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.