- Good evening, everybody. I call to order our joint session of the Board of Commissioners and County
- Council. We have a quorum because here and then at you Hill Room, you have myself, Councilor Crossley,
- Councilor Wilts, Councilor Feidl, Councilor Deckert. I'm not certain if I see Councilor Hawk
- virtual and I know Councilor Henry and Councilor Iverson could not attend tonight so we are good on
- County Council's side. All right and I'm gonna call to order the Board of Commissioners Commissioner
- Madeira and Julie Thomas myself are present here in the NatU Hill room. All right now that we are in
- order here I kind of want to go back
- to our last conversation, I was kind of looking at our notes from and I might look at my council members
- here to kind of help me out with our notes to kind of recap our conversation that we had the last time
- we have the questions that the commissioners had put together for us. And we had a discussion on that.
- And then from that, we had the dry erase boards that look like they're back again. And so our next steps
- were some other items that we were looking for.
- Um, and I believe it was counselor Iverson that was looking for, it was, what was it counselor? Yes.
- Um, of that. And it was something else that he was asking about related to, Oh man, I'm having a brain
- fart. Um, something that was asked last February, um, I'm,
- looking at my council members. It was something that he was asking about in terms of like cost. Oh,
- thank you. Nobody else. What was it? Wasn't how much we could bond for. I know he asked that several
- times. I know. Okay. Thank you. And so that was a conversation. And so I don't know, Commissioner Thomas,
- if you have an answer or if council attorneys are
- I'm not sure if the county attorneys have an answer to that. I think Mr Cockrell can address that issue.
- And again, apologies to everyone. It's a little dark in here because since the power outage, there's
- something going on with the light switch. Yes, and I'm going to answer that question two different ways.
- everything's pending state legislation, right? So at this point in 2028, the county council would have
- the ability to spend everything it's spending right now out of lit and the bond at this level that we
- were anticipating and still have around a 0.2 of the percentage left of the keeper's tax. So what you're
- currently spending now is about 0.61.
- Not innkeepers. Lit, lit, sorry. I know. 0.61% of income tax is what you're spending this year, well,
- appropriated this year. What's gets spent gets spent. And then we had calculated about a 0.4 to do the
- full bond for the North Park facility, that amount. So in 2028, as it currently sits, you'll be able
- to go up to 1.2 million, or 1.2%, so that would be above,
- what you're currently collecting, and that could pay for both what you currently have budgeted and anything
- else. Currently, you can't bond really for anything at all because there's a 25% cap, and that cap basically
- ends next year. So you could basically bond for your revenue for this year and next year.
- So you really can't do a whole lot of bonding. You do have the option of not bonding and paying out
- of cash. I think we had I want to say over 20-30 million in our edit tax fund and we're anticipating
- collecting another substantial amount this year. I don't have those numbers off the top of my head.
- So short term not a lot of not a lot of capacity to bond but once
- once that legislation gets in place, you do have it pending state doing something else. Yeah, Councilor
- Decker. Yeah, and I guess this question will go to Mr. Cockerill or whoever would be appropriate to
- answer it, because ultimately that bonding amount dictates financially, whatever that percentage equates
- to, that dictates the amount of dollars that you're able to get towards either constitutional care or
- anything else for that matter.
- And at one point, someone said night that would be you could bond for up to 19 million a year. Am I
- misremembering or that or do we know that amount? The bond per year for the 225 million dollar project.
- If you didn't use any cash bonded, the full 225 was about 18 million a year.
- I forgot to mention, Commissioner Thomas, we are also joined by some of the board of judges that we
- have here, as well as the sheriff and staff, too. So I just wanted to say that for record. OK. Anybody
- else that wanted to add anything or have any questions? Councilor Woltz? Can you speculate? I know you
- love doing that.
- But could you speculate on the potential impact of municipalities claiming some of the tax rate? Because
- that's at least been suggested and I know is being lobbied for. I think that I've seen a Senate bill
- that I think has been
- taken off but some of those provisions may find its way somewhere else so if in that proposal had that
- one point due going down to point seven for the county as a general thing but it also has and I didn't
- talk about it with with the other because that had a they call it the small towns tax this still has
- the small towns tax but it says you don't have that the county gets to keep it all.
- Right? And so it's, and that would be 1.9% on up to 1.9% on everybody that doesn't live in corporate
- limits. I've got no idea what that number will be. I don't know how you divvy that up. But, but my guess
- is it, it would be more than enough to cover the cost, but then you've got it. There's, there's philosophical
- issues with that.
- Um, and one other thing I just wanted to confirm that, um, this is the case. There is an active bill
- right now to postpone the lit changes for a year. Is that correct? So we could be looking at the limbo
- lasting until 2029. Is that right? Okay. So there's also legislation which will remove that
- annual requirement for renewing
- a bond on a list. It's a hodgepodge right now at the state house. I'm sorry for this question, but I
- offer it to try to move us towards what we can do because we're under a tremendous deadline made by
- all these circumstances and not made easier by legislation in limbo and of course our own work.
- If we think back to the previous, I know we keep hearing the 225 estimate, but if we think back to the
- amount that was apportioned or offered in the DLZ proposal for just a jail portion of this, I'm trying
- to take numbers and go from what the legislature's currently saying you can do, I think,
- we think 18 million a year, what we need to have towards a constitutional full care jail. I'm trying
- to figure out that number, those years, and what our most immediate thing is. Do you know the amount
- that would be a portion from that original proposal just for roughly the jail end of it? I don't know
- exactly if I had to guess.
- I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm
- not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
- As we all know, right now, we currently have a Justice Silden that is composed of courts and jail. And
- so if there is the jail component only as of right now, not sent, please don't anybody at me just speaking
- hypothetically speaking. But if we do something like that,
- then I guess I'll look to you or DOZ or somebody to tell us what those operational costs would be because
- obviously everybody is concerned of what it would cost in terms of transporting inmates back and forth.
- You know, all of those different things. Does that cost like we need to know that cost as well? I agree,
- we do. We would very much, I think, benefit
- if we understood those operational costs, even if it's just for a period of time until we co-locate
- or more. More likely in the. As we look at building just the jail portion, which again, not sure if
- that's what we're talking about fully, but we would still have court facilities with the jail.
- Um, not all of them necessarily, but there would have to be some partial co-location. And I think in
- my vast experience in both architecture and being in the justice system, lots of sarcasm. No, the plan,
- the plan would be to have the jail and, and if,
- If we were not immediately co-located, we would have to have some courtroom facilities. But I don't
- think it would be sufficient to cover every single criminal case. So it would be maybe a hearing room,
- maybe one or two courtrooms. I don't know. Depends on the cost. To add that in, which would alleviate
- some of the security issues, I would just ask that
- I think that would be a great thing to work on next. And that would include not just personnel,
- but vehicles, time, the cost of time, any additional personnel, vehicles, ways to stay safe. I know
- the sheriff could
- tell me 100 things I'm missing on that list right now if we had to do that. But if we are not co-located,
- then that means we've got people commuting between a justice building prosecutor, public defender, probation,
- of course the judges, clerk. They would be commuting between two buildings and there's a cost there.
- And I don't know what that is. But that would be something that would be worth assessing, I think, as
- part of this as well. Not just moving inmates, because that would, of course, have to happen to some
- extent. Not necessarily every inmate would have to be moved. But that commuting cost is time and money.
- And I don't know what that is either. So I think that would be a good thing to look at. And I want to
- judge staffer had her hand up.
- Thank you, Judge Katherine Stafford. I certainly can't speak for the entire
- the board of judges, but the last time the board of judges discussed the issue of whether some courtrooms
- could be located at a separate jail, we were firmly against it. And the reason for that is that all
- of our support staff are located in one location, and we can't have some courts in a different location
- and some courts at the original location because we don't have our court administration there. We don't
- have our court reporters there. We don't have our recording equipment there. The cost of duplicating
- all of that would be extremely expensive.
- until I'm told otherwise by the board of judges, I don't believe that having some courtrooms in one
- place and some courtrooms in another place is feasible. There's a secondary question here as well, which
- goes to the question of co-location. If there is a planned permanent non-co-location, meaning down the
- road, there will always be a jail that is not connected with
- the current Zitlow Justice Center, then one of the things that we know is that it would take about $15,000
- for us to get a construction estimate to make the Zitlow Justice Center a viable court and office space
- in a way that it is not now. In other words, HVAC plumbing, wiring, and dealing, which would eliminate
- mold issues and and all of that so that's something that we can bring to the council if you all want
- an estimate on what it would cost this is not to refurbish the jail at all this is not to have the jail
- there they would certainly have to be holding cells if courts continue to operate criminal courts will
- continue operate out of that building and if that's a long-term thing then we we're going to have to
- I don't want to look at that. So, no, I absolutely hear that. I would prefer we're co-located.
- I don't know. I don't know, you know, that's and to me, that and a single floor jail are the two most
- important things we can do right now. And there may be ways we can do that. And I don't want to talk
- about tea leaves and what the legislature may or may not do, but we can figure that part out.
- if we're on the same page regarding single floor, co-location. And I think that's an important thing
- that's still on the table. Yes, thank you. Go for it. Because I agree with you, Commissioner Thomas,
- that co-location and single floor are our priorities. And I would throw in there a downtown location.
- because I look at these as priorities. At this point in my mind, there are very few things that are
- absolute hills to die on, so to speak, except the money. And so, I mean, it's really unfortunate
- I maintain the same list of priorities that I've been told by people who know more than I do about what
- you all do. And I will try to find a solution. But we can't fund everything we want. We know that. So
- some aspects of some of these priorities might have to change. And I don't know what that is. And I'm
- not trying to be threatening.
- I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. I hope we can get it all pulled together in some way I haven't thought
- of yet. I really do, because I share those priorities. I do. I just wonder if Mr. Cockrell can speak
- to what we can and cannot afford. Taking legislative limitations, hurdles, obstacles, barriers, cement
- walls off the table, can we Monroe County afford to do this project?
- um and and what is that based on? Well I think that we can certainly afford the land based on what the
- current edit fund is. I think the construction phase could currently could not start until 2028 and
- an absence legislative changes either pro or con to that so I think at that point if it remains to 1.2
- percent I think you have adequate room to to fund the project
- and then it's up to the question of whether that's appropriate or not. Based on lit local income tax
- anticipated funding the current lit we collect about a 0.8 of current lit we spend three we're spending
- currently spending three quarters of what we collect so it's about 0.6 and we would be able to grow
- that 0.8 collection to 1.2 and that
- point four will cover the expenses of the bond payment if we borrowed 225 million which again I'm not
- sure that we'd have to borrow that much because of our cash on hand and things like that. That assumes
- raising the lit for our community
- So just to be clear, when you say we collect and we utilize and all that, I just want to make sure that
- we're all talking about the same thing, which is raising taxes. Now granted, that's the expectation
- that's being given to us by the state, the way they're putting things in place right now. The expectation
- is that we are raising income taxes for those who live in our community.
- And we would be making a choice then to utilize a lot of that extra taxation to fund the jail project.
- And that's where I start to get very uncomfortable about what are we giving up in opportunities to fund
- things that our community needs and
- I recognize our community is not being sued over our unhoused population or the mental health services
- that we don't provide. We're being sued over the jail. So I recognize the urgency, and I understand
- that we are going to have to fund it. But I just want to make it clear that that is what we're talking
- about, is asking our community to pay more money to build a big jail. It's a tough thing to sell.
- And when you say it out loud like that, that's really hard to swallow. I get it. And I know there might
- be some people that might go, ah, but there's other costs that are associated. I get that. I completely
- understand that. But when we talk about this economy and this day and age, when everything is stacked
- up against the regular Joe Schmoes that are out there, it just feels bleh.
- to do something like that and I again I'll keep saying it until my whole face turns red like my lipstick
- but and I understand that we are in this but at the same time I think we have to figure out like what
- is the crux of this whole conversation and it is the jail.
- of course, we have all the wants and the desires. I personally would love to make sure that we can continue
- to keep it downtown. Because hey, if we just have a jail and operational costs mean that things are
- walking distance and people can do all of those things, great. I'm just trying to think about how we
- can do things outside the box. But it feels like oftentimes, and I get everybody's concerns, we as the
- council, we have a big job and to already go out
- And we already raised taxes once on people to afford this. And now to go back out again to ask for more
- money from people who are already strapped when they're not making as much. They don't have affordable
- housing. They don't have all of the things that we have here. That just seems like a hard ask to sell
- to our county residents.
- I'm sorry, Councilor Decker. I think I'm happy to defer. Judge had her hand up first. I'm sorry. I didn't
- see you. I'm so sorry. And I recognize I'm not necessarily. No, no, no, it's okay. It's okay. So I'll
- go Judge Defferent and then I'll go to Councilor Decker next. I certainly am not here to comment on
- the council's position on raising taxes or not. I have no vote on that, but I would say that it's
- not just to build a big jail. What we need is a jail that meets the constitutional standard of care.
- And that's what we currently do not have. We have a jail that is unsafe for the inmates and unsafe for
- the jail staff. And that is unacceptable. I just wanted to reframe that slightly. Yeah. And I think
- in that regard too, I think that's what I'm saying. I think it's
- the other aspects of all the other things that are driving up the operational cost of this project is
- the one thing that I want to speak for Councilor Woods. Like, I think that's the point that she's making.
- And that's a lot of the heartburn that some of us have. Councilor Decker. I was just going to say,
- number one, I do want to say I have beat the colocation drum extensively for a long time, and I am
- usually the last to change on something until you're absolutely running out of options. I will say that
- saying right now that maintaining the full-blown original co-location plan that we had, it is vastly
- overwhelmingly appearing to me that we have an inability to do that. I sometimes, when I think about
- what the state is
- permitting us to do or figuring out what they're putting on pause or putting on play or putting on rewind.
- When I think about all that, I can't figure out if this county could lawfully in one month go buy a
- pack of chewing gum, let alone deal with an issue that has festered for some time. So because I get
- frustrated thinking about the legislature and frankly, I'm tired of wondering about the legislature,
- but this is the law of the land and you know, we have to follow it.
- My thought is this. Some of us have been on commissions and discussions on this issue alone since 2019,
- some even further back than that. Here it is 2026. We don't have to completely divorce ourselves from
- all the values and notions that we had.
- We also don't have to marry every detail today, because gosh knows, if we get something wrong or the
- legislature changes something in 12 seconds, which they're probably in session right now, that literally
- in eight minutes, you're already changing your plan. My questions kind of center around this. What could
- we do until circumstances and time in the community
- and law permitting changes things to where we're able to fully realize all those values. So for example,
- if in our system, having the system where there's minimal operational issues between the courts and
- the jail, if we could get to that eventually, that would be great. If we could get to that, to where
- that's a fully realized everything in our system is in its best spot downtown, that would be great too.
- But for now,
- what I'd like to figure out with Mr. Cockerill, Ms. King, with the auditor, with anybody that can assist
- with this is what could we do to hit that constitutional care that judge is talking so well about because
- it's clear that that is what has put us into the immediate like vicinity of this. And I'm the last to
- just say it's down to that. And I think that much like anything else, we're gonna have to piecemeal
- build around this
- fix around this, try to get this as right as possible. But for now, on this timeline, we're kind of
- sitting at this vast, giant, threatening issue that is not just the ACLU saying, we're being frivolous
- with this. They're talking about constitutional care. Not a person in here has run for office against
- that. I think also in that process, as you look at just, we're looking at this,
- We're making our folks as right as possible through existing resources we have for the present justice
- building and the other offices. I think that we get more closer to a solution and we get to some form
- of action that minimizes any additional cost or burden to the taxpayer. I sometimes think when we're
- talking about this in the community, we're talking about the large original plan and its cost to taxpayers versus
- what it would take to do the constitutional jail by whatever method we would need to do that under any
- lawful way we could. I'm still not convinced we can fully do that with our current bonding capacity.
- But how do we do that and get to the next day? And I'm sorry to speak so long on that, but I think it
- kind of comes down to that. And you start building the solution around it. So Commissioner Thomas, and
- then I'll go to Commissioner Medina next.
- You know, it sounds like folks are willing to pay lip service to, yeah, we want to be co-located. And
- of course, we all want a constitutional jail facility. And yes, we want to be co-located, but we can't
- afford it. And so we're not going to. And there are a lot of costs that come with that, a lot, that
- some are measurable and some are not.
- And I would really love to hear from the sheriff at this point about co-location, single floor, multi-floor
- facilities because we haven't heard from you yet. If I might.
- to say real quickly to follow up on what Trent said. It's important now that we plan as best as we can
- to effectuate the values that we want to prioritize at this time. And those values are with us for the
- long term. They're inherent in the building we build. So we can try for co-location or whatever values
- we want to put into that building through our choice of property. The choices we make now have to dictate
- the choices we make later on. And I think we should look upon this as a marriage. This is not the time
- to speed date. It's not the time to
- quickly get to know a property, we still have to have the mindset that we're going to be with this property
- and this building for 50 years or more. I know Judge Stafford is going to know what I mean when I say
- this is like a covenant marriage. So it's kind of hard for me to answer some of the questions that have
- been asked here. Everything that we thought of, the chief and jail commander, and I know we don't, I know
- It's been said that North Park is 100%. I get that part. But try to understand it from my point of view
- that everything that we've done so far was because of that location. Everything that we try to think
- of was to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Everything that we've experienced so far in that jail
- is to not do it again somewhere else or that the people that are going to replace us don't have to face
- what we're facing right now. And I truly understand what you're telling me, what we could afford and
- not afford.
- But if you continue to go down this path, as far as building up, that's what we have right now.
- If you block, if you lock us into a location that, God forbid, in the future, we cannot expand, and
- I'm not saying we want to expand to put more people out there inside the facility. Right now, it's not
- constitutional. But what if we do have to put more people in there right now? Now what?
- Because right now, where we sit now, there are things coming down the pike that we haven't had a chance
- to talk about that within the blink of an eye, we're going to be overcapacitated in that facility. And
- henceforth, we're going to have to go ahead and put people in other locations, which means we're going
- to spend more money again. So I hear one's concerns. I hear about the interests. I assure you that what
- we do for a living, we've been doing this for a very long time. And it's hard for us to try to explain to people
- day in, day out what we're facing in that location. We know what we have, we know what we need, and
- my concern, and I really said it to other people here, if the goal is to meet the 15th, okay, but right
- now, just to be realistic here, we haven't decided on a location again because North Park is no longer
- a consideration. I am still confused
- that we cannot afford North Park? I don't know. Because to make progress, we have to buy the property
- first, then build. It's logical that we don't have to blow right away, but we do have to buy the property,
- all the money that was spent to get to this level. And what I'm hearing now, I don't see it happening
- that fast. I just don't. So I don't want to be the negative person in the room, but I am the person,
- the people behind me that in that building, in that jail, in that facility, day in, day out.
- Wondering when the bottoms will fall out and it's just come to this Arden to me that we waited all this
- time when I took over Over three years ago. I Don't know what else clear I could say it and or demonstrate
- where we're at and since that time has just gotten worse not better just worse and I Opinion and you
- know renovate and isn't
- It doesn't work like that. It just truly doesn't. And if we're going to go and have a facility jailed
- in one location and the judge in another one, yes, transportation is going to have to happen. It's expensive.
- Yes, I'm going to need more vehicles and yes, I'm going to need more bodies. I do not want to happen
- to what happened to the Marion County transportation individual that was killed because he was by himself.
- I'm not doing that.
- Is it going to be increased in staff? Yeah. Yeah, there is. And then we're going to have to look at
- the fact that, hey, not everybody is suited for this job or somebody. I have a liability for the county.
- So I don't know how else to to express this, because one thing I do know, we're not going to please
- everybody. It's just not going to happen. It's just not. But in the real world, us,
- We're the ones in that jail. So when we say something, I hope it carries a little weight, because we
- know what we're saying. We've been doing this for a very long time. And at the same time, we're thinking
- about the future. We don't want to pass up the time to someone else. It's going to be in our shoes at
- this point. I was just trying to tell you to get to the microphone, just for it to pick up on Kat. OK.
- Sorry. So I'll stop here. Everyone knows time is of essence.
- in my mind i'm still thinking okay what are what are we doing are we going to go ahead and just keep
- going the way we're going because we're not nothing has changed so far at this point what i do know
- is that north park is not the park is no longer being considered if that is the case everything else
- is going to take time it is what it is so i i'm not in a position to decide what's going to happen this
- point forward council commissioners that's your job but i could tell you that
- based on what I experienced so far in the three years that I've been here, it took us that long to get
- to North Park, and now we're starting again. It's gonna be a long process. So I'm not gonna see the
- new jail, I know that. People behind me, maybe one might see the new jail, but we won't, I won't. So
- I'd like to put in perspective, what are we doing here? Because if we're talking about meeting the 15th,
- it's gonna be a little bit differently.
- If we're talking about okay who wanted in the city limits, we're not making the 15. Thank you. I just
- wanted to make two points. One is that I think the Board of Judges and I think everyone here recognizes
- that with whatever location the Council and Commissioners pick and fund.
- that it won't all be built at the same time. I think we all recognize that. And that there will be a
- period of time, at least, where some things are not co-located. But I think it's really critical that
- we consider, and here's my second point, that there are not only costs of transportation in terms of
- personnel, in terms of vehicles, holding cells, et cetera, but there are also then going to be absolutely
- concomitant delays in court hearings, both
- obviously majority criminal but also civil, and that there is a much increased risk of escape and harm
- to personnel, both inmate personnel and staff personnel when we are transporting people. And so I really
- would like to see a good risk assessment and cost assessment of that done before you all proceed on
- that direction. Thank you.
- I see that the chief deputy and jail commander have joined the table. Did either of you all have something
- to add to the conversation? Well, I don't know if I have anything to add, but I guess a lot of this,
- someone's got to say some of these things, and I guess I'm the expendable one, so I'll be the one doing
- that. I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I made some notes here, and I'm trying not to read,
- I think we need to speak here. I think it's important to talk about how we got here, and how we got
- here. We've been working on this for three years. I think we all were comfortable at one point, and
- I know Senate Bill 1 inserted itself pretty ugly into this process. But what happened here as recently
- that prompted Ken Falk's letter
- all of us and the letter that we passed out in the jail. That wasn't an accident. That was a result
- of the council's vote to eliminate North Park as a property. And I will say this, everybody that was
- there at that meeting was surprised by that. There was no talking of any of the stakeholders.
- didn't talk to the sheriff didn't talk to the judges didn't talk to anybody it was just an autocratic
- decision made by the council so that's what put us here there's been over four million dollars spent
- on that process so where's that money i guess it's gone so you know now here we sit trying to be in
- collaboration here to try to figure this out but
- That decision wasn't certainly collaboration. That was unilateral. And I'm confused by it because no
- one ever said anything to anybody about it until that day that I can recall. So I have asked this question
- that if now we're running around looking for different properties, if that's what we're going to have
- to do here,
- I completely don't understand but if we're going to have to do that look how long it took us to get
- to the decision on North Park where there's a purchase agreement there were environmental studies there
- was you know the design team has set there for months and months designing a jail that is up in smoke
- that that exercise at this point was worthless. So now where are we at if
- That whole process has to be repeated. You just can't go to a realtor and say, hey, we'd like to buy
- 1, 2, 3, 4 Main Street. And he goes, OK, let's put a jail up there. All those steps have to be repeated.
- And if I read the letter from Ken Falk correctly, he specifically said to just saying, hey, we're thinking
- about we're going to go to look to buy some land here, his letter said,
- you're going to have to have a specific plan by April 15th or this lawsuit may go forward and I can
- tell you that we passed out this letter this very letter to every resident of our facility and I can
- tell you this that some of them have went back to the ACLU more than one it's been several and in that
- letter he puts it did appear earlier this year the county is finally making definitive steps to build
- a new jail
- However, in late October, the Merle County Council voted down a proposal to purchase a piece of property
- used for the new jail. Given the lack of process, I don't see any reason to continue to extend the private
- settlement agreement. She's very clear. So. If if we're going to go forward with different properties,
- I think everybody in this room better stipulate. That. The
- the lawsuit's probably coming our way. We all better agree to that right here and now. And the sad part
- of it is not everybody in this room is going to be a defendant in that lawsuit. I can tell you who it
- absolutely is going to be. It's absolutely the sheriff who has spent three years helping with this process.
- Kyle? Well, OK, I'm getting there.
- Kyle, who has cleaned up the jails best he can to make it as best he can, the commissioners for sure,
- and more than likely the council. Now, normally that when I've seen it's just the sheriff and
- the commissioners, but y'all may have walked yourself into this one. So here's what I would tell you.
- This letter is a very powerful thing. I've never seen anything like it in my 42 years in law enforcement.
- And I've not, not all that has been spent and sheriff's office dealing with the jail.
- But for a long, long, long time, the people in that jail, their concerns and their cries to how that
- jail is, they've been ignored. They've been dismissed. They've been disregarded. But on January 29th
- at 830 in the morning, this letter was distributed. That's exactly when we did it, folks.
- And let me tell you something. Now they have a voice and they're not going to be ignored and they're
- not going to be disregarded. I think we're going to hear, I don't think we're going to hear a whimper
- from them. I heard a real loud distinctive roar and it's not going to come in a meeting like this. It's
- going to come in a federal lawsuit where most of the people sitting at this table are defendants. So
- I'll shut my little diatribe down here, but there have been studies
- The Ken Ray study that I can't even remember them all that all been paid for and that's not even included
- in this $4 million. It's unsafe, it's outdated and it can't be practically fixed. He lays it out in
- excruciating detail. So I'm going to go back to North Park and I've I've heard that's a hard no, it's
- a hard no, it's a hard no. But again,
- that was a decision made by one body. And that was the council. And the next thing is, okay, so we find
- another property. Well, where does this end? If the property or the design or isn't it then all the
- council has to do say we're not funded and we're back to square one again here. So I would like for
- someone to tell me, I just heard
- Mr. Cockrell say, we have the money to buy the land. That's the first step. That's the plan. That's
- how we get out of this lawsuit. If we come and say, we have a plan to purchase land. He said it in his
- letter, this will get put on hold. So I'd like to someone to tell me why North Park was a unilateral
- no and no one else has any say in it in this room, nobody.
- it's no no no it can't be the money jeff cockrell said we have the money to do it i appreciate your
- words and i appreciate the fact that you're at the table speaking because um i think what you're saying
- is important for us to contemplate it and i i hadn't thought about it as seeming unilateral and
- It was unanimous. But it wasn't as though we discussed our votes ahead of time. And it wasn't,
- I don't think, for the same reasons. My reasons for voting no, I happen to know just from listening,
- were different from some of my colleagues. And that has been
- I think that is a problem. I think that is, and by problem, I don't mean it's bad. I think it is presenting
- a stumbling block in this process because there's no one solution to make council happy and council
- go for North Park because we all had variations on a theme and we just happened to hit that theme with our vote.
- Don't disagree that we're in for a lot of problem. I am very concerned about the deadline and willing
- to be here three times a week in the evenings doing whatever needs to happen to work through this. I
- really am. OK, my question is, maybe I can focus it a little bit more, that the purchase agreement was
- brought forward
- months and months and months ago everybody reviewed it sheriff judges the council and everybody everybody
- was incorrect well okay the sheriff reviewed it the council reviewed it the commissioners reviewed it
- that private settlement agreement wasn't a surprise to anybody i mean i'm sorry the purchase agreement
- wasn't a surprise to anybody but i can tell you what
- The vote in October sure was. It absolutely was. And I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just trying
- to tell you, when we've invested three years in this, and we were right there, and then all of a sudden,
- we take a step back, and we expect Ken Falk to just go, OK, we'll just extend it. And we've run out
- of runway here, and I don't know what the answer is. So I'll give Judge Stafford an opportunity, and
- then I'll jump in.
- Thank you so much. I would just like to state, again, speaking for myself only, not on behalf of the
- Board of Judges, that I would like to formally request, as I have before, both privately and publicly,
- that the Community Justice Response Committee be reinstituted so that we can have transparent and open
- public dialogue so that we can continue to be on the same page as we work through these extremely difficult
- issues. Democracy is messy. It's not fun to go through those meetings and have those public disagreements,
- but I think it's a necessary part of
- how we have those conversations and how we involve the community and the public in those conversations
- and how we do come to a consensus. I think the lack of those meetings is one reason why we are here
- now where we are. Thank you. And I guess for me, I'm not, I guess everybody keeps saying that time is
- of that essence and I keep hearing that everybody's like,
- you know, thinking we're not going to make the April 15 deadline, not going to make April 15 deadline,
- we're not going to make it. I'm not going to say everybody because maybe some people, maybe me being
- positive Patty, I said at the last meeting thinks that something like we can continue to like move forward
- and we can do this if
- All of us are on the same page and trying to get to that point. And if we keep going back on the what
- ifs and the coulda woulda shouldas of 2025 and years past, instead of trying to work in this moment,
- again, I understand that people are highly disappointed, highly frustrated.
- I'm wondering if you can describe whatever adverbs and verbs and things that you can describe of your
- reasons for why council voted the way that they get. I get it. I've heard it via email, text,
- phone calls, social media, all of the above.
- I think it's important to look at the properties. Why can't we keep moving forward and also looking
- at the idea of trying to possibly look at other properties.
- which is to knock this lawsuit off of us, then are we all willing to put egos and differences aside
- and really try to work towards that and get past the frustrations of the council votes? I keep hearing
- people say, oh, I'm past it. It's not personal. It's not any of that. Obviously, some people feel that
- kind of way because we keep having the same conversations. So if that is going to be the case,
- don't we owe our community an opportunity to keep moving forward, to keep looking at other avenues of,
- if co-location is a big thing that everybody wants, my God, can we all try to figure out how we can
- try to make that work? Can council figure out the risk and operational costs to all the different things?
- It sounds like I hear next steps that
- council has to do, some other people have to do and whatnot. But man, if we can put all of those next
- steps and we work in our little areas and our lanes for that mart or in that regard, and then come back
- to the collective body, then I think that we can try to move forward. But it's not going to get anywhere
- if we keep remaining stagnant in the decisions that the county council made.
- I understand that people are feeling all the feels and I get it but let's try to figure out how we can
- do a compromise because I guess for me personally and quite honestly sometimes I feel like in county
- council and I'm just speaking for myself I don't hear a compromise sometimes I hear what everybody continues
- to want but I don't feel like
- there is a compromise of what we can try to figure out and how we can do this stuff together. And I
- just wish for the greater good of Monroe County and for the residents that are housed at 301 North College
- Avenue right now, that we could really try to figure out how we can hear what you're saying, hear what
- the judges are saying, hear what county council's saying, and also hear what the commissioners are saying,
- and try to figure out how we can do this collectively.
- to get there. And that's what I'll say. And I'll go to Commissioner Thomas. Matt, you make some salient
- points. I would add this. I think it's important, as Chief Deputy Parker points out, to understand the
- no votes because that gets us to the next step, to understand the why. And what I'm hearing today from
- two council members
- And if I'm wrong, correct me, is that you don't see co-location as possible because of the total overall
- cost and the tax, the lit that would have to be implemented in order to achieve that. I'm hearing that.
- And I think if that is the position, I think that needs to be said as a council at your meeting whenever.
- so that we understand that that's where things are going. Because that, to me, is new information in
- the sense that we've talked through a lot of different scenarios, co-location eventually, co-location
- never. But it is important that we understand, are we cutting off the possibility of co-location in
- the future? Or do we want to co-locate whether sooner or later, if the issue's money?
- And what about the multi-story jail facility? Because to be downtown would probably require that from
- what we've seen. And the trade-offs are important to understand what people's priorities are. We're
- not all going to get what we want. None of us, OK? We're over it. Move on, right?
- We're all over that. I hope so. But we have to understand as a group what the priorities are. And I
- still don't have real clarity on that. And that would be a great thing. And I'm not pointing fingers.
- I'm just saying, I think it's because there are seven of you that we have less clarity from the council
- versus three commissioners versus a sheriff. So I think that's why. But if that's a discussion that
- could be had sooner rather than later,
- the council at one of your meetings, I think that would be really enlightening for all of us to understand
- where everybody's at. And it's not going to be a consensus, I'm sure. I'm sure it's going to be some
- sort of vote or resolution or something where we hear what the majority want to do. I just feel like
- that's the missing link and it's not casting any negative aspersions on anything the council does. It's
- there are seven of you. That's why we don't know. Because you all have
- you did all present different reasons when you voted no in October. But that's why I would really like
- that. And I think we all need that in order to move forward. That's just me. So to clarify your ask
- of us, can you just clarify what it is that you really are asking? I think the clarification is, what
- is the council willing to spend, tax and spend, to
- develop a facility. And if we have that number or a ballpark number, if it's a particular part of the
- LITs, that would be fine because we can extrapolate from that what that will probably bring in revenue-wise.
- That would be good to know because then we can say, here are our limitations. What are we going to do?
- And we can then start talking about, which we still have to talk about, co-location and then single-story,
- multi-story.
- I feel like we need that information and even if it's a range, whatever, but I know that it's hard because
- you all have to vote on stuff. There's seven of you. So. Okay. And just to jump on that, what features
- of North Park made it a no that might make other properties also a no?
- It's my understanding that it's the commissioners who decide this size of the jail. Is that correct?
- That's a really good question. That is something that we do in conjunction with the sheriff's department
- and with the council, because if the council doesn't fund it, it's not that size. If the sheriff says
- we need X number of beds, we certainly listen to that.
- the number. Right so so can raise study in particular cited the number and it was in the mid four hundreds
- as I understand it. With an 80% capacity cap because you need that room to move inmates around and etcetera.
- So is that the commissioners position at this point I think that would be helpful for the council to
- know and for the board of judges to know. There is a design presented-
- at a joint meeting, and there is also, and it's built, the whole thing is designed within a shell, so
- that additional space can be added, hopefully never, but it would need to be decades down the road.
- And all of that information is in that, so. Okay. But I think the question I'm trying to ask here is,
- what is the commissioner's goal for bed size, inclusive of all of the juvenile space, the mental health
- space, and et cetera,
- for the Council to know for its planning purposes and for the Board of Judges to reflect upon and let
- us know if we need to get you any additional information because of statutory changes to pretrial release,
- bail, sentencing guidelines, et cetera. We need to have some idea of where you're looking. Go ahead,
- Jeff. And I would say the study and the presentation pointed to about 400 beds. I think it was 404 beds
- as the base bid and then up to, I think,
- 500 and some or one or two or right around 500 as the as the building out all the shelf space. And that
- includes that includes the 80% is part of that 404. But thank you. I appreciate that information. But
- there is a range and we can get you a copy of that final design. I thought everybody had gotten one.
- I did I wanted to know if we were looking at a new location what would be the bed capacity that the
- commissioners are shooting for because that would tell us as a board of judges what we need to do to
- come back and let you know if we think there are any changes to that since the rate committee or the
- race study is now so old and there have been statutory changes. Yeah I think the statutory changes are
- going to be important and I know that there's legislation relating to bail and there's potential
- ice related changes that we're all going to suffer under. Well, and let me let me clarify of the 92
- counties in Indiana. I worked with Senator Yoder's office last year to come up with this information.
- We have the 11th lowest rate of incarceration in the state, and that includes one county that doesn't
- have a jail. So our judges, our criminal court judges have worked extremely hard
- to make sure that our incarceration numbers are as low as possible, not just because of this, but because
- of our overall philosophy on how we be judges. But we are not going to have some of that flexibility
- if some of this legislation passes, and that would have to change. Yep, absolutely. Thank you. But given
- that there is new legislation that may change some numbers, I don't see any reason to look at a different
- capacity just based on location.
- because if we need that many beds, 80% of 404, if we need that many beds, we need that many beds no
- matter where the jail is. And that did include beds dedicated to medical needs and mental health as
- well. Mental health, yeah. Treatment. OK. So does anybody else have any? OK. So I heard Commissioner
- Thomas that we have these here. Did you have a?
- something in mind with the boards there? No, they're just there as a reminder of what's still outstanding
- in terms of information. Because there hasn't been a consensus developed on the questions of co-location,
- single-floor, multi-floor facility for the jail itself. So those are the outstanding questions from
- the last meeting. That's why we brought it back. Nothing that we have to do right now, but it would
- be good to address that at some point.
- So and what you're saying is, I guess, you all and I don't want to put any words in the mouth here,
- but it sounds like you all are looking for counsel to tell you all what we would like to see, and then
- you will go forth.
- Well, we still have other parties that we need to listen to, including the board of judges and the sheriff.
- And that's not legally who we have to listen to, but it's who we want to listen to. So we have to take
- what they want into consideration as well. But at least we'd have a starting point. And it's not to
- say council sets a rate and that's it. I think it's the starting point for having that conversation about
- other facility locations, etc. Does that make sense? Okay. Thank you. I would ask then if the Community
- Justice Response Committee is going to start meeting again because that involved the sheriff and the
- board of judges and the council and the commissioners and the public, which are I think the key factors.
- to be clear that was not our decision. County council to stop that one. Understood. So, I mean, I guess
- I look to the commissioners to figure out if that's something that we would like to go back in. We continue
- to discuss that but but there are so many aspects of where we are right now. And we're doing that
- facility discussion now here, which is great. And hopefully we're going to do it again soon. So at some
- point, if we are, if we see, yes, this is where we need to be at some point, the committee will come
- back. But right now we can't talk about all of the other things until we get moving on where we are clearly
- not in compliance with federal requirements. And I think that needs to be our focus and that's why we're
- here. And I would like us to stay focused on that for now. Well, and I guess, and I'll go to Commander
- Gibbons here in a second, but I guess to Judge Stafford's point, and then I hear your point, I'm a little
- confused now, because like I just heard you say, we need to hear from our sheriff and we need to hear
- from the board of judges.
- And I see that we have a table right now full of people here. And I understand not everybody can speak,
- but I'm also going like, then when is that a good time for us to have that conversation? Because I guess
- from my understanding, if we're having these joint meetings and we have the bodies that are here that
- we are able to listen to, why not have the opportunity to do that as we are gathering information since council
- should be taking some of this information back and giving it back to you all. I think as we are sitting
- here all in the same room, I'd like to hear what we need to hear. So if it's by way of resolution that
- we can have the information that we need to do in a meeting instead of wasting time getting another
- meeting, feeling like we're all saying the same different things in the same meeting, and then the time
- is winding down to April 15. So I guess to that regard,
- Is there anything else that anybody else needs to say that would be relevant to council so that we can
- do what we need to do? Um, because it sounds like we need to do what we need to do. I'm asking a question.
- I have an answer. I think as part of that, and this is the commissioner's thing and we, we went through
- the pony training and the, and the CGRC
- meetings ended as a result of that pony training as we went into phase one of this build process. So
- we had multiple phases for this for this jail build process and Scott Carnegie's here and you can speak
- to some of that if he needs to I guess. But phase one was getting everything together from the CJRC
- and moving into us breaking apart in different groups and preparing a blueprint for a facility. And then
- that third phase would be you guys involved as the council. And that's where we kind of hit the wall
- there. But nobody's it wasn't that we stopped talking is that we gather information that we did talk
- about and we work off in groups so that we can work towards that build. And that was part of the DLZ
- process. So if that answers a little bit as to why we stop and that's not to say we can't open it back
- up. But if we do, if we decide to open up that process again, we're going to be talking about the same
- things and then
- however long that's going to take, and then we're still going to be stuck on the property. And to be
- fair, though, in my way of being on CJRC, I don't think that's why I stopped. And that's just me, because
- I feel like there were lots of personalities, lots of things, I think things that
- People felt like we're getting out of hand. And one of the last meetings that we had, I said to myself
- and probably somebody else here, I feel like that was the last meeting we had. And then watching the
- commissioners meeting after the fact and realizing and getting an email after the fact that it was suspended
- without further notice and there was no other explanation besides that. So I think that is the reason.
- Again, I just preached to y'all about doing the good of what it should is. I don't want to do that.
- But if we're going to say stuff like that, I just want to make it clear.
- to some of us that were on CJRC. To me, that's not what it felt like. We continue to discuss the validity
- and value of having those meetings continue and what they would be focused on. And right now, we need
- to focus on getting a property rather than talking about why CJRC is an issue. No. Well, and that's
- what I just said. And so that's what I'm saying.
- We continue to keep it. So then, again, as you had mentioned, our to do is to hear from council to figure
- out things so we can all give back. Is there anything else, speak now, forever hold your peace, that
- folks haven't said to council that will be relevant to what it is that we have to do? Obviously, we
- are all trying to play well together, and we are all trying to do the thing. But it's frustrating if
- we're going to sit here and say, well, I'm disappointed in this and that and the other.
- and we're not hearing what we need to hear, somebody tell us something so we can figure out our next
- steps. Thank you, Judge Faustet. So I understand the need for collaboration and wanting to do it. But
- I fear we are attempting to collaborate ourselves into saying two plus two equals five when the needs
- and the facts and the way the system is set up just doesn't lend itself to that.
- As a criminal court judge, I try and visualize what it would be like to have a jail and then have one
- or two courtrooms there. And I can't get my head around as to how that would work because of the process
- of how a case comes to be. And I may not be the best to educate. And if other judges have more to add,
- feel free to jump in. A defendant gets arrested or a person gets arrested.
- that report gets sent to the prosecutor's office who has to review it to decide whether or not they
- want to file charges. If they decide to file charges, that report has to get sent up to a judge for
- review to determine whether or not there's probable cause. If probable cause is found, charges get filed.
- Then the defendant is brought down for an initial hearing where they would appear in front of the
- judge to be informed of what the charges have been filed, what the range of penalty is, and what their
- rights are. Prior to that, they would also have to partake in a pretrial release interview. They would
- also, so that involves, so far we have a police agency, we have the jail, we have the prosecutor's office,
- and we have a criminal court judge. We then also have to bring in somebody within the probation department
- to conduct a pretrial interview assessment to determine what risk and what
- recommendation they have regarding release. We have to have a public defender at the initial hearing.
- We also have to have a representative from the state of Indiana. So we have at least five different
- agencies, branches of government, that have to partake in this process. And I cannot get my head around
- how that happens. And in the meantime, if it's my duty week, if it's my CO9's week to handle the initial hearings,
- I'm not handling it just for one court. I'm handling it for the three other criminal courts. So my staff
- has to wait to get all of the information from all the other courts about any inmate that that court
- might have. So if someone's arrested on a probation violation and it's not my court, we have to get
- it, say, from CO5 or CO2 or CO3.
- And there are deadlines and timelines in which all of this paperwork has to get brought together and
- brought to the court who is handling the initial hearings for that time, for that day. And I'm telling
- you, even within the departments that are in the same building, we at times are pushing that timeline,
- that deadline to get all of the paperwork, all of the documentation of where it needs to go.
- I say all this just to emphasize when the board of judges recommends co-location, it's not just because
- it would be really convenient and that my staff wouldn't have to drive down the way and then find a
- place to park. It's impractical because of how we are set up. The four criminal courts are so independent
- on each other because of the monthly calendar.
- If it was just my court and it was just my defendants, then maybe I could get by with just having one
- courtroom down in the jailhouse. But I cannot get my head around how a jail would function with one
- or maybe two courtrooms available. And I think ultimately that's, again, I don't think we can collaborate
- ourself out of the need for co-location. And so I guess I kind of echo what some
- from the sheriff have said, we have been there, we have done it, we have studied it, we've made our
- recommendations. And it seems to me that, unfortunately for you guys, you're in the difficult position
- of having to parse out and cut the extra fluff of what people might really want for a criminal justice
- system. But we're at a point where I don't know how many different ways it could be said.
- I can't think of a system the way we have it set up right now with the monthly rotation that the criminal
- courts have where we can't be co-located. So if we can educate any more on that, I would love to try
- and help do it, but it truly is, I would encourage, and I know some of you guys have come and watched
- court, but I would really come and watch my office, come and watch my court staff and watch the number
- of people who have to come and go for one day
- you know, to get all of the information and the paperwork that we need from all of the players that
- are involved. Just to follow up on that, because there, and I mean, you make excellent points in the,
- and I don't think you mentioned the clerk in there, but the clerk's in there too. Because that, it hits
- everybody. It hits every unit in the justice realm. And you,
- And thank you for that. I guess the question I would have, and maybe this is something I don't know
- if someone on the board of judges can do, or if it's something the county council staff can look at,
- but there are courts that are separate from jails in Indiana. And I'd be curious to see their staffing
- levels and how they manage that.
- And what that cost is, because we talk about the staffing side for the jail and the dangers and the
- costs and the risks. But we don't have that info. And maybe there's something that could be put together
- on a rough scale using Gateway or something to give us a sense of how much
- more at cost to have in terms of personnel on the justice side outside of the jail facility. Because
- I don't know what that number is. It would be bad and dangerous and time consuming no matter what we
- do. But I think there are costs there that we haven't discerned. All right. So as we are winding down,
- it sounds like we have some work that we have to do. And that's all I'll say about that. So any other
- parting, and I guess I always like to end with next step, so it sounds like our next steps is that.
- And then we will do what we will with that. And we have some information we're gonna be providing next
- week. Next week when? To the group executive session.
- Oh, okay. Got it. All right. Okay. All right. So if there is nothing else that is needed to be said,
- that we are adjourned. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.