimated the county could issue a
- $19,300,000 bond as of this meeting, which again, was in August. So things could have changed. It is
- really hard to answer
- question number four, given the fact that we still have those three options ahead of us as a fiscal
- body to consider. And whether or not co-location is in the cards is, I think, something that's going
- to require us to be further down the road on a timeline. And I'm looking forward to talking about that
- during next steps. Well, a question that didn't make it on here, and that's my mistake, is maybe we should
- deal with that first and that is single-floor jail or multi-floor. Remember that was one of the questions
- and it's not on here. But, you know, is anybody willing to look at a multi-floor jail? That's a yes?
- Yes. Okay. Anyone else?
- You're I mean, there are variables here. If it's a multi floor facility, I mean, right now we have a
- jail stacked on top of a courthouse. If there's a courthouse stacked on top of a jail, I don't think
- the judges will be as retaliatory as we've understood. I mean, that's been a statement made about a
- multi floor jail. That's just OK. But so that's why I mean, there's very there are variables here. And
- I don't know if starting with design is the maybe where we're at, because I believe at this point, budget
- drives the blueprint.
- So so it is hard for me to answer a question that says my druthers because that assumes I have unlimited
- financing which we don't To pick up counselor Iverson's point in that long-term government finance meeting
- We were told that financing that bond would be point four one percent of the one point two percent local
- income tax we anticipate having which is thirty four percent of
- local income tax going first to pay down the debt service on the facility while we're trying to manage
- the rest of the county government. Now, for those of us watching up north, what's going on? Our colleagues
- and city city governments are currently lobbying to reduce that to point seven, which would be 58 percent
- of what we would have to play with. Right. And so this is really important to think through that it
- is a budget question.
- And if it is the difference between financing what is constitutionally required under the ACLU suit
- and to get us north of that issue after so long, versus trying to do all of it, I have to look at the
- numbers first. And we can't answer that till the end of the sort session. Can't answer it. Yeah, I think
- to kind of go, I think
- For me, as I was looking at the questions, I can answer A, B, and C by saying I'm not willing to support
- something that's over $250 million. So that's pretty easy for me. Obviously, it's going to be crazy
- expensive to co-locate. And I think co-location also has driven up the cost. But then it kind of goes
- back to some of the things from questions,
- or one and two is, again, the crux of the lawsuit is the jail. So I can tell you, Jennifer Grossley,
- District 4, will not support $250 million on a project that's a lie. So that's kind of my answer.
- So back to, and I apologize for it not being on the sheet, because it's something that was on our minds
- and we just didn't get it on paper. But back to the question of single floor versus multi-floor. All
- things being equal dollar-wise. That's what I'm saying. If you could build a single-floor jail or a
- multi-floor, the problem is going to be location and everything else.
- whether this council's willing to support a multi-floor jail or if you really want a single-floor jail
- will drive a lot of that question five discussion. So I guess that's why I'm back on multi-floor versus
- single. Do we recognize that it's a security risk and additional funds and operationally? Well, to kind of maybe
- As we are doing this joint meeting together, like you all as commissioners, would you like you're asking
- us this? Like, what would you support with this? We had discussed we are only willing to. Well, we much
- prefer a single floor jail because we understand what the sheriff has taught us. We understand what
- we've learned from DLZ regarding engineering and security and safety.
- And so we are in the single floor camp for those reasons. Yep. So it's single floor, but also co-located
- classification. Maybe we'll put it that way. If we imagine that if we were pursuing other options for
- the question to answer, that classification of
- mental health and other diversion activities doesn't need to be in the same facility. It would mean
- multiple facilities, but also might mean facilities are not necessarily run by the sheriff's department,
- right? So if those options are brought back into consider, that footprint, and I kind of hear, I think,
- where this is going, which is, well, if we all agree on a single floor plan, this means acreage, right?
- So where's that acreage for just the jail on the square footage that we think is required to meet the
- ACLU requirement, right? Then I'm asking questions about classification.
- And of course, between diversion and some of us here have been champions of work release for good reason,
- that that also reduces population and bed count. That the single floor jail space changes in shape a
- little bit if we have other options available to us to classify people away from the gen pop. And I
- think it's something to think about. So my follow up question to that is, and I understand the interest
- in creatively
- thinking through this process. The first thing is that we tend to use probation instead of work release,
- so we're not even having to pay for meals and bedding and security, but using probation means they're
- home with their families, which is better, always a better option if it's possible. But I will say that
- I appreciate that there could be this option
- of mental health and substance use disorder and all these treatment options. But if we are struggling
- to pay for a jail, I'm not sure where all that falls. And if it's a jail and that, I don't know that
- it will meet the constitutional requirements because having, if we had, and I guess I'm just thinking
- out loud here, if we had a
- a robust mental health substance use disorder facility, would people like Mr. Falk and the ACLU look
- at that and say, oh, you don't need as many beds? And I don't know the answer to that. And again, it's
- down to money, which we don't really want to talk about, but we're going to talk about. But it is down
- to money. And if we can't build a jail,
- How do we do all these other great things, which are great? May I just? I don't want to hog the ball
- here using our sports metaphors that we use around here lately. We're all in them. A few thoughts here.
- One is the tolerance for the budget from feedback I have received in the community is the cost of building
- a jail at a $257 million price point with the current design. If there are those in the community who
- have said, if that's the price point, why not
- carve out that some segments of that dollar about for some of the things we're talking about, that it
- might actually be palatable in the community if they saw some of these other options brought in. So
- I don't know if that's been thoroughly explored, because I think in some ways, and I will say this,
- I wasn't here when you all voted to move forward with North Park. I was on my way here that the price
- point changed dramatically from October into February of twenty five.
- So I wouldn't fixate on even the bond amount. It's what we're using the bond for that I think some of
- the folks in the community have raised on that. I will say on the work release question, I appreciate
- the work of probation. I also don't have the privilege to assume the either or that people are better
- home with their families. And that's a lived experience case in my family, where I've had family members
- incarcerated, except family that I prefer not be with my dad at home. And work release was a better
- solution for them in those circumstances. So I can't imagine how many people in our community maybe have
- similar circumstance where someone might be able to go to work and get back on their feet that probably
- shouldn't be back in the home that has caused the problems of their incarceration to begin with. So
- I would think that exploring that topic a little more, and I know time is of the essence, but if it
- is bed count and recreational space, which seems to be the primary mover for the ACLU, I don't want
- to speak for Mr. Faulk, but my impression from our conversation was that that was the limitation of
- his concern and that
- I believe Marion County does that in their solution, as he mentioned to us, that we have a county in
- Indiana that has other facilities for classification. It's just, I don't know how much of that was explored
- once it went behind doors with DLZ. Yeah, that's it. And again, the budget didn't change because it
- was set, it was based on a tax rate. And that,
- $100 million that came off initially out of as part of the discussion of using the lit was just a set
- amount that we thought potentially the lit may raise toward the project in the short term.
- it's been 225 I know I've seen 300 I've seen 500 I've seen all kinds of numbers out there the 225 numbers
- been around for a while but I don't want to yeah I guess the only thing that I would say to that is
- that I recall like again if we're gonna say that then I swear and some of the things that I've seen
- and y'all that have been here
- I swear I've saw like lower numbers such as like 180. And I know I'm not pulling that from underneath
- my seat. But I swear like, so I have seen a lower number. But again, with the wants and the needs of
- people and what they wanted, it just kept kind of ticking up and up and up, which is where we are.
- now so you know I will say we did pass the tax and you know we definitely did that because that was
- the biggest thing that everybody kept saying is council what are you going to do about it and we did
- it and then the rest is history so yeah okay yeah I think there was an estimate of actual hard quote-unquote
- cost of 175 plus soft costs adding up to 225 yeah that may be where it's at yeah and and I know that
- there a lot of numbers been
- a lot of numbers have been thrown around and sometimes those numbers were jail only justice facility.
- I mean, so it is it's a lot. And we did bring it down, you know, once all of the wishes of the various
- departments were incorporated and the price went the cost went way up. We worked with those departments
- to bring it down back to the 225. But
- I throw a comment out there, too. So one of the things, going back to the compatible with community
- values, and this may ultimately be a question for legal, all of the programs eligible for diversion,
- I think it's very important for the public to know that in order to be eligible probably for the settlement,
- and again, a question for legal, the court is going to have to sentence people there, which means people
- can't leave those programs.
- people are not eligible to leave work release. People are not eligible to leave certain forms of mental
- health treatment programs once they're sentenced. And it's not going to be the type of mental health
- treatment that is voluntary. And so I think that when we talk about putting dollars into those types
- of programs, I think when I hear community members talk about that, they are talking about
- putting part of that $225 million into programs that are not under carceral supervision. Which is why
- those things are not diversion. They're talking about diversion, but once you're talking about sentencing,
- that's not diversion. So I just wanted to clarify that point. I think that's a really good point.
- And I think we need that in our community instead of sending people to other counties. So there very
- may well be two types of mental health treatment in the community eventually. Diversion, mental health
- treatment that is involuntary, and there might be voluntary mental health treatment. I think Councilor
- Decker had his hand up. He's been waiting for a while. Jump in. Thank you. I'm patient. I'm patient,
- which you have to be on this issue because we've been at this for a minute.
- I had not much to show. One thing that I kind of want to bring it back to you on this question of a
- two story jail is, um, I don't fully know the answer to that question because number one, I'm not sheriff.
- And while we have to think about the financial constraints of this, it's the sheriff's duty under the
- Indiana constitution, right? To administer that jail.
- and the one thing that we've heard repeatedly is that two stories in an elevator or elevator or systems
- create hardship and problems. I would be a little bit nervous about rushing right back into all the
- tackle traffic for the same problem. That said, if, and the sheriff will, the team and others will know
- this better, if there is technology or building architecture that makes that less of a problem,
- than I could see that. The other thing I would say is just generally is these are sort of the questions
- in four, A, B, C, and D, they're sort of to me fantasy questions because we've heard from our city friends
- and colleagues that they want a facility within the city versus what was being looked at and that the
- council put the brake on.
- The issue is wherever that is in the city is a variable that is high. It's exceedingly high.
- It could be, you know, dependent upon that. But that that affects that. In addition to stories and other
- things, the colocation discussion, which we had painstakingly had, came, I think, not from ballooning
- up this project, but it came from listening within the system. But then we have to factor in the cost for that.
- whether you have some near some not near another things in our. Our arrival was in the past that things
- had to be approximately close to each other for all of that. So I just on four A, B, C and D, I think
- they're nice philosophical questions. I think the issue is again, we come back to the funding amount
- you can do. What can you do with it? What's the stories look like? How does how does that happen? And
- I'm not sure that
- We know that I would kind of love to add seven, eight, nine, and 10. And some of that is where does
- the city council members who raise the concern, where, where does the mayor, if they want it within
- the city, where would they think that that that location needs to be? And then we have to hear from
- the public on that. And then we have to look at what a design could look like. And then probably at
- some point during that we have to hear from
- the sheriff and his team and the judicial system that will actually have to administer it because ultimately
- none of us are going to be putting the keys to each cell or releasing that or administering those courts.
- So I get a little worried about the questions and for ABC and D because I don't know that we have those
- answers and we painstakingly talked about elevators forever for like six years. Yeah.
- let me throw this in there. I get what you're saying because there's a lot of things that are out of
- our hands and I've acknowledged that there are things out of our hands. We all know that and we all
- are crying about it. But if we say, well, it depends on the city or the legislature and or Mr. Fault
- or a federal judge or whatever, if we can list out all of the influencing factors. The question is,
- Are we going back and looking at potential properties for a single story? Are we looking at potential
- properties for multi-story? That's a big difference. And I don't know that we should spend our time
- looking at everything again because, yeah, we may have to, right?
- But if we find, let's say there's this little slice of property that would just be perfect, but it'd
- have to be multi-floor jail and there's absolutely no way to co-locate. If you get a small piece of
- property and you want it to be in the city, so it's in the city and it meets that requirement and the
- city council says, yeah, we'll make sure that it's all good to go. We are potentially then making a
- decision to close off
- the possibility of ever co-locating. And then the next question is, what do we do about the other offices?
- Because we assume that if we're going to have a separate jail, it will be a jail and one or two courts,
- maybe a small court, maybe a regular court, to keep those security issues limited. But then that means
- everyone else is at another building. That building? Well, that's possible. But we also know that building
- is going to need some work. But there's also an operational cost that's very long term.
- that will impact how much it costs to not co-locate. And I think all of, granted, there are things that
- are out of our hands, but we could become paralyzed in the analysis. And I think just thinking about
- preferences at least would be useful because if you're asking us to start from square one again, looking
- at properties, we could do that, but now
- We're way beyond 2026. And I don't know if that's the goal, or if that's because it gets us closer to
- 28. That would be bad. Yeah. I guess the thing to that would be is, but wouldn't we have to? Because
- in October, I thought it was clear, but in listening to some of the meetings that you all had,
- Maybe it wasn't. So I'll kind of reiterate, like back in October and twenty seventh, there was a one
- to vote that we took, you know, with North Park to not like we're done with that. And so I guess since
- we now have scrambled and now we don't have a location that we have identified, I do think that that
- is something that we have to go back and look at.
- I think ideally we have to look at what we already have to own. We also have to look at how we can have
- city entities. I see a city council member on teams right now. We can walk and chew gum at the same
- time as we are thinking of next steps. But ideally, I think we do have to go back and look at property.
- And I know Council Henry had his hand up too.
- what kind of property means single floor, do you locate, not co-locate? That's why I'm asking. Yeah,
- of course. But I think ideally, it's almost like you're saying everything. Yeah. When you when you're
- buying a house and when you're building a house, you know, you just need to plot a land. And then you
- have the idea of, you know, you know, or meet with your builder and you're going over, you know, ideally,
- you know, next steps. Do we want, you know, all the fixings with the house? Can we have the attached
- garage or not? You know, those types of things. So I think we
- The big thing is at this point is where? Councilor Henry? I would just maybe reiterate what you said
- there too, because I agree that in the night we voted to not proceed with North Park, I also wanted
- to make it very clear that that purchase agreement was dead. I understand from county legal, the language
- says it's a dead document. And if that's still not clear, that by not proceeding and the purchase agreement expired,
- I'm under the impression that's no longer on the table. And so if we can't, it would be nice if we could
- at least agree on that, because it seems like we keep resurrecting this as if the purchase agreement
- that was presented is still alive. It expired by code. I mean, it's in the agreement. So I guess the
- question I have is, has the commission through county legal continued to pursue a relationship with
- Mr. Crider on that property after we know the purchase agreement died? It's a dead document.
- we understand that you don't you don't I think that's important to say it's all we all know um but one
- of the concerns that was raised had to do with the co-location requirement in that document and so we're
- talking to him generally about whether um there's a possible I don't I don't want to try I mean
- Jeff, stop me if I'm going too far here, but we're going to talk about. So you're reopening the discussion
- for the property because the purchase agreement is a dead document. So it sounds like it's so you're
- not the same one. This is a different. This is a exploration. We're exploring a lot of avenues,
- believe me, and not just that one. We're looking at a lot at one time trying to figure out what our
- options are and
- I know that one of the issues relates to co-location on that site. And if we don't have that requirement,
- that that may become palatable. We don't know that yet. So this is just, we are looking at everything.
- Well, let me then just follow up to say that, okay, thank you for that information. That's important
- to know publicly. I think the second piece is that
- and I don't wanna go down this rabbit hole too long, but in the context of the discussion of the city
- of Bloomington's issue, we're concerned to have as much of the criminal justice enterprise remain in
- city limits, and for walkability, buses, probation, courts, lawyers, all of it. It is important to talk
- about the zoning of North Park and how that evolved in the purchase agreement, because, and I will admit,
- as a candidate for office, I thought, at that time, the movement of the entire justice
- enterprise to North Park would be an anchor for development in that corner of the county, because according
- to the COMP plan of the county, that part of the county was always set aside for growth. Over the course
- of the year, through the purchase agreements stipulations, we removed the PUD, we put a historic overlay
- on it, we put a preservation easement around it, which would preclude any development around the North
- Park property.
- I was in the Planning Commission meetings with you where we put the historic overlay and the preservation
- easement because it was part of the purchase agreement. And so if one of the concerns of the city, and
- I'm presuming and speaking for them tonight, is part of the economic fatality that happens around the
- justice system, lawyers buying coffee, meeting clients, whatever that is, moving it out, the other piece
- of that is what that does to,
- The economy of downtown Bloomington and also the accessibility of persons trying to get to and from
- the building. So there's a lot. And I know we can go down this for a minute, but I think there's a lot
- more about why North Park. And I got to say, I mean, thank you for sharing that there's been discussions
- with the property owner. I thought we I mean, if we are back to the drawing board, I would presume that's
- looking at other properties anyway.
- Right. And I think the historic overlay you're talking about is actually across on the other side of
- 46 is nothing to do. It has nothing that property they're using for Phil. So it has nothing to do with
- this. I think we agree that it's the corridor at Hunter Valley. Right. OK. That's OK. I wanted to go
- back to just something I don't have in front of me anything that underscores the assumption that
- two story in this location is cheaper than one story in this other location. I mean, if if budgetary
- concerns are there now, my logic tells me that certain elements of that might make that true, but I
- don't have that to be a fact. And if we're again running into the wall of dollars, I think somebody
- has to explain that at least clearly to the public. I think there's a lot of things about multiple stories
- or two stories.
- or whatever stories that can actually end up being more expensive. I mean, if we look at our current
- facility alone, that some of the costs that we deal with there are robust given the nature of that building
- and how it was constructed. So you're asking a question about facility and the cost of one story versus
- multiple. It could be two, it could be more. And then the other question that tags onto that is the
- operational expense increased costs over time.
- of multiple stories versus one. So there's two things that they both, okay. I just wanted to clarify.
- I mean, I assume that two in a certain location would be less than one in another. But then again, I
- have been shocked sometimes all these years on the council at what things cost and what you don't think
- about that become problematic. Even the operation day to day, those two,
- two floors, three, whatever we're thinking here, because that's not been a part of this discussion,
- I guess. Mr. Decker, to your point, though, we've never seen the actual Excel sheets on those numbers.
- We don't have an operational cost benefit analysis for this. I know Councilor Iverson was asking back
- in February for what the operational costs of X or Y is. And did you ever receive such an analysis?
- We never received that analysis. So who is going to put that together?
- I mean, I presume the person traveling the project management of the design who's in the meeting says
- with DLC that could help answer that question. I would assume it would be the sheriff working with the council.
- and potentially lose. Let's talk about it when we get there. Yeah, that's not something that. So to
- follow that up, though, I mean, the cost benefit analysis of transport versus co-location, the cost
- benefit analysis of multi-floor, single-floor, the cost benefit analysis of because if we can get out
- of assume, feel, believe and actually look at the numbers, then that might be useful. And I think that
- is it's been since February. I remember my colleague here asking for some of this data to help us understand that.
- is otherwise we're making wild assumptions about transport first co-location and also taxpayer. What
- were we buying with that? How many staff are required to staff the much larger facility or stories?
- And boy, is that information important here when we're getting into hundreds of millions? I guess for
- me, I'm still kind of if anybody is seeing my face right now, I guess I'm still stuck on the conversation
- about North Park still circulating.
- And I guess. I really thought it was as clear as day with that purchase agreement and the conversation
- and the vote that we took that North Park was what we're done. And so I guess to hear today, you know,
- in this meeting that it sounds like that's still something that is I guess I'm glad to hear it now,
- but I'm kind of surprised that
- this is a thing that is still happening, which I guess to that point is, then why can't we look at,
- if you're looking at North Park still and kind of working out some things there, then what is the problem
- with having other properties be looked at? We are looking at a number of things right now. And one of
- the other things we're talking about just today, I mean, so all of this is all very preliminary. This
- is not like, oh, we're going to do a design, anything. This is just,
- What else can we do? We're just throwing everything on the table. And so we are looking at other properties
- that have been suggested in the press or in email or whatever. We are looking at one of the things we
- talked about today is the importance of getting a cost to renovate the current justice building
- just for the justice purposes, not the jail purposes. What would it really cost to do that? Because
- we know that building needs HVAC and plumbing and electrical. I mean, it needs so much. I don't know.
- I think it's beyond studs. But we need that number, too, because that may come into play if we are not
- co-locating. What is that going to cost? And so we are looking at, as we have throughout this process,
- we're looking at,
- We are trying to get as much information as we can get while we're trying to work through all of this.
- This is just information gathering. This is not a commitment
- of any kind to anything. But we know that everything's on the table, and we're trying to figure out
- what some of those options are. I have the square footage of just the jail footprint from DLC. That
- number has to be somewhere. I can't find it. I'm looking for it. The current? No, no, no. The single
- floor proposed jail wing of the DLC. Jeff?
- We might as well put a number to it. If the idea is, if it's just the jail and we have a general idea
- of the square footage, then that dictates the acreage right there. I mean, if that's the question. And
- I think what I heard Commissioner Thomas saying before was treating this as a new agreement with Criter.
- An option. It's an option. We need all the options we can get right now.
- I just feel like everything we can find out, everything we can learn, everything we can investigate,
- we need to investigate. I don't think there's any harm in doing that. I agree. But this is to your point,
- really. We have to do that in a very timely fashion. Yeah. Because I know at some point we're going
- to get to item six. And when we met,
- with Ken Falk, it was very clear that part of what we have to do is look at the next few months and
- meet some goals and then lay out future goals. And he gave us some pretty specific, I mean, others might
- not say they're specific, but it seemed to me to be clear what we needed to do.
- Do we know everything in order to get there? No, we don't. But I agree that we can look at all of our
- options. My suggestion would be that we have, and tell me if this is not possible, but have an executive
- session where we can openly discuss property. Maybe not tomorrow, because I think we do need to get
- we need to have a list of what is available from this big to that big and location and piece together
- something that we can at least start moving forward with. And the sheriff and the board of judges need
- to be part of that conversation. Absolutely. I mean, I know that we need the money and we need the bill.
- You know, there are things that we all have a role to play here, but I do agree that that's
- We're just learning everything we can right now. And I really want to highlight what council member
- Wilt said is the important part of that is that we do it together. Yes. So I think what you're feeling
- some anxiety with the council right now that, you know, the two liaisons are just learning about this
- tonight. And so we just want to we just want to do stuff together. That's all we want to do. We just
- talked about it this afternoon. We just talked about it. I hear you.
- I hear you. You all are welcome to attend our admin meetings. They're online. They're on Teams.
- And I mean, we just talked about it today. So I guess it's all, we're just gathering information. I
- think Council, I hope you have your hand raised. Yes.
- We had a list of different properties that were under consideration. It wasn't a secret, it was public
- information. And the top three, as I recall, was Fullerton, Thompson, and then Vernal, and the council
- as a whole had said no to North Park. So that seems to me that leaves three under consideration.
- and that would be Fullerton, which the entire council and commissioners and courts and everybody in
- the people went out looking for the property, thought Thompson was, and not Thompson, but Fullerton
- was the right place to be. At the time, and we did a lot of studies and so forth, spent money on that
- property, had the offer accepted. And that is when
- They went to the city and city planning said, no. Well, hello, we've got a whole new ball game at the
- city. The mayor said she'd work with us. The county, the city council is working with us. So are we
- going to consider that? Or are we going to consider Thompson? Or are we going to consider Vernal? Why
- do we have to have a secret meeting to talk about things that's already been discussed publicly?
- There are other properties, potentially. That's why. But Commissioner Medeira? I guess I have a question
- about what exactly was the no vote on. Because I took the no vote to be that building on that property
- and not necessarily no to North Park specifically. I took it to be North Park under those conditions
- at that price. And perhaps not to North Park, a smaller chunk of North Park,
- maybe without co-location at a different time. I didn't hear anybody say that they wouldn't come back
- to North Park. It's not haunted. There's no PCBs there. There is no reason why we wouldn't come back
- to North Park under different circumstances and build a different building there that's more affordable.
- I didn't hear anyone on council say that that night. And if we need to come to that understanding, I
- would like to hear that now.
- to that point, and I might tag our Molly Turner Kingan. It was seven of us said no. And that's right.
- And then we at the very end of that last meeting, I believe to count, I think it might have been Councilor
- Wilt. Somebody had brought up something where it's like, how do we make sure that we say that this does
- not come back again? Am I mistaken?
- And so I guess that's the tweet. That's the post. That's all of what we said in that long meeting is
- there was a two part. There was a question about it. And towards the end of that, I know it was a long
- night. Not everybody probably stayed. We did. I know we didn't get back to folks in time to express
- that. But that's neither here nor there. But the truth of the matter is we took it
- We said no to the purchase agreement. And then there was a second vote that solidified that we made
- it so that North Park did not come back. So I hope that answers your question. Is that it's a it's a
- no. So that's the property itself.
- That's what we did. I was probably the most vociferous against it. I was not here when the council agreed
- to it. The meeting minutes would reflect my view on that. For all the manifold reasons we've talked
- about, I'm against that purchase. There's a chair down here if you want it, Molly. I wasn't clear whether
- it was a smaller chunk of North Park, whether it was North Park itself, that kind of thing. It was no
- to a purchase agreement. Yeah. Yeah. Or if it's just no to that purchase agreement at that time. That's
- where I was confused. Sorry.
- It's been a while since I've actually thought about that October meeting, but in recollection, I think
- what Council President Crossley is referring to is there was a failed motion on the appropriation and
- a failed motion on the appropriation is not the same as a motion to deny the appropriation. So I did
- ask the council to go back to deny the appropriation. That was the appropriation for that purchase. Sure.
- And it was the purchase agreement that was on the table that had been sitting for a year and was an
- issue. Go ahead. And I've got something to add. Well, and I think counselors came to their conclusion
- based on what I recall. They came to their conclusion from a variety of different perspectives. And
- I attempted to, if you'll recall, I attempted to table it to preserve every option. And that failed
- so miserably.
- that I believe I was the only yay vote for preserving the option. And as a person who has kind of built
- a lot of time trying to figure out how to get things done with the where the currents are taking you
- towards mutual goals and solutions. My conclusion at the end of that effort was that there was not an
- appetite for that.
- location to even be preserved as a further discussion. And it was pretty robust, that vote. I think
- I was one against all. Sure. So I just want to note a couple of things. First of all, that yes, the
- the city Council. Um, so, um. It's not that new. The council's not that new that those nine people.
- Um, some of them are still there. Um, but that's a discussion we need to have with our colleagues in
- the city, and it's something that I look forward to, um, to
- that concerns me is if you look at a Google map, Fullerton is farther from downtown where we're sitting
- right now than North Park is. The other issue that I keep hearing is transit, et cetera, that you got
- the same issue there as we've got here, although Fullerton Pike is now open. But either way, transit
- becomes a county issue in 2028.
- I think we can safely say we'll deal with transits and we've already dealt with transit in a lot of
- ways that have been really effective in keeping our county residents plugged into getting onto BT buses,
- et cetera. Now, having said that, that would take it out of the downtown, which was your concern as
- well, and puts it in a place where there's really nothing else right now. The other thing that we've,
- talk through is the Thompson property. And there are a lot of unknowns. And we're looking at these right
- now to just gathering information, gathering information, not making decisions, gathering information
- so we can work together to look at all of our options. But one of the things we talked about today is
- we're going to have to get some questions answered
- about some of the things we talked through today. But there is a place to put a jail only at Thompson.
- But it's not where DLZ had identified as the space to put the justice center with the jail.
- In other words, co-located. It's actually up sort of in the south-western corner, right?
- And that could be done without, ostensibly, we have to verify this, but these are the things we're throwing
- at the wall, see what sticks. That can ostensibly be done without moving the lines, the electrical lines,
- and without moving the big heap of dirt. The problem is, if we did that, we may be foreclosing the ability
- to ever co-locate on that site, even though
- because I don't know that those things can be done once you've built a jail and opened it. And we don't
- know the answer yet. We're going to get information. We're information gathering in overdrive. And we've
- been doing this for several weeks. But we are in information gathering overdrive. And so if anyone has ideas,
- We've looked at a lot of them. I don't even really want to belabor that. But just to say that that's
- our job is to keep doing this and keep moving forward and keep looking at what options are out there.
- So if anyone has a brilliant idea, send it our way. Councilor Herring. Thank you for that. I was out
- at Thompson for a different reason recently.
- I can kind of wrap my head around the property that you what you're saying where that would be on the
- property, but how's that any different than the planning was already done at Thompson years ago for
- the campus with the this was the 2008 this is a very early study for Thompson that had located five.
- juvenile facility. There were five buildings located on that master plan what's changed.
- I mean, what's happened that helps me not understand that why one design is so radically different than
- the master plan that had five buildings on it 20 years ago? One of the discoveries that was made, and
- this is when I first joined the county council, was that the design that was presented to the county
- was a boilerplate. And it didn't reflect the
- what's actually there in terms of the electric. And I think it assumed a driveway off of Rogers, which
- we now know is not even possible. It made a lot of assumptions. And I don't remember geotechnical being
- done. I think we were sold a boilerplate that worked elsewhere. And it included a car wash, which everyone
- was excited about. But yeah, so anyway, I just remember that part of it.
- So I guess as we kind of are wrapping up, because earlier you had posed a question and we said next
- steps. So are we ready to move on to next steps? I am. I feel like I'd really like to know if we're
- looking single or single floor or not. And it sounds like we're looking at everything.
- It's what it sounds like. Am I wrong in that? Everybody wants us to look at everything, right? Every
- possibility. Okay. Yeah. I would just ask Councilor Decker, do you have the trauma of being in the state
- house once upon a time? When's the short session over usually? It's the end of early, late February,
- end of March. Well, they start, they finished sooner because they tried to change the congressional
- maps. Right. So in some ways we'll have a pretty clear idea of how bad is bad in terms of the
- the budget piece, which is have they altered the tax code even farther than what we have? Because that
- while I appreciate we folks didn't want to necessarily talk about that for me, I need to know what our
- capacity is for actually the revenue that we're playing with here. I need to know that without I can't
- answer a lot of I get that because it's like, how do you talk about what you're going to do without
- knowing what money you have? I get that. But at the same time,
- We're going to wait for the legislature, but who knows what they're going to do in 27. Let's be honest.
- We don't know. We don't know if something like that carve out for the city versus the county lit is
- going to happen in 27 instead of, because that was what I heard the other day from our lobbyist that
- that's a possibility. We don't know. So at what point do we need to, and I know we can't even build
- anything right now based on what the legislature has given us.
- We can't. You can't build anything for $19 million. It's sad to say that, but you can't. But I think
- to make, to move forward with some concepts and some ideas and to have some forward momentum is vital.
- And I understand that we don't have answers, but I could tell you, I won't believe the answers until
- we actually do something.
- And that will be an ever-changing landscape. And I don't think it's a waste of our time to continue
- to try to move forward. Because if we say we're going to wait for the legislature, we're going to wait
- for a federal judge, we're going to wait, we are never going to do anything. And if that's the decision,
- then someone else is going to decide for us. That's not the decision. I mean, because I appreciate that analysis.
- It just doesn't match how project management works right you have a minimum viable product of what is
- required under the ACLU agreement and what your budget allows and.
- there's not infinite resource. In fact, we should be a little more conservative in our thinking about
- how much revenue is coming into the county over the next five to 10 years anyway. Even on the best day,
- we know that there's revenue loss coming. We know on the best day that we are committing at least a
- third of the 1.2 to financing, and that does not account for any of the other expenses in the county
- that we may face in 20 years. And that's where my heartburn is with this, is the idea that
- We will be committing five terms worth of people that will be sitting here 20 years from now to a much
- encumbered budget because we have to we have to with the decision we're making is going to be a 20 year
- decision. We all know that but but we have we have to we have to think through this and the idea that
- these I think you know Councilwoman cross they said like is this champagne taste on a Modelo budget.
- So what is the minimum viable
- solution to getting to the ACR piece. Pick your poison. I can't operate under the assumption of there's
- infinite resources. That's how we got to a 257 million question that really scared a lot of people in
- this community. The feedback we got was whatever this is, is way too expensive from some folks.
- That's why I'm okay holding my breath for a few weeks on this particular legislature, getting through
- this session and having a better understanding of our revenue coming in. We know costs are going up
- all over the country. Okay, so I hear everything you're saying, but we are not working under normal
- project management circumstances, as you well know. Should be, frankly, but okay. But we are not because
- we are at, we are being held hostage by the legislature and potentially a federal judge.
- We know that. So they could do something in 27 that throws everything into distress to you.
- I don't know. That's why we didn't want to really read tea leaves today, because we don't know what's
- going to happen. But if you all want to just not do anything, that's an option.
- I don't think that's the right thing to do. And I know our office, our board will continue to look at
- options just to have them because why not get information, right? We're gathering information. But I
- don't think anybody is saying here that we don't need to do anything. Okay. I don't, I think. Okay,
- thank you for that. I definitely am not saying that because I think we all really know
- Like, we are under a deadline. We're in overtime right now, and the clock is slowly ticking. So I don't
- think that we are saying we're just going to dittle and dattle and wait until we see what people north
- of 69 do. I think you can, like, there's still movement. There's still other little things that we could
- be doing that we need to be focused on, such as, like,
- looking at property. I'm gonna keep driving that until I don't know what else. But that's property.
- And to Councilor Hawke's point, I do think that we already have, we gotta look at what we already potentially
- have and then bring in other people to look at that. So to that point, I say,
- I don't think anybody here is saying we're just going to sit here and wait. I don't even think Council
- Henry is saying that we just want to sit here and wait until we see what the state legislators are doing.
- I think a big part of that is a fiscal responsibility. Absolutely. But again, it's keeping the ball.
- I've said this to some council colleagues is I think for this year I have a mindset of not the what
- ifs and the what is. And the what is is trying to keep this train moving.
- And that's while we are waiting for that, that's also something that we can do. We need to gather info.
- OK. Yeah. Yeah. And I appreciate Councilor Henry's point. Thank you for that. I just wanted to add,
- too, while we are thinking of the next 20 years, we're building for the next 50. And we cannot commit
- the same mistakes that we did with the current justice building. And so that adds another devil in the details.
- I think if we are, let's say we are able to build a jail somehow, some way, I think we have to be really
- cognizant and thoughtful about whether or not we're going to do so in a place that will prevent us from
- ever co-locating ever, ever, ever, because that's a possibility. And I think we need to be aware of it
- that when we are talking about properties and developments, because I don't think fiscally we can do
- both at the same time. I would rather see something not phased, because we know phasing, the North Park
- project being phased would have cost about $25 million more than the exact same design in one fell swoop,
- because a little bit of that is designed, because it would have to be redesigned. But most of it is
- in the delayed construction costs.
- that's just life. But I would say that I think we have to be really aware of, when we talk about location,
- about what we are forcing our future bodies into versus what is expeditious,
- the best cost savings, the best, you know, and think about what those priorities are and how to make
- all of that work. And that's the decision we're going to have to make. But I would like to make that,
- I would like to have that discussion with the board of judges and the sheriff. I mean, you know, he's
- in the room, but it's something that we need their input on this, both of them.
- as especially as we as we try to move forward with something. And I don't know what that's going to
- be. I don't know how we're going to do this. But, you know, I've seen great things out of this county
- government. And I firmly believe everybody wants what's best for the community, for those who are housed,
- for those who work in the jail, for all of our
- justice-related staff members and everyone in the community who utilizes them. We all want the same
- thing, right? I mean, I think we all do. And so let's create a miracle. I mean, that's what it's going
- to be. I don't know. So next step would be a meeting with the sheriff and the board of judges. Sheriff.
- you want to add anything or? Well. Would you like to come up? We've got time for you because it is almost
- 8 o'clock and we've got 2030 minutes so. We might as well have your your input. Thank you for being
- here. I've been listening to everyone's concerned about finances and I get that in location and I understand
- that as well.
- I'm still trying to, in my mind, settle to the point, are we going to make this 90 day deadline or we're
- not? So you have a very hard decision to make, but here we are. And I truly understand what Ken Falk
- is coming from right now because he's been very lenient and patient with us over and over and over and
- over again. And one of the things that I'm repeating myself again is I do not know what the future is
- bringing to us. And I could tell you,
- that if the federal judge gets involved, then we're done. So I hear all the good ideas. I hear the concern
- that people are bringing up for us. And the frustration I think you're hearing in my voice is that we've
- been talking about this over and over and over and over again. And since I took over, I was saying the
- same thing. I haven't changed what I've been saying. I have not.
- So it's kind of hard for us to sit back there and hear this, because day in, day out, it is us in that
- building. And we know what we're capable of doing, what we're not capable of doing. And if something
- happens, I know exactly what I need to do by statute. And I will be coming in front of the actual council
- to ask for appropriation to do certain things, to think outside the box, because
- When you have to classify people, that's the main thing. We can't do it right now. We just can't. And
- I've been saying that for a long time. If this body remembers that we took the time to do the pony training,
- we all did. We also took the time by ourselves to bring you in and talk about the only topic
- was classification. That was very intentional, because I was trying to avoid this here. But here we
- are. So I have to be truthful. I would say that you might not
- like what I'm going to say, but I have to be truthful. I don't know if we're going to make this 90 days
- based on what I'm hearing right now. I just don't know we have the time to do that. It's a lot to me.
- I don't see it. A couple of things. Anything that we would do within the city of Bloomington, we're
- already not ever going to make the 90 days. I'm just going to say, because we'd have to go through a
- planning commission in some form or fashion. So already,
- that's that's a that's already a not going to happen. But how do we know that for sure? Well, we'd have
- to go through Plan Commission and to go through Plan Commission, you have to have your documents in
- order and enough of a design to
- to present to them. So we would have to be at the point where we had something to present to a planning
- commission to ask for a rezone or a variance or whatever it might be that we need. And some properties
- are going to be more difficult than others. It depends on how they're zoned, depends where they're at,
- et cetera. So no matter, and that's going to be a few months process, even if we put the pedal to metal
- and had a property identified today, I think. Might be forward momentum, though. It would be.
- It would be. But I have a question.
- Just again, I know you have could you address sheriff the multi floor versus a single floor? Could you
- could you talk through that again? Well, everyone knows the history right now of what we're facing,
- why we want to repeat what we're facing already. I'm struggling with that one. I get the finances, but
- what we do tonight, what we do here is going to affect. I'm not going to see the jail, so I'm not speaking
- for myself.
- But I am speaking for the people who are going to be in a new facility, other workers, whoever the service
- is going to be, whoever the staff is going to be. I don't want to set them up like where we are right
- now that we can't even expand where we're at. Think about that. So what I'm saying is, why repeat the
- mistakes of the past? If we don't have room to expand, I get all the logic about, OK, treatment for
- mental health people, I want all that.
- But the time of the frame right now is that jail. We are not in a place by statute where we should be.
- And here we are. So to be very honest with the group, I hope we get to 90 days and we get there. I just
- don't see it. Based on what I'm hearing right now, I don't see it. I don't. And that's me being truthful
- and honest. And I also think to that point, though, and I'm
- just going to be positive little patty here. And I think, as I said earlier, I think we can walk and
- chew gum at the same time. And I think we can. But I also think the biggest thing, and I think Councilor
- Iverson said it together earlier, is the we. It's the we factor. And it's all of us working together.
- I'm a little disappointed in hearing things are still happening and still moving. And I understand you
- just found out today. And then we get the invite of going to an administrative meeting.
- I will say for myself personally working in 8 to 5, I cannot make those meetings. But I also would love
- the fact that we can do this together if we communicate together. That is the biggest thing for me.
- And I think we have not been in a room together to be able to do that. I know we've been invited and
- didn't get a chance. And neither here nor there. And I've watched the commentary of sheer disappointment.
- And I get it.
- At the same time, I guess I'm just trying to say that we I think we can do it. I think we also need
- to be working together as council president, as, you know, commissioner president, as liaisons to the
- commissioner office. I don't I wish we can move from a place where we're in a meeting and we find out
- something. Boom. And we just found out. So you find out it like
- I just want us to get to a place where we can do these things together. And I think that's how you can
- move forward. And I think that's how we can get to the timeline that we also, you know, need to move.
- I think the biggest thing and I heard, you know, we said, well, the council zero non voted that down.
- There's still four existing council members and five is majority and they're brand new and they've been
- on there since 2024. You know, again,
- there's moving pieces to that. Um, we have a brand new mayor. I've talked to the mayor. Um, and I think,
- you know, we always say, and we look at the idea of how we have done the convention center expansion.
- That was hard work and dedication and the state house, you know, potentially waving at us and telling
- us that we were going to sunset things, but we got it done together. Um, maybe not
- everybody in city and county government agreed with doing that together, but we got it done together.
- And I guess I have strong faith and conviction that if we continue to talk with our city colleagues,
- if we continue to talk to the mayor, and communicate that with us, that we can really try to, I guess,
- to move the needle and to move forward.
- and really try to get out of frustration and disappointment because I could see it and feel it watching
- the Cats recordings. But at the same time, we got to move past that and we got to be the bigger and
- better people that folks elected us to do. And let's just make sure that we get this done. Yeah.
- I absolutely agree that we have to work together. But when we're information gathering, we don't want
- to hit pause and wait for four weeks for a meeting or two weeks for me. So I think the option would
- be to re-institute communications meetings that we used to have. And so I would recommend that as an
- option. But gathering information is not decision making. It is just being able to give that information
- to the council, to council members, to the public as needed to get this process moving, right? That's
- all we're doing is learning everything we can about everything we can as quickly as we can. But to take
- something to the city council through the planning commission is
- is more than three months. And the fact that if we have something and we are on the agenda, that may
- be sufficient as progress. I don't know. But there are parts of the process you can't hurry. And we
- would have to have a proposal. And we had one done for Fullerton. And that took, I think, a month to
- pull together
- for their packet and then, but it was almost a year from start to finish. And then if the answer is
- no after a year, oh my God, right? Because you don't want to keep looking while you've got, you know,
- you kind of have to put all your eggs in one basket at that point. And so that's a big decision to go
- before them because you have to know what it is you're going to build and how it's going to look and
- where it's going to be.
- All of that. So anyway, I agree on communication. I don't think it can happen at our meetings because
- it's a wait to have those discussions. And we're just information gathering. We're not making any decisions
- right now. So I just want to assure you of that. But I think I would feel badly if we weren't gathering
- information or looking at options. And if anyone, again, has suggestions,
- Send them our way. All right. I want to get some things on the whiteboard, if that's OK with everybody.
- Thank you. I think we've been asked to come up with a plan that shows clear movement. So you could label
- this Operation Clear Movement. Sounds like xlax. You went there. Well, that's in the public record for all time.
- I don't know what was clear about that. Oh, my gosh. All right. Money in the water. Number number one,
- we've been talking about a lot of moving pieces. I think it would behoove us to come up together with
- a timeline. What is what? What are the things that we need to work on in January, February, March? What
- are the things we need to work on in six months, seven months? You know, that sort of thing that we
- have. We have clear timelines.
- the public knows. Number two, it would be nice to do a joint resolution, maybe it's a separate resolution,
- stating our commitment to build. And term, it's vague. But I think it delineates a very clear intention
- across Monroe County government. And then
- Included in this plan would be things that we're already tracking to show that we're we're cognizant
- Number one the population on every day the pop sheets, right? We we are we are watching that as well
- council get those reports commissioners gets those reports We we understand the problems with classification
- we so that's that's the third thing the fourth thing is
- a summary of of incidents involving violence or what's happening in the jail. Or maybe it's something
- a lot around those those sorts of things. Again, this is all brainstorming. We can shoot this down later.
- Number five, the number of correctional staff that the council has on the the rules. Number six, and
- this gets directly to what the ACLU is asking for is what does recreation look like?
- recreation. And then programming too. I don't think we know that it's yeah, I think it's programming
- because we have one room right now. That's right. Yeah. Yep. So let's make that delineation. And then
- the last point of the report could be a regular summary of our progress given to the public. Maybe that's
- in a commissioner's meeting. It's in a council meeting. Maybe that's in a joint work session like this.
- But the last point would be
- perfect. I see a purpose for a lot of this. I don't I'm not sure we can create a timeline honestly right
- now because I think that would involve agreement on things that we're not agreeing on right now in terms
- of do we wait for the legislature do it you know I think
- I think a priority list would be better, honestly, because I don't think there's gonna be a timeline
- we're gonna be able to meet, because we're gonna end up, we're at the mercy of a lot of folks. And I
- think a priority list of the to-do list is what's needed. And I don't know if anyone wants to add anything
- to that. We got 20 minutes. Kate, hand up and then Councilor Henry next. Sorry, Councilor Wilts.
- I understand where you're coming from on that. However, we have to make a timeline per Mr. Falk. That
- was a very specific request of his. And most important is between now and April 15th, what are we getting
- done? But it does need to go beyond because he is interested in
- our benchmarks into the future. What is it that we are putting in place? So we might not come up with
- the timeline and match up specific due dates in the next 15 minutes. But if we can agree on the to-do
- list that we need to meet with the board of judges and the sheriff and we can come up with by X date,
- that gets us one step closer to creating that timeline. And then perhaps we can show up at that meeting
- with a proposal for some benchmarked items on a timeline. For Henry and then I'll go Decker. Thank you.
- I appreciate Councilor Iverson's detail here that he put up. I guess my questions are a little higher
- order here as I see it for next steps.
- Yeah, the first is, I think, just getting more... We need the data and not the assumptions or feelings
- about or beliefs about things. One thing that I would benefit from, I think we all would, is some sort
- of opinion or document from County Legal that explains what the US Code is that we are being held under.
- We've made some assumptions about what a judge may or may not order and code
- delineates that with the word shall I'm no lawyer, but when I see shall that says something to me. But
- it would be very nice to understand what it is that we may be held to from a federal legal context.
- I really appreciate county legal's interpretation of what that means. Similarly is the interpretation
- from county legal about Mr. Falk's statement of clear movement. Now he is
- given us a description of that, what he thinks clear movement is. I think Councilor Wilts has talked
- about things like benchmarks and milestones. But that term of art means something because that's where
- we're aiming, right? What does clear movement mean to the litigation and us guessing what we think that
- is? That's really important to get the target, right? What do we think that is so we know what clear
- movement is to message? I think all these ideas here get there personally.
- The third thing I have to say, and I think we did touch on this, Commissioner Thomas, you mentioned
- it, but whatever the mechanism is that puts the liaisons or council back into the routine discussion
- about the development of this project is really important. Because I don't think there should be surprises,
- right? I mean, we should know things about information gathering, about decisions, about design. We
- had two public meetings in February and August about design. That's all council ever got, right? But
- we need a more routine back and forth about the project.
- When I say things like project management, I mean this. I mean, clearly there's a room where decisions
- are being made with a vendor and county officials. Some of us see that information, some of us don't.
- If it's liaison roles that are in that room, great. If it's appointees of the council president, great.
- But there needs to be a lot more cross talk on the minute by minute on this. And really sharing that
- research with the financier, which is the county council. I'd also have to say too that
- I think this was raised by my colleagues in a different meeting, but we haven't seen a lot from Mr.
- Tam lately by way of emails and how we're lobbying at the State House. County Council used to get those
- emails to some more frequency, but if the county is lobbying on fiscal matters, especially tax rates
- for the purpose of funding a project like this, the County Council needs to know about
- what we're lobbying on. So to the extent that we're getting those emails, we need to know a lot more
- about that. Those are my next steps. We're getting bill tracks right now. We haven't received those
- in a while. We're just getting bill trackers. But I just raised some of the things I would like to see.
- Councilor Decker? I was just going to say back on the timeline for a second, I think
- I think a timeline, I mean, I talk about this every day with my students, timeline only works if it's
- honest to the circumstances. I think if we speak in fantasy terms of, well, let's not factor in the
- legislature or factor in the city. I think we have to own it. And I think that we have to own all of
- that together with those entities. And so I think a timeline can say things because that Mr. Falk, and
- frankly, more importantly,
- the public can see such as the county. Here's the efforts that county has done in the past. Here's the
- efforts moving forward. And that's kind of the focus now for this portion. Now we are talking about
- site selection. We're also talking about scope given the rough estimate of dollars we think are available
- for bonding under things. Now here's where the legislature is done. We will evaluate if anything affects that.
- The city planning window is typically 100 and whatever days that is. I think that that should be mentioned
- in the timeline as well, because other communities are not like this. And friends, if ever there was
- a good warning for those of us who are in elected office, the fact that our timelines and planning and
- other things take so long might be a good indicator when we're struggling that we want to shorten that
- for others. The last thing I'll just say on this, friends, is we are going to have to do something robustly.
- that this community from border to border has struggled with for a long time. And that is elected officials
- are going to have check egos at doors. We are under a lawsuit threat that is more than Mr. Falk. It
- is about constitutional care for souls that are in there who cannot come to a public meeting and speak
- for themselves. And if it weren't for the good nature and transparency of the sheriff, we wouldn't be
- to this point. So I think if we kind of adopt that mantra
- and work forward perhaps it's shared documents that also the public can see on the open timeline I think
- that we have those less surprises and those less aha moments but we can say to Mr. Falk and to the public
- because they're important to this is kind of where this is hitting we're hitting a city foul or we're hitting a
- a township foul or we're hitting just a foul of we can't figure out what we can do with our own money
- from our own taxpayers because the legislature changes it every three seconds. Right. And I think I
- think that's just going to have to be the order of business for things on this issue and probably a
- lot of others because nobody out there really cares about our squabbles. They're really bored with that.
- And we got it's just and frankly, I am too.
- We got to get back to some of this sense making and getting it done. I got a quick note to Councilor
- Henry's excellent point about, you know, taking the guesswork out of this. There is nothing like research
- on how to not fail a timeline than asking someone who failed a timeline. And we have counties out there
- who failed the timeline. Allen County failed the timeline. They were under a private settlement agreement
- imposed by a judge.
- And so we can go to Allen County, perhaps. So I have a question for County Legal is, can someone reach
- out and ask how things came undone? What steps did they take that perhaps we can learn from their example?
- And so what would they advise? What was helpful to them, not helpful to them, et cetera? And that might
- be as simple as a quick phone call. So that might pay dividends.
- I do think that we need to make a priority timeline. And I think that as we are thinking about that,
- I guess my thing is, why shoot something down? Let's just try it. At the end of the day, I want to make
- sure that everything that we, with time being of the essence, really focusing and looking at what is
- our priorities and how we can meet those
- moments where you know we're at the literally basically at the end of January when you think about it
- and so we're like less than three months out but things can be done and again I'd like to see that like
- the priority timeline and having a check-in of what that priority time looks like
- you know, if we're looking at location, you know, where are we at with that? What are we doing with
- that? You know, that type of thing. Where are we at with meeting with this person and that person? I'd
- like to see how, you know, that's something that we could do together. But I guess as we kind of wrap
- up here, I did want to ask another like kind of bring it back to the question I initially asked at the
- beginning is
- It is no surprise that obviously there are some feelings that commissioners have about the vote that
- we have done and the vote that we have made. I understand that. New Year, hopefully we're moving past
- that. That's my hope and my intent. But my question as we do think about next steps, because my question
- ties into all of this when we think about the next steps, is how can the commissioners
- work with council and put memories of the past and move forward. How can you all work, the three of
- you all work with us and all seven of us so that we can meet this deadline? What does that look like
- for you all? Okay, so first I'm going to say I don't have feelings involved in any of this because this
- is all just business and the goal is to try to move forward
- expeditiously as possible with a facility that meets the basic requirements of constitutional care as
- quickly as we can. So I don't take any vote personally. And that's why we've put together the questions,
- because we wanted to learn where you all were at. We didn't put the questions together to grill anybody.
- We put the questions together because we
- felt like, well, what the heck's going on? What are you all thinking? So I'm glad we had this conversation
- today. So again, thank you all for being here. So there's no feelings involved. It is just business.
- And again, we can set up a regular communication time that we used to have. And we could set that up.
- If you wish, we're just going to keep doing our part. I think if you need information from DLZ, then
- that can be expressed to us or to Angie or to Jeff or to Molly to say, hey, can you ask what the staffing
- costs are? And that's something we covered in the pony training too. So if there are questions that
- have come up about design or anything like that,
- design elements, I will say, because we don't have a design now. You know, that's great. Ask. Anybody
- wants information, ask. But what I'm looking at this as is recovering as quickly as possible to try
- to keep the authority in Monroe County for making the decision about our justice center.
- and whether that be just a jail or not. Because if we, what I think is ironic is I have a philosophy
- that patience is always a virtue, but patience is great because patience means you have more options.
- This is the confounding opposite. The more time we've waited, the fewer options we have. And a lot of
- that is not self-imposed.
- I granted. Um, it just happens. Um, and that worries me because any further delay means potentially
- fewer options and that nobody wants to be in that position. And I would defer to Commissioner Madeira
- to add what she needs to add. And we've got five minutes. Yeah, I know Councilor Friddle hasn't really
- had a lot to say, but I'm interested in an update.
- a weekly update. Is a weekly update reasonable to think we could expect that from the commissioners
- on what you're doing as far as looking at property? What could we get updates on anything that's going
- on? Anything related to this project? Not in a meeting form, but in written form? Yes. And could that
- be posted online so the public can see it? Well, sometimes that's not possible because, yeah.
- But what can be posted and shared publicly should be shared publicly. And what can be and shared with
- us should be shared with us. I like weekly timelines. I'm big on weekly. I would like to add a couple
- of like some of these can happen this week. And I'm just wondering, could we
- could we assign or agree upon who might? I'm happy to contact the lobbyist on behalf of council with
- all of our emails and ask that we receive those updates. I already asked Angie through eye contact if
- she would be willing to send off to Tam a reminder. Thank you. We've already. Perfect. Yeah, we're good.
- Someone to call Allen County.
- Okay. I'll do it. Councilor Crossley is going to call Allen County and kind of get some insights, hopefully.
- I think if council has fiduciary financial questions about staffing and things like that, pull them
- together. We can talk to DLZ, pass those on to DLZ who know what these costs are. And I'm sure the sheriff
- already has in his pocket a good listing of a sense of the cost, but I don't
- As much as it is important, I don't want us as commissioners to get involved in something that's not
- really our thing. Our thing is trying to find property and trying to find a place to do this and trying
- to do this as expeditiously as possible. Scheduling a meeting and earlier we had mentioned, maybe it
- was just me, but including city folks in maybe not that same meeting, but a meeting.
- Yeah, and I agree with that, but I think our first meeting needs to be with the sheriff and the board
- of judges. Sure. And I don't know if it's a work session or if it has to be executive session, because
- we might want to talk about some specific properties. And if that's the case, it might need to be executive
- session. I'll leave that to legal. But could we issue the doodle poll to all those parties and get a
- meeting going so we can talk through these questions? And I'm kind of looking at Angie and Jeff and
- Molly and can we also work with the council office too with that I like I hear a lot of we and then
- like we're doing it but then we sounds like board of commissioners but we doesn't include county council
- and I think that's the level of like what we're sorry yeah to be clear I'm asking that we do a doodle
- poll to bring all of us back together again and the question to legal was
- Does it have to be executive? Does it have? Can it not be executive? Can it be a work session? How do
- we do it? And I don't know that answer. Well, I just, I just like put one out. No, I get it. That helps.
- But I know like for timelines and things. What's the goal to have it next week? I mean, that's optimistic,
- but truly we are under a crunch. I know. I know you know. I'm with you. I'm with you. Just to follow up on
- Commissioner Thomas's comments, I think now we're at a stage where it's a blank slate, and we need guidance
- on what forward movement constitutes, and we need to move forward in an atmosphere of transparency,
- in an atmosphere of collegiality, and in an atmosphere of community, and that means commissioners plus
- council, because we cannot meet the deadline by ourselves, and you guys cannot meet the deadline by
- yourselves. It's going to take all of us together, working together openly.
- I appreciate your comment, because I may be picking up on some vibes at the table. If we don't have
- time for it, I'll bring it into our meeting on Tuesday, that some of the rhetoric at the end here is
- the same challenge we faced for years about who does what and where the we is. I cannot imagine us continuing
- business the way we have at this point if I hear things like,
- civil staff, you know county administrator, county legal handle x and y, and we don't have the council's
- visibility on this we're the financier of the project we're the, we're the buyer, you're the buyer,
- we're the financier right.
- And to Councilor Feitl's point, a weekly update is aggressive, but maybe at this point, the level of
- information we need to understand that if there are things being discussed, we really need the TikTok,
- so we're not surprised when we have public votes and it seems like things came out of nowhere. They're
- not coming out of nowhere. There's a lot of ambiguity in the months and quarters that have added up
- in this project since I've sat here. So this is a business process change, and I do like the and.
- I mean, it's council and commission.
- And we need a lot more of that so we don't run right into this in 90 days. This is one of those cases
- where the statutory commissioner responsibility, we can't meet the deadline if we stick to that. And
- the council can't either. And that's why we have to be in this together. And we are. We have been trying
- to. And we just have to find new ways of doing it better. I just know sometimes it doesn't feel like
- it. But again, as we move forward to the 90 day mark,
- I'm not trying to do the what-ifs anymore, and I hope everybody else isn't either, but really trying
- to move to the what-ifs, because the what-ifs is what got us to where we are now. All right. So we'll
- try to get that joint meeting together as soon as possible. We'll leave it to you. And I think Ms. Schell
- is actually bringing up the doodle poll. Can we decide what day of the week we're going to get a weekly
- report? I need to figure out what it is.
- We'll figure out a way to do it. There are too many questions in my mind regarding realities.
- Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everyone. We are adjourned.