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.