and so we will go ahead and get started. So I will call our meeting to order. This is the joint county
council and city council, along with our mayor, and we have a commissioner joining us today. Today is
Thursday, June 11th, 2026, and the time is 6.03. And so we have a quorum of county council. To my right
here, we have counselors Wilts, Henry,
We also have Deckard and Fidel and joining us virtually, we have Councilmember Hawke. And I will kick
it over to the City Council Vice President, Sydney Zulek. Thank you. Can we have the clerk call the
roll or should I just... Okay, nope, I will announce people. Okay, we have Councilmembers Rallo, Stasberg,
Flaherty, Zulek, Daly and Ruff in attendance with us today. And I will kick it back to Councilmember
Crossley. Thank you very much.
kickball. Okay, before we go ahead and get started with this, I want to go ahead and have the conversation
with saying thank you to our city colleagues who have taken to the invitation to come
with us together. I also want to give, you know, a special thank you to Mayor Kerry Thompson for joining
us. But the other thing that I want to make sure that we also note as well too is that we do have a
county commissioner, Commissioner Madera, that is joining us as well. I know I've gotten some questions
about, you know, who was invited and who's not. And so I wanted to say
as we had discussed on the 26th when we were making our decisions, that we wanted to have a
joint collaboration with our city colleagues, with us here in the county as well. We did invite the
commissioners and the sheriffs as well. However, we do have Commissioner Madeira here. Some individuals
respectfully declined to participate, but nonetheless, we have what we need to have here to keep doing
the business at hand. So we have that. Council President Crossley?
Yes. I got a note that council member Piedmont Smith is on Teams. Oh, I am so sorry. No, no problem.
I didn't notice either. Just wanted to read it for the record. Yay. We have everybody or just about
everybody. So I wanted to make sure that we are saying this because in our last meeting, I know we kept
saying, you know, we're not we're saying no to things, but we're saying yes. And saying yes is having
this conversation. Much is what we've had tonight. I think I dreamed about something like this much
so than we did.
A few years ago when the Convention Center expansion conversation was happening, we got in a bigger
room to talk. And I think we need to do more of this. And I appreciated that. That was actually something
that Mayor Carey had said way back when. And I appreciate that. So without further ado, I will also
say tonight's conversation is going to be a little different. I am not going to be chairing this meeting.
I think one of the biggest things that I wanted to do is sometimes leaders kind of have to take a step
back and really try to look at some good things and people that really do some good work. And so I have asked
for a co-facilitator, Kate Wiltz and Mayor Keary to collaborate together. And we will do this together
in a collaborative approach. And they both said yes to this and I will kick it back over to them. So
thank you very much. Thank you. I can get started. I want to start by just saying
that while I am happy to help facilitate discussion here, this meeting is is really a collaboration
session to see how the city can assist the county in getting a jail built. The jail is
the county's project, obviously. The county runs the jail. The county will build the jail. But obviously
the jail impacts our entire community. And so while the mayor does not per se have oversight over the
jail, nor does the city council. This is something that impacts our entire community. And I
I won't speak for my council colleagues, but they have taken official action to express their desire
to support innovative solutions around the jail.
I am here likewise to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to make sure that when this new
jail gets built, and that is a foregone conclusion, we need a new jail, that we carry that project out
in the best way possible. And so to that end, we have a couple of framing questions that we wanted to
pose to the group tonight.
If we can, oh, I get to kick it over to Kate, who's gonna go through our operating assumptions and rules.
Our community rules. Community rules. Two things. I agree that this is meant to be very deliberative,
very collaborative, and I really appreciate the support that the city colleagues here
have shown just by even coming tonight. But what I'd like to make sure that we do is especially for
the county side of the table. But we've all taken time on this issue and said a lot of things. And I
think we've been pretty clear on our opinions. And today I would respectfully ask that we stay focused on
the questions that we're here to answer, and that we have goals at hand, which are coming in a moment.
The other thing is, of course, respect and try to pass the little talkie baton, so to speak, in a generous
manner. So we'll try to keep everybody on task, and we will
try to keep us focused and I just ask for your assistance with both those things. So when I was talking
with Councilor Crossley and Mayor Thompson about what our goal today is, the things that came to the
surface are we want to make sure that we as a collective group here align around
where we are in this process and what's happening next. And in order to do that, I think we need to
discuss and lay out next steps and a timeline for that and identify the actions each of us as individuals
and collectively need to take to get to
a jail, a construction of a jail, to be specific. So between today and jail construction, I'd like for
us to think about what our roles are, what needs to happen, and we have some ideas on what needs to
happen. That doesn't have to be whole cloth, but I think getting some agreement around how we get there
and doing so in a way that we can
maybe make a formal commitment together to work on what we come up with as those items. That's a lot
of words. Usually goals are more succinct than that. But I want, first of all, to see if anyone has
an edit or a concern around that purpose for this meeting.
So I always have questions. So this one is, is there a timeline with which we think we're working? Yes,
I think that what we need to do is get there as fast as we can and talk about what that looks like.
So I think that our meeting won't have
much impact if we don't leave having made some official decisions on next steps that we can agree to.
Those steps may have steps on the city part and on the county part. And while it's great to have deliberative
dialogue, we really are in a position now where the county
has to make some decisions. And so I would just ask that as we're talking, we're talking tangibly about
how we can participate in moving this forward and what that will look like for each entity, each of
four entities. Hi. To that end, I think it might be useful
for, in sort of a brainstorming way, us to go around and each identify something that you see that needs
to be done to get us toward the construction of the jail, and meaning that you don't have to come up
with the full list yourself. Come up with one tangible item, we'll list the items, assuming that there
are markers. Are there markers for that thing?
Did we just get a white board with nothing? Sorry, that was cut from the budget. Don't worry, this is
my time to take over with pink. Is that like an eraser? White board. Oh, that's rough. I thought that
was a black pad. Yeah, it looks like we are getting some. Yep, they're getting some. All right. In the
meantime, I will write it on a paper.
I can't even introduce myself with one thing. Well, okay. I think we need a shared vision of what it
is we're building. That has been elusive on the county side. The city partners, of course, don't have
a direct say in that, but ultimately when we say jail, which is what we were being sued over
or challenged about that is not a lot of the other things that have been added on over the past designs,
right? So what is required versus what's desired, I think, and understanding that. We need to make sure
we all share our understanding of that. Commissioner Madeira?
I would say to build on that, we need that within a certain period of time. So we don't have forever,
and it's not according to community preference. We also have that third party in the room. We need a
deadline, but we also need something that's not just community preferable, but court preferable.
So I'll state the obvious, which is location, location, location, because that obviously plays into
a lot of things. But I won't take up too much longer because I think Councilmember Henry said it as
well is what do we need, what's required and go from there. I'm going to jump on to location as well.
And in the premise that I hear it from a lot of folks in the community that say,
they're not sure we have exhaustively put a call to the community for any and all location that fits
kind of a criteria within the city. And so I would sort of say that to all of us, what are those places
that are not places that, or what are those places that could be viable, perhaps could be viable with
a slight relook from where they are now. And for us to think a little bit exhaustively around that,
with the demands that we have, which is that it's access to resources, et cetera, so that we're thinking
creatively. And it could be the real estate communities engaged on that. It could be just some other
folks not in this room. But truly, what is the end-all, be-all list of places that might factor into
this so that we're not just siloed into, oh, we've been talking about that for a long time, so I'm just
gonna keep saying that word. So that's what I thought. So I think size.
I think we have to agree on what size of a facility we need and what's. So I think size, what size do
we need and what is going to be in the facility, right? Oh, mine's not working. Might need to pull it
as close as possible. So if I didn't need to say it again, size and
What is the purpose of the size of the facility? What purposes are going to be in the facility? Is it
just the jail? Is it going to be what? What is it that's going to be in the facility? Thanks.
Is this working? Yes. OK. Well, I'll just cut to the chase. You know, my preference has always been
for a jail to be proximal to downtown or within the city, at least.
I voted against the Fullerton option. I'm open minded about various options, but I've always thought
for decades now that Thompson was the site, the preferred site. So, I mean, I'm in a position perhaps
of a site location and zoning as, you know, any approval by council. And, you know, I'm looking forward
to working with you to that end. But I'm sort of
A tabla rasa, if you have ideas about where else it might go and what we can do, I'm open for that.
North Park is not preferred by me, and I appreciate the efforts that has been done to preclude that.
Thank you. I have to jump on the location bandwagon. I think that that seems to be a huge question right
now, and we need to figure out where something is going to go and go from there.
I think some combination of several of county council colleagues, specifically what is required for
a location. I think Councillor Fiddle was getting at that. So depending on what your assumptions are
about what is required as a bare minimum and on what timeline, that's going to dictate how creative
we can be about location. And so narrowly scoping that to keep, I think, the locational options as flexible
and as many as possible as
Well, that's not a tangible step. That's a preference. But that's where I was going. I'm going to take
us a different route. I am curious as to the number of beds that we actually need and how that number
might change with different prevention efforts. I think that prevention is one of the opportunities
that the city has to better collaborate with the county. If we decrease the amount of beds, the project
is, in theory, less expensive.
Kind of going back to the, you know, pulling back further what we need between now and the end of this
process, you know, and other things that we need to kind of keep in mind and put on the table is we
need community buy-in. We also need buy-in, you know, and support from the sheriff's office as well.
We need to take their viewpoints all into consideration as well.
Do you have to hold your finger on it the entire time? No. You just talk. Just talk. So there's probably
1,000 people in this town that know far more about this issue than I do. The practical nature of it,
the history of it, the needs, everything. So I say this in all humility to weigh in in any way, shape,
or form. But I think with any location,
I really want to see, I would like to see, the community needs to see some, what I would call full cost
accounting of what the full costs are. Not just construction costs, but impacts on
incarcerated folks, their families, all the coming, environmental impacts of all the comings and goings,
not just environmental impacts of materials and construction, of decades and decades of comings and
goings compared to where it is now. Impacts on existing users in whatever area it might go. Put a dollar
value to all these things. Some, I know it's hard, but come up with some kind of dollar value that if
we move and build a new facility in a new place, it's going to have
some real impacts on existing uses and users, residents, business, whoever's there, any institution
like this. And so I would really like to see accounting for those costs when we actually make comparisons
for different possible locations. Thank you. Thank you.
I know we have two members who are joining virtually. Council Member Hawke, would you like to offer
input? Yes. What I'd like to make sure is, boy, this is making noises here. I'd like to make sure that
we recognize the purpose of this meeting was for location.
At least that's what the agenda showed me. And I think that if you're ever going to get to the end of
what we need to do, we have to start. And the start is finding the right location. And certainly, we
already have property that's paid for. If we can make that work, I would like to see it there. If it
doesn't work there, then I would like for us to move on to Fullerton.
But what we need to see is which of those two would the county council and city council agree to because
we know that planning has to help with that. And we also need to make sure that we are in agreement
on that. And we understand starting the process is not having to do with
what's going to be in the jail. It has to do with the location. We need to get that started first.
Thank you. And Council Member Piedmont Smith. Yes, thank you. I would just add concurrent to the construction
of a jail.
there should be continued collaboration on prevention efforts and also on well this is more just county
but continued support of the current jail and immediate remedies to any unconstitutional aspects of
the current jail because whatever it is that we agree to no matter how fast we go it'll be
a few years before there's a new jail. Thank you. Have any other council members joined online that
have not been called upon yet? No, we're good. Okay. I'll add my two cents. I would agree location is
the most important thing for us to figure out that is of
course impacted by the various other questions that have been brought up by these bodies. And I would
say the way I would frame the location would be we need to expedite the process for a single alternative
location. And I would frankly recommend doing that with a smaller body that comes back to a larger body
because with the
court case as it is, we've already run out of time. And so an exhaustive process on many different properties
is probably unrealistic, especially because that process would warrant a design specific to each one
of those sites. And so I think if we want to make some progress
My two cents would be, let's pick a single alternative site fairly quickly. Not in this meeting,
to be clear. Okay. I think what the mayor said actually kind of sums up.
a lot of what's here, not everything, of course, that in order to streamline our work tonight, that
we should focus on how we get to the location because that's a tangible that we know we have to have
before we can go any further.
We have a lot of information from the work that our transition teams have done. And so we do have a
lot of information about size and related purposes for the design that exists. And we know
kind of preferences from the various county departments involved
in a justice center and what they have said they need and the scaled back version of what they say they
need as well, given budget constraints. So we've had a lot of that information gathered. I totally see
how that is related to and will inform what happens on a site that we choose.
but we need to get to a site. And in order to vet sites or a site, there are probably some key things
that have to be either discussed, decided, or just have happen. I'm thinking around, I think it was
Councilor Aralo who said something along the lines of zoning. We know that there are processes
If we are looking in city limits, and I'm kind of gathering that from the letter, from what I've heard,
that is a preference that we build in city limits. If we can make that assumption as a boundary, then
we can take a next step and look at what are the processes and steps that get us from
Just having some ideas around what properties might work to building on a site. Reactions and thoughts
about that. So are we looking for factors for a site? I honestly don't think that we can... I think
we've already... I think we've vetted a lot of the factors already. And that's what a lot of this is.
Really? Yeah. I don't see a whole lot up there that I would put on a list. So I would summarize six
factors for a site. Just to be bold, I will take notes on those. I say that we need site control. The
county owns it and can acquire it immediately. I think we need legal permissibility. The zoning or permitting
path is clear and fast.
I think we need construction feasibility. There's no or few known utility, road, environmental, geotechnical,
or design barriers that cause major delay. Slow down so she can write it down. The second is, so we
need site control or county ownership, legal permissibility, or clear zoning or permitting
paths, construction feasibility,
So no known utility road, environmental, geotechnical, design, major delays. We need operational adequacy.
In other words, sheriff and design professionals confirm that it can support their needs, classification,
circulation, intake. We need a fiscal path. Can we fund it and vote on a timeline? And is it defensible
to a court?
In other words, can counsel present it as a reasonable, timely remedy in federal litigation? I'm guessing
that six hangs on the rest of them. Yeah. But I think that that's a good independent consideration,
too. Can I ask a clarifying question? Is that OK? That's related. And pardon my ignorance on this, because I just
don't follow this issue as closely as you all do, of course. Implicit in a lot of what's being talked
about is the urgency of ensuring we have a constitutional justice or jail and that we need to have a
plan in place. Is it impossible or is it possible? And how much have you all explored? And again, I
don't mean to derail. I'm just curious because it informs this.
flexible that timeline is, not based only on what the plan is, but how much we are resourcing an existing
building that may be unconstitutional in this level of care now. I don't know. But I guess I'm asking,
is it possible with a real investment, several million a year, I don't know, something, to buy yourselves
two years while you think more creatively? I'm seeing a head shaking no, so someone thinks it's impossible.
Can we kick that back to our county attorney who probably knows the answer to that? Molly's right there,
so. Yeah. So just to make sure I understand the question, is your question inquiring whether it's possible
to remedy the current conditions to an essence by time on building the lawsuit? Yes, even on a temporary
basis. OK. So let me pull up.
In 2020, the county had a study commissioned by Mr. Kenray, and that study lists several unconstitutional
or conditions that would need remedied. I have read that. Most of those conditions require the addition
of space. And so I don't think that it would be possible to add space to the current facility. There
is a cost, and I can try to find it, a cost analysis of what
of those conditions we could fix, what it would cost. If you give me a second, I can try to find it.
I think Mr. Cockrell's going to come way in while I look for that document. Maybe the consensus view
of county elected officials is that it's impossible to buy time through investment in the current facility.
I see some heads going either way.
I guess my response and Jeff Cockrell, county attorney, my response is there's probably there's probably
not a way to avoid additional litigation. But I would anticipate that once the litigation begins, if
we had some kind of settlement agreement, there would be some interim steps. I mean, I think it's been
mentioned before, we're not going to be able to build this jail in the next few years. Right. So there
has to be some interim steps that we would we could take.
as that process is going forward, what those are. I mean, that's a matter that we'll have to get to.
Does that answer your question? That is very helpful. Thank you. Again, I didn't mean to derail. It
sounds like there is a little bit of a diversity of viewpoint. It has bearing just like how many beds
has bearing on site selection. And so I'm not in a position to say one way or another if that's possible,
but I wanted to ask. Thank you. I have a different clarifying question.
different. All on you next Councilmember Rallo. Go ahead. That's okay. I just actually following up
on Councilmember Flaherty's his question. There was overflow of space located in the county parking
garage. Is that being utilized right now and is there any possibility for that to be expanded on? I
don't think that they're really
That's where the Stride Center is and there's no other space allotted to. Okay. Just checking. Thanks.
It's not significant square footage either. Is Thompson zoned for a jail? Yes. Okay. I don't know if
everyone else is thinking this, but that does seem like one of the more appealing properties out of
the ones that we have.
Yeah, it's currently on the table, so it might be worth starting there. I'd like to make a public motion
that we stop referring to it as the Thompson property. It's Thompson with a P. It's not Thompson with
a P. That's right. Did somebody else have their hand up? No, that we missed, OK. Yeah, I did. President Costner.
go ahead and say I think the idea for us because which is why I'm kind of not kind of I am glad that
we have our city colleagues here is the fact that we've heard so much assumptions of what the city's
process is and so for me personally I kind of want to hear from the city in terms of like what is the
process because
you all know best, especially if we're talking about properties within city limits, what does that look
like? Because we need to know. I think everybody needs to know. And it would be great to hear from city
to say like, you know, from county's perspective, this is what we need from you all in order to make
things work. Because again,
There's been a lot of assumptions and a lot of things that have been said, maybe not by city. And I'd
like to hear from city how that would work. The process and how long it takes depends entirely on what
kind of zoning changes need to be made. And so, you know, some things can get done
at the administrative level. Other things have to go to plan commission and even council. I have and
will recommit to the administrative side being as expedited as we possibly can. We would put this at
the top of the stack and absolutely work in an expedited fashion.
And I'll leave it to council colleagues to reflect on their process. But it really is site dependent
and what's going on that site. Thank you. I maybe want to put a hypothetical out in the room because
we need to test how a planned commission in the city would take a request. And I know
Councilmembers Rallo and Ruff were on council, I think, when the county purchased the Curry building,
which is right next to the current Zillow building. In 2003 and 2005, the county committed to investments
in that building to add it into the justice system. We had the family court in there. Suppose we said
that we owned that property, Curry, what is now
the garage, but was to fight this building. We said, look, if we were to level that and build a vertical
or a different jail, compact urban form in that space. We own the property. It's right next door. It's
surrounded by probation and clerks, and it's down here. But it's urban. It would clearly be a problem
with Ingrassi Egress for a while to do such a build verse in the Knott Thompson property.
What would that look like coming to the city, where if the county were to say, we own this property,
it's in the urban core, it's next to our justice building, it has a historical piece to it with the
Curry building being a historical building. What does that mean for plan commission, historic preservation?
To me, let me just throw that out there to test what that sounds like across the table, if that was
a solution.
Is it a historically designated building right now? I believe the Curry part is, or at least the facade,
but I'd have to check that, yeah. It can be undesignated through request of the owner, I believe, but
that's a process that has criteria. That's a few weeks. What's that? That's like weeks or months. My
gut would be a couple of months, maybe faster if expedited. I think I'd have to go through HPC and then
to the city council. That's my... I'm not certain of that, I guess.
I am the Historic Preservation Commission liaison. I'm happy to check with our staff liaison and the
chair of the commission and get back to you on that. I'm sorry. I was just going to say the other part
of that site is I don't actually know what the downtown
zoning layer says about jails. I mean, I know the jail is currently listed there, but I'm not sure what
it says now in terms of something being new. So I don't know if that would be something I'm trying to
look it up right now. But I, uh, you do is really long and I don't usually look at that, at that overlay
layer. It's kind of in a different spot than, than what I end up usually being faced with. So, uh, I,
I feel very favorable toward it personally. Um, I wonder if the proposal would be,
And this might add to expense, of course, to maintain some kind of the historic facade of the building
might be possible. And that might expedite it to with the HPC, et cetera. But. I was just wondering
if there were any types of grants for that type of thing. No. OK.
Councilmember Piedmont-Smith has her hand raised. Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith. Yes,
thank you. I wanted to go back to the Thompson site. I'm sorry, I don't know what else to call it, Mayor.
But I did want to relay some information that I received from the City Director of Planning
and Transportation, David Hiddle.
So he said, a jail is allowed as a permitted by right use in tract D in the Thompson PUD via approval
of case PUD 1202, which amended the original Thompson PUD. One condition of approval requires that the
site plan for any jail must be approved by the plan commission, unlike other by right uses, which require
only approval from staff.
Another condition of approval states, quote, any jail facility will be a public, not a private facility
and will generally conform to the size, location and population density proposed by the petitioner at
this time. And the associated staff report references plans showing an approximately 170,000 square
foot, 400 bed jail. So I just wanted to relay that information. So,
It was a conditional approval that it would be similar in size to what I just said. I don't know.
I mean, I think if it went back through Plan Commission, like the site plan has to go through Plan Commission
anyway. So I don't know if a PUD amendment would be required to go to Plan Commission first, if you
don't stay within the 170,000 and 400 beds. And I don't know what,
the latest proposal of the size of the jail is, but I wanted to relay that information.
Thank you. Councilmember Stossberg. Kind of related to that, if we're talking about the site off Roger
Street, formerly known as the Thompson site.
that anything there would have to go to planning commission simply because it's above a certain size,
so it has to go through planning commission. And as long as you work with staff and tick the boxes,
I mean, we had one last night that essentially it was by right because it checked all the boxes, but
because it was more than a certain size, it had to have that public hearing piece. Planning commission
tends to have two hearings is kind of a thing. You can always waive the second hearing depending on
what the build is, how well it ticks the boxes. I mean, if you come at the first hearing and it's like
an impeccable plan and it meets all of the necessary guidelines related to design and all of those things
for the zoning, often they do end up skipping the second hearing. We just waive the second hearing and
approve it through. That is a process that doesn't involve council at all. It only involves planning
commission. If something has to have a change of zoning,
which I don't think the Thompson site would actually need a change of zoning, then it would have to
go through planning commission and then through council to approve a zoning change because council is
the body that has to approve the zoning changes, but it has to come as a recommendation from the planning
commission. So it really does, as Mayor Thompson said earlier, depend on which site you want to do and
what the current zoning is of the site.
as the member of the planning commission from council, I don't think that that body would be a crazy
impediment, especially depending once again on the zoning and how well it kind of ticks all of those
boxes that are pretty standard. It just takes working with our planning and zoning staff or our planning
and transportation staff.
to help you do those guidelines because, I mean, the UDO is complex, just as the county development
ordinance is also complex, and those staff members are the best ones to help lead any development project
through. Mr. Madera? So in the interest of process and getting back to the purposes of this meeting,
I would like to
suggest that we move on from discussion of specific properties to discussion of the process. I do think
that the power lines property is going to be a political fig leaf that ultimately buys us six months
of process before it collapses before a federal judge because of the two years of poll moving that I
think that we have at the end. I spoke with Duke on Monday, and I'm happy to go into that at a later
time. I do think that that's something we need to discuss in front of a smaller body at a later time.
But that is, I think, outside the ambits of this meeting. But I would like to hear more about the city
process. And going back to Mayor Thompson's
comment about putting us at the top of the stack. When we are at the top of the stack, what happens
from that point on? How long is that process? Assuming we would need to go through the Planning Commission
and then through the City Council. If you had everything in, if the file was absolutely complete when
it was submitted,
I would say the fastest we could probably, and somehow waived the second plan commission. And the council
now can discuss on first reading, which means they, in theory, could decide on a first reading. So if
all of those things happened feasibly, you could get through in four months.
That's a lot of ifs. But that is, I would say that's the fastest expedited process that I would anticipate.
Council Member Crossley? Yeah, so I'm glad you mentioned that because we got the current planned commission
person here, or council member here, Council Member Susberg, because that was gonna be my next question,
because we've heard so many times it's a six to nine month process,
But from what I gather, what you just said, if there's no changes that needs to happen, it technically
doesn't have to have the two-prong approach where it goes for planning and then it goes to council.
Is that my understanding? If there's no need for a zoning change, it doesn't go to council. If there's
a zoning change need, then it does have to go to council because council's the only one that can make
that kind of legislative change. OK.
including an adjustment to the PUD. So it's just because a jail is allowed, if you change the size,
that is a change to the PUD, which does have to go to counsel. But not the false evidence appear in
real factor of idea of it going beyond a six to nine month process. No, I mean, it really does depend
on how much you have your ducks in a row.
in the beginning because there are boxes to check in terms of staff and bringing things to plan commission.
Until the package is complete, staff won't bring it to plan commission.
It just really depends on how well you have your ducks in a row in terms of that six to nine month.
I mean, Mayor Thompson said four months. I would say that that almost could be faster if you really
have your ducks in a row. I mean, there's a planning commission meeting every month. And except for
summer recess, there's at least two council meetings a month that it can get dealt with. If there was
a great deal of transparency and communication, if there did have to be a zoning change,
thus necessitating it going through council. If there was a great deal of communication with both plan
commission and city council kind of at the same time, so when city council gets it, it's not like starting
from scratch, then that process part can be expedited too in terms of the minimum amount of turnaround
between plan commission and council.
Sometimes, and I as the planning commission person, I'm like, OK, I'm going to be strategic about when
this goes to council because it's something big. Or I think that council is going to want to put amendments
on it. And so let's give it a little bit more time before it goes to council. If council is really aware
of it, then it can go to council pretty quickly after the planning commission meeting. And it really
just depends on how
good the communication is beforehand, and then just timing the process out in terms of when meetings
are. I'll tell you, it would be kind of rough to try to throw this in in August because of budgets,
right? So some of that has some dependency, too, in terms of council's schedule. Okay. So I'm going
to encourage us to move out of the nitty-gritty details of a planning process. And it may be that you
ask for commitments on
you know, expediting to the best of our ability and engaging, et cetera. But I think for the purpose
of this meeting, we'll get bogged down in a lot of details that may or may not need to happen. And I
think we have some sort of broad timelines. And so I'm going to invite Council Members Zulik to comment.
Sure. Question. Thank you. Would it, at this point in time, be best to set up a working group to work
through some of the more nitty-gritty details?
I think that is a that would be one of a positive a group of positive outcomes from this meeting. Yeah
Do you want do you want to make a proposal on delegation to that group Like yeah, how many from each
body who needs to be on it, etc I would recommend
a city executive, if somebody from county executive wants to be a part of it as well. And then of course,
representative from city and county council, I would think sounds good. Good plan. I would agree. County
executive as well. You mentioned, okay. More people. Yeah.
Unless other people have other objectives. Because I think sometimes when we have bigger, bigger groups
of things, it's not to say that we can't have the smaller working group come back to the larger body
and have a conversation. But I think that could happen where we have a smaller working group.
that has the task of what we are all saying and taking from this meeting, go work on it and then bring
it back to the larger body, unless anybody else has any other suggestions. I think that would be. And
is that is that larger body this group or is it the county council?
County Commissioners, what is the next step? I think it would be worth meeting all together again. Okay.
I'm going to suggest that while we're proposing this, we make it time bound so that we know we're getting
a team together that's available in the near term and whoever's volunteering can make appropriate time
commitments.
and task? Yeah, I was just going to ask that because what would the subgroup of four, what would their
purpose be? Because I think councilmember Zulek said like for that nitty gritty kind of detail stuff.
So is that like a site selection? And then you go, okay, like on this site, what would the steps all
be? And is that the same subgroup that we should have discussing what those sites are? Do you know what
I'm asking?
Or should there be? Because I guess I'm kind of looking at that and going, should we only have a subgroup
of those four debating or discussing the different possible locations versus a subgroup of those four
running through the details of the chosen possible locations? Sounds reasonable. But should there be?
I think for highest efficiency, my proposal would be that that subgroup is going to propose the best
two or three locations and come equipped with the zoning and other implications of each of those sites
for a larger group to make a single recommendation to move forward.
I think that there are only two or three locations possible. I mean, I'm not saying that there can't
suddenly be from the ether someone arriving with another location, but in all of our discussions, it
has narrowed to really only two or three, three or four max maybe, that could possibly work if we are
talking about within city limits.
I would add, and this is more procedural, to help that group conduct its business. We have two types
of government sitting in the room here. A strong mayor system can release notes from your office on
your administrative tasks. The County Council has never been privy to the full set of notes that the
Board of Commissioners have used to determine and disqualify sites over the past six months. I have
really asked the Board of Commissioners to release
all the documentation from executive session to that body so it can look and not re-invent the wheel
and duplicate effort that's already been done to dismiss or include sites. We've never seen that material
and so Commissioner Revere I just ask respectfully if we can take that back to your peers. It would
be rather great to see those notes because we did bring I think up to six sites between January and May that
It never came into the public view. They were an executive session. You all need to know that, otherwise
you're going to be flying blind. We need to see those notes. Jeff, have those been released? Are they
on the drive?
I'm not aware of any executive session that the commissioners have to discuss property that didn't involve
the county council. So I guess I'd start with that. I don't know what we're talking about with the six
sites. I mean, I will tell you, I get emails every, I got emails a couple weeks ago about
People who say, hey, what about this site? What about that site? I guess maybe I'm missing what you're
asking. Yeah, well, I'll ask it again. And if I have to go as far as actually naming the sites we talked
about in the executive session, I'll do it. I mean, we brought multiple sites to those meetings and
discussed them. They were eliminated for different factors. One, I believe, had a DLZ overlay that we
never saw made public off of TAP.
I think was one of the properties. So those are the list of properties that our peers would need to
look at so they're not flying blind and making the same assumptions and reinventing the wheel. I thought
I heard that there was meetings outside the council that had... It's loud in here, Jeff. And I apologize.
I'm screaming over a fan. But I guess I have no problem having those. I mean, we have those notes.
I mean, you have those notes. I think we can share them with the group as long as
We have legal guidance not to share those, but if we can get those released is what I'm asking. This
is in the weeds, but all I'm asking is that we provide that subcommittee the same information so they
don't reinvent the wheel. I guess from my perspective, some of those are held by private individuals.
I would want to reach out to them first to make sure they're aware that we're releasing that information.
I'm not sure any of them will have any concerns with that.
But that's just the courtesy that I would do, to let them know that that is occurring. That doesn't
stop it from occurring. It's just reaching out to them first. OK, so I'm going to assume that legal
counsel will make an attempt to release all possible documents. And we have Zulek, Flaherty. Thank you.
Overall, I think the thrust of where this
the structure that's being proposed could work. To make it effective, it seems like we need to spend
more time in this meeting trying to at least get a fuzzy universe of assumptions that are shared, because
it seems like the different tangible steps that people were outlining all impact any site location.
So flexibility of timeline, number of beds, these kinds of things. And then Commissioner Madeira kind
of laid out
her six factors as a synthesis of that. But I think there's a diversity of opinions. So one factor,
like acreage. Is there a minimum assumption that people have in mind about acreage? And does that vary?
Is there anything credible we can actually all agree on for that committee to be working with? I don't
know how much progress we can make on those types of questions. I still have questions about
the constitutionality thing. And if it's mainly space-related,
What are outside the box options of transporting some people in the near term? Maybe that's not possible.
Again, but just putting it on the table is like, if we're talking about creative solutions like Councillor
Deckard encouraged at the beginning, knowing how much those factors can move depending on some different
pieces really impacts a lot the viability and possibility of different sites. And so if we can't get
somewhere on that,
Or at least people can't, at minimum, I'd love for the county electeds to all kind of share what they
think are the requirements, kind of in a similar way that Commissioner Madera did, so we can at least
get that out there and hear the viewpoints and see what Koala, you know. I'm going to just take a point
of privilege in response to that, that I think it
To that end it would be good to have at least to invite and I know we invited Sheriff tonight, but somebody
from the sheriff's team and judge
if they're able to participate. They are the insiders who have the most knowledge about the building
and how things operate. And so while we're getting creative, it would be good to have at least invitation
extended to members of those two groups, I believe. Council Member Zulek. Thank you. Council Member
Daly and I both have to leave at 7.15, and I realize that we will no longer have quorum for council
at that point in time. So I just want to raise that.
Thank you for letting us know. Council Member Rallo. So this may be a naive question, but have you all
resolved on the county side whether everything needs to be co-located? Because you were talking about
a site location where it would be a campus. But does it preclude things like having courts here, having
the Curry Building utilized, phasing things?
In other words, then attending to the justice building, renovating that, then having another site in
process that could then expand occupancy of the jail. Is that part of the menu here, or are we looking
at one single site for everything? Where are we? So I'll take a hit at that.
Listening to the general conversation of everybody in county government, I think there is a strong desire
to co-locate because we see the needs for having everything in one particular location. We see the need,
as we have it so good right now currently downtown, of ensuring that attorneys, public defenders,
You know, everybody in the same area would be able to get to certain things, because I understand caseloads
and things like that. With people kind of going back and forth, it's a lot. With co-location, and I'm
not saying one way or another, so if somebody hears something, please don't at me or send me an email
about it. I'm just saying the general question, since you asked it. What I think I've heard concerns
from colleagues is the co-location amount.
I think a long time ago, I think the idea and the crystal ball was to have everything all at once right
where. And then SB1 came into the situation and kind of changed the game for a lot of different things.
I think maybe the idea, and colleagues can jump in if I say anything different, was to try to do that.
And then SB1, with the restrictions of a lot of different things, really kind of put a pause on that.
Plus, the cost, as we talked about so many different times, with everybody wanting certain things that
we've asked for, that just kept ballooning. And so right now, I think the general consensus is, what
does that look like? Because it goes back to the beginning of what is required in this whole ordeal
versus what we need to bring along with it in the beginning.
The idea is to try to potentially do things in phases, maybe to get to that co-location. But again,
I think it also depends on the location aspect of everything as well. And again, colleagues, please
feel free to jump in if I need to add anything or misspoke. One thing we know from our system is that
even if you choose not to do co-location,
you're still managing and paying for not being co-located. So when Councilor President Crosley talks
about that proximity and location, you've got everything from transportation to transportation of your
prosecutors, your public defenders, and every other apparatus to it. And so while the SB1 has set us
back on how we would do this, we know the county will be figuring out
all of those details alongside every elected official in the system. Council funds it, but they will
have to figure out the management of that and logistical system because we've been co-located since,
well, at least since they've been in the Justice Building and maybe even when they were near the old
City Hall. I'm going to jump in because we know we will lose City Council
forum in 10 minutes and suggest that someone might want to make a formal resolution for the record on
our next steps that we can commit to. And I think we have some elements up there. We still haven't talked
about a timeline for
when this group would have its first meeting, and then when it would be prepared to come back to the
larger group. I think that it would be a good idea for the working group to evaluate two to three locations,
assess the pros and cons of each of them, and come back to this body with a recommendation on a location
and an explanation on the thresholds and the criteria that were considered.
Commissioner Redira. Yes, and I'll just note that since I'm the only commissioner present tonight, I
will have to take this back to my colleagues and consult with them as well. Thank you. But to be fair,
though, we can still move forward with the working group. OK, all right. That's what I want to make
sure, because yeah. Number Decker. And since we have a working motion that we're drafting here, I would
add to President Zulek's comments that
If any of the entities, specified commissioner, mayor, county commissioner, Bloomington Common Council,
sheriff or judges for any reason, cannot participate or opt out, the commission would continue its work
under under the timeline to come back. I propose three months. Three months. OK, do you have a clarifying
question? I was just wondering if the working group would be public meetings or not, just as a logistical.
I don't think they're
there's likely to be a requirement of that because it's not going to be a quorum of any body. Right.
Can I just say I'm concerned about that approach. I think the public is going to demand more transparency
and more knowledge about just the whole process of selecting these locations and a small group bringing forward
You've already said here that location is the critical element. I just I have concerns about that approach.
I'll just say that I kind of share those concerns, but I think on the timeline that we're doing, I don't
think that it's necessarily practical to have all of those meetings public, and that was kind of why
I was asking, is that if they did have to be public, then that would, I think, change our timeline.
But I think some kind of mix of those in terms of that transparency of going, here's our big list, and
then privately whittle down to a smaller list, and here's the smaller list, and why.
might be a compromise on that kind of thing that could make sure that the public is well informed about
what is happening. Daley? Yeah, I think that sounds reasonable as long as like the reasoning for each
of the locations, why they were looked at and then why they were rejected or moved forward.
So would this magic group take input from the public? I think we need to make it public who's on that group.
You should probably come to the microphone. I can summarize what Jeff's going to say. I think the attorneys
in the room conferred, and I believe if you formally form this group, it's subject to open doors, so
these have to be public meetings. Is that true even if there's only one council member on the group,
or do there have to be two city council members in order for it to have to be public? But regardless,
why would it not be public? Why would that slow this down?
you just advertise a series of meetings once a week for the next six weeks and then come back.
And to me, you just do it. And I realized- So who will be doing that? What body is going to publicly
notice? I think much like we did this meeting today, it would be a joint effort, like working with county
council and then working in tandem with
I know the clerk's office has to do the notices and staff also has, we have to make sure that the biggest
thing is making sure that staff is available to be at these meetings before we can commit to that. But
the biggest thing that we need to make sure is, is that staff from county and city clerk's office is
available for those as well too. Okay, so it's been decided that there's going to be public meetings.
We know who's doing the noticing.
I think we're down to four minutes and I think we have a somewhat formed resolution, but I haven't heard
it. The deadline for I would. Is it realistic that the group could meet for the first time within one
week from today? An initial meeting that I think that goes to who?
Which which council members should be on the group? I mean, it's pretty we don't even know who we're
talking about here. And and then Commissioner Madeira, of course, has to go back to the commissioners.
So maybe that doesn't matter. But is there a particular county council member or city council member
that anybody would like to nominate or self nominate or think makes most sense in this working group?
Yeah. Councilor Decker, I recommend that we trust the presidents of both
of the councils to appoint a member. Those presidents would likely pull their members and the rest would
take care of itself. City Council has no more regular sessions. And so see how somebody has to do it
now. I'm happy to do it. I'm also happy to appoint one of you. I'm in town for all of recess, so I am
available. I'm not in town for all of recess, but I'm wondering how much my involvement with Plan Commission
matters right now.
I can keep you informed. Always be supplemental. Yes, that's true. Any? Would you guys have recusal
issues? What? Sorry? Would you guys have recusal issues? So for example, if Hopi served and this later
came before the plan commission, would there be recusal issues? I think it's been decided that Zulik's
serving. Okay, great. I will keep you informed.
And I will appoint myself to serve on the working group, but I believe we have to have a motion first
to actually form the working group. When I agreed at the fairly last minute that I would sit here and
help facilitate, I admitted that Robert's Rules was not my thing.
I'll move on city council's behalf. I'll move to participate in a working group with the other. Monroe
County officials that are in the mayor. I don't know how to say it. I mean, Monroe County, technically,
she's the mayor of Bloomington. She also lives in Monroe County. So anyway, to have a county council
member or city council member on the working group.
as is listed on the white board right now. How about that? That's a long motion. I know. Right. It was
horrible. Did you get that? Really? Sorry, Clerk Bolden. We can't hear you guys because of the fans.
Oh, sorry. I'm not used to this room. So I'm moving that that city council participate in the working
group as is listed on the white board right now.
And so we call for a vote of just city council. Once we get a second on that. Yes, we can second. Daily
seconded. Will the clerk please call the roll? Sure. Councilmember Rallo. Yes. Stasberg. Yes. Clarity.
Yes. Zulek. Yes. Daily. Yes. Ruff. Yes. Piedmont.
I can't see the white board, so I'm gonna pass. Okay, thank you. That passes, and I will appoint myself
to be on that working group. I also just want to note that we should add the prosecutor's office and
the public defender's office to that group to be invited. Uh-oh, does that change? Could I also say,
Hopi, Councilmember Salzberg mentioned sort of what she called a compromise approach to being very public on the
the larger number of sites and the accessibility to the information for why a site was selected or rejected,
and then taken to the smaller group. Yeah, but then I think the attorneys decided they all had to be
public meetings, so it doesn't really apply anymore. And so we also need to have a motion from our side.
So I'm looking into my colleagues to see how that will work.
do my best here and I do this madam president in the spirit that this moves us towards resolution in
collaboration with our city partners who are graciously here today. Thank you. I would move that the
county council similarly appoint a representative via the appointment of the president of the council
to join with the other county entities commissioner
the sheriff, judges, prosecutor, public defender, as well as the mayor and the Bloomington City Council
to make a recommendation on moving this forward towards two to three locations with a recommendation
of one. Second. Other timelines. OK, we got a motion and a second. Is there any other further discussion
from council colleagues on this? Seeing none, Michelle, may we please have a roll call vote?
I didn't hear who seconded. It was Councilmember Henry. Thank you. Councillor Crossley. Yes. Councillor
Deckard. Yes. Councillor Feidl. Yes. Councillor Hawke. Yes. Councillor Henry. Yes. Councillor Wilts.
Yes. Motion passes unanimous.
And so before we end, would it be okay for us to say within the next, let's have a goal line of maybe
no later than one month to reconvene since I know there's travel sessions and you all are on council
recess, but you will be here so that we can get back in the saddle of things. So yes. I think that's
a great suggestion. I just want to,
Let me clarify a little bit. In one month, this body will reconvene to hear the recommendation on a
site from the subcommittee that we just formed. That sounds correct. Got it. I want to make sure I had
it understood. It might be worth meeting several times to talk about the criteria that we decided on.
and then come back to it as a group, have that discussion, and then go back in and apply it to those
site plans just so that we're all on the same page with what we decided on immediately. I don't think
we have time. But I think the idea for us right now for this subgroup and for the timeline that we are
kind of on is making sure that we get this done and reconvene within the next month. Does that?
So the subgroup was going to meet and then we could all come back and meet, right? Is that what you
were getting at? Yeah, the subgroup will meet as many times as they want between now and then in public
meetings, figuring out there is so much information that hasn't been shared publicly about sites that
are possible.
And I have a feeling if we can work through that, to Councillor Henry's point, and share it with that
small group and hopefully the public, that will change the trajectory of all of this. Because it will
become clear, I think, what the negotiables are and what the pros and cons are.
That's all I, I mean, that's all I can really say. Sure. I have faith. Ms. Sherman, do you have? So
I'll just reiterate the position of my colleagues that as we get closer to litigation, we will be consulting
with litigation counsel. And that litigation counsel will also have reflections on the property and
the propriety of characteristics. So that will also come into the conversation. Thank you.
keeping that in mind, but also knowing that we still have work in progress to do. So with that being
said, yeah. Are you appointing somebody now? That's what I was just going to ask. Do we know who that
who's going to volunteer so I can put that in our notes? Are you working on that tonight? President
Crossley, are you going to appoint somebody tonight? I will look at two colleagues to see who would
like to volunteer themselves. It is not me.
Let's step up if no one else wants to. Okay. Or no one else can. I'm available. Does anybody have any
objections? No objections? Okay. Tag your council member title. Thank you. All right. Clerk Bolden,
can I get a read on exactly what the resolutions said about, is it a member of the administration or
is it me in particular?
that's going to participate in this body. My calendar can be prohibitive to rapid fire public meetings
with less than a month's notice. OK, I had heard it as a member of the administration. So shall we just
make sure that we may clarify
that we are happy to accept a delegate from your office. The mayor or her designee? That's a good word.
And I'll note that my motion was what was on the board, and the board did get truncated in a couple
of ways. So the mayor, admin, and commiss will just, yeah. I would similarly say on our end,
That's awesome. And that we would accept the commissioners and their designee as well in the spirit
that we're moving collaboratively to move this forward. Yep. That is the goal. And that was the goal
of this meeting. Do we have a motion for adjournment? So moved. Second. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you,
everyone, for your collaboration tonight. Do you all have to vote to?
Leave. No. Thank you. Thank you.