- So we apologize for starting a little bit behind schedule here, but today is Friday, August 8th, 2025, and we are calling the special session, the work session, to order. My name is Jennifer Crosley, council president, and we have a quorum of the council members here. So around the table here, we have counselors David Henry, Kate Wiltz,
- I'm going to introduce myself. I'm going to introduce myself as well as vital Peter Iverson and Trent Deckard. And then, of course, I will let our commissioner introduce herself. District three and we have a commissioner online as well. Looks like Commissioner Julie Thomas is
- Again, we'll announce if and when she shows up via Teams or in person. So we're going to go ahead and get back into the order of things. And so the second item is the adoption of today's agenda. I would like to make an amendment to this, and I would like to add
- right before we adjourn public comment. I think that is pretty necessary, and we didn't get a chance to add that to the packet beforehand, but I would like to add that since we do have members of the public that are here and attended virtually as well, and I think we could benefit from hearing from public comment. So that is what I would like to add to the agenda, but looking around, is there anybody else that would like to add anything to the agenda? I'll second that. Sounds like a good idea.
- Just to make sure that we're all good. OK, so we got a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving today's agenda as amended with public comment, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. OK, motion carries. All right, so we will get into the topic of today's meeting, which is the discussion and the edit of the letter
- And to give public a little bit of background, this is something that we've been talking about since the beginning of July. And it was discussed at the last council's meeting that we would have a meeting
- which is what we're doing today, to talk about the logistics of this letter. So last week, we did have the conversation with the Long-Term Finance Committee meeting, and we had Mr. Greg Garitas from FSG that was here to really kind of talk about a few things. But towards the end of that meeting, it was discussed, and I brought up if this is something that we should
- And that's something that we need to continue to do. We obviously know that we have a justice and jail facility project that we are all thinking about, but due to our friends in the General Assembly, that has definitely changed the game. And I say friends very loosely.
- I don't know if staff would be able to, for those that are following online and here in the NatU Hill room, if we would be able to have the letter that was sent to us shared on screen. Thank you. So this was also in the packet for today's meeting.
- Um, as we have this display here, uh, I wanted to look around to council first to see if they're, who would like to start off with this, um, conversation. Yes. Counselor Henry. Thank you. Counselor Crossley. So I think maybe it may be useful now we're in work session on it to frame
- the intention of the letter. I think all of us have probably spent time over the past few weeks speaking with other stakeholders. I know I've reached out to state legislators. I had a conversation with Dave Hall yesterday and trying to understand how this would be received in terms of what we're asking for. My impression is that at this point, a letter that goes into great depth asking for the changes in SCA-1, such as lifting the 25% AV cap would not be
- read or received by anybody in the ways and means or at least our own delegation from his seat for some time. So that answers my concern about urgency, getting that up there. So I wonder if we could just start with our intention there. I will offer that one thing I think I took away from that meeting was a agreement that visiting the annual vote on authorizing the bond seems to be of interest to
- members of the legislature. So that part of the letter seems pretty strong to me about asking for that fixed so that if we are good for money and putting a bond on the market to ask for any bond revenue, not just for this facility, but any bond revenue would be entertained by them at this point. So I'll open it up with that about, it has the letter itself been overcome by the events of the past few weeks and speaking with lobbyists or the general assembly members that we speak to. Yeah, good point.
- And I, too, also talked to Representative Dave Hall last Monday, to be exact, and had similar conversations about that. And personally, I'll just be honest because I wouldn't be myself if I wasn't.
- I'm a little concerned in thinking about this letter and thinking about our conversation from LTF last week, when I was very clear and very blunt with Mr. Garrett to say, is this even something that we should be doing, if this is something that we should even entertain? And I didn't really get a yes or no answer. It was just trying to get out there in good faith. But the problem I have with this is we already have a general target, so to speak,
- with Monroe County, as is. And having the conversation with Mr. Gerichus last week, he said we needed to be specific. And I'm going back and looking at my notes about the issue that SB1 has continued to create. And being specific with this letter kind of highlights a little too much. Well, let me rephrase.
- We have to be specific about the problem and the bonded capacity. I think that is the biggest thing that I think the General Assembly and certain lawmakers have realized with the passage of SB1 that there is a oops moment that they've had and they're trying to figure out how to fix it. But my whole philosophy with this right now is that we're highlighting this
- since we've been in this lawsuit since 2009. There's been a lot of stuff that's happened since 2009. Since 2009, I've added two more kids to my brood. And I have added a lot more gray hair since then. However, I think we could be the laughing stock of the state of Indiana if we highlight that we've been under this constitutional lawsuit since 2008, 2009. It is August 8.
- and I see them looking at us going, well, what the hell have y'all been doing this entire time? And that to me is a concern. And again, I just wanted to open that up with respect of having the conversation since Council Henry had brought up certain points there. The other aspect of this
- that I looked at, too, is a little bit of a grammatical error on the letter here. One of the board of judges, Judge Cotton's name is misspelled. First name doesn't have an E. So that's one thing. Oh, and then it looks like Counselor Feidl also has her name misspelled in that. So of course,
- those are some things that we need to get together with that if we should continue with this letter. The other thing that I wanted to highlight, too, is there's a part in here that says, also, we will be unable to provide constitutional care for inmates. I would hope that we would have talked to
- the sheriff about that and would like to get his input as to, with this letter, what does that even mean? Are you talking now? Are you talking later? What does that even mean? But again, those were some things that I saw that were a concern for me. But I'll stop talking and let other people chime in. Councilor Williams. Just on that last point in particular, I also
- hesitate to say that we will be unable to provide constitutional levels of care, specifically because our sheriff and our jail commander and the whole team have worked so hard to actually provide constitutional levels of care in that facility. Is it
- reasonable to expect them to be doing it in that facility? No, probably not. Does that negate the need for a new facility? No, probably not. But I think it's a misstatement. And I mean, I'll defer to you, but I would, if there's more information from the sheriff and his folks that refutes that, please let me know.
- I don't want to undermine the argument for the facility, but I also don't want, I don't feel like this is a true statement. And we do have the sheriff here and I don't want to put you on the spot, but you are here and you are at, you know, you are being asked to sign on this as well. So just wanted to highlight that there. This is perfect time for us though, because we want to make,
- this group and the public aware of what we're facing at the present time. So we have some statute provided to you and hopefully put a little bit more perspective, the urgency of what we're facing at the present time as well, because we anticipate that what is happening now is just going to keep growing for us. I will pass that on to Chief Deputy Parker to provide the statute. Imagine if you will, the sheriff came prepared for unexpected questions. He expected them.
- I think your point's well taken that there has been tremendous progress at a very fast pace to make sure that we are providing constitutional care. But at some point, we are going to run out of runway here. And the sheriff asked me to bring some information to y'all's attention to kind of demonstrate how quickly that's happening. And I know that's probably kind of separate from this issue today.
- As President Crossley kind of brought this matter to the forefront, and then you, Kate. So as of today, our total jail count was 259. Our secure bed count is 224. So we're still below the 244 limit.
- What that means is if you look back at our past populations, and I didn't research all this because we had a pretty short timeline here, but I would say it's pretty accurate to say over the past two years or so, we've been somewhere in the jail total count between 220, 230 pretty consistently. In the last four to six months, that has started to climb
- and continues to climb. For example, in the last, let's see here, let me get my note here. Just in July, our total bed count was over 240, 15 times. We track it daily. The average for July was 239. So here we are, we're creeping up, we're creeping up, we're creeping up.
- President Crosley, again, you know, brought something up here about us being the laughing stock, which has been going on for since 2009. In December, it's going to be the 16-year anniversary of that private settlement agreement, 16 years. And I don't say this flippantly. I'm not so sure we're not already, because when I go to
- When we go to sheriff's conferences and people are always asking, hey, how are things going down there? It's pretty common knowledge that this has been going on for a long, long time. And it's always like, what in the world is the holdup down there? So, you know, dealing in senses of reality, when you talk about some 16 years, people take notice of that. But one thing that I wanted to bring to you is just last night,
- We had one of our corrections officers wind up in the hospital. And what happened was there's two inmates in a skirmish. He tries to remedy that, and he winds up on the floor with a lower back injury. And as the jail population increases, so do the incidents of use of force, so do the incidents
- of of inmate to inmate issues. And when when those things increase, it's just a recipe that none of us wanted to really talking about here. So those are the those are the stats. And I get it that you know, we're in this quandary here. But this issue is not going away, no matter what kind of a pickle we're in.
- And I felt and the sheriff felt that each of us, the knowledge of this is something that in reality we have to acknowledge it and we have to accept it and we have to make steps to it. And I'll finish out here that Judge Decoff keeps a very, very close eye on this. I mean, there's almost daily conversations at this point with Commander Gibbons.
- So I want to acknowledge that they're doing everything they can to help us. And if we keep going the way we're going, I would say at some point in time, we're going to have to look at asking other facilities to house for us. That becomes an expense. Now, we're not there yet, but I would say it's a possibility in our future.
- So to bring a full circle to me, when I'm asked a question about constitutional facility, what we're providing, I'm looking at from a certain lens of which we brought up before in the past that if the population grows within the jail, that means higher use of force, the people getting injured. And I can't remember when I mentioned this before, when I mentioned that I-69 is going through Bloomington, which means our population will grow, which means
- the crime stats possibility could go up as well. So I'm looking at this from a standpoint of view where, OK, I don't know how this letter, and I wish it would, help us move forward in a realistic, fast way. I just don't see it. If you do, please educate me, because I'm at the point right now that think. And here we are now.
- there's no way for me to say it. I mean, I've been beating this drum for quite some time that this is what we're trying to avoid when we act right at the present time. It bothered me tremendously that a correctional officer now might have bad back when we could have been preventing this. He did his job, but the individual's injured. And it bothers me tremendously that we could have
- benefits if we could have based on at the rate that we're moving to accomplish what we all want to accomplish. And I know we all do. It's how we get there now that's going to be the question. So bear with me, but sometimes when I come across kind of, I don't know what's the word, maybe too strong or just the urgency of let's move on is because of what just happened again. And my fear is, and I've mentioned before, that I do not want anyone getting
- It will happen again. When? I don't know. I can't tell you. If you ask me a question about the letter, I'm looking from a certain lens of what the chief just explained to you stat-wise. How does this help us out? That's my question. And if you have a way to articulate to me and help us out, help me understand how I'd be more than willing to understand unless I'd be the first one to say, hey, let's move forward.
- see hands so I kind of still want to go back since we started over here with council members and the whole idea and the topic is you know what's your thoughts on even kind of proceeding and going forward what I'm gonna do is definitely want to have the commissioners jump in I'm gonna start just kind of going around so counselor Fido if you want to go ahead and jump in I'm gonna wait a minute okay all right
- First of all, thank you all for having this conversation. I wasn't able to be at the long-term finance meeting. I did watch it. It was very educational, and I really appreciate the commissioners being here as well as the sheriff's department. Let me just say, one of the things that I wanted to talk about today was the issue that treatment is not being addressed in this letter, but it is a pernicious problem in our community. If you just look at the arrest records, methamphetamine possession,
- shows up over and over and over again with what you all are dealing with. Possession of paraphernalia, possession of, you just go down the list. It's every single day that's coming into our facility. And I think one of the things that we need to continue to keep in the forefront when we're talking about is, yes, we do need to build a new facility. We do need to follow the instructions that are in this lawsuit.
- But at the same time, we've got some really sick people in this community that need a lot of help. And we need the state legislature as well to work with us on this. There are no treatment facilities that can handle this in this community. And we are putting people into other communities for that treatment. And so that's one of the things that I think we cannot lose sight of is the fact that the people coming into our facility now
- there's quite a bit of substance use disorder. And we need to keep that in the forefront of our minds. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about this. And Sheriff, I just want to say, I'm very sorry for your officer. And of course, we're all supportive of whatever needs to be done to make that right, including this discussion today. One thing I sometimes think about
- When we have any communication with constituents, folks that aren't friends, neighbors, et cetera, strangers, we don't know. When we have discussions normally amongst each other and when we have discussions with legislators, usually the simplest form of communication is what happens. What will happen, someone will walk up and they'll say, Kirkwood's doing this or,
- And what are you doing about the jail? It's always a very simple communication. Even when we talk to legislators, people assume that stuff, members of Congress, people assume that stuff gets pretty sophisticated, but generally it doesn't. We just talk, right? We will say, blank, you know, you got to help me out with blah, blah, blah, or don't kill me on my property taxes because somebody's got to make sure sheriff's okay and that is fully funded. I am wondering if this letter has not over killed in detail.
- and done it in a way that we're just preventing the obvious. Last year, based on this history, we began movement towards a fix to address this location, to address funding, to begin to take care of some of those things would help us start filling in the details. And a couple of times when we would stray into too many details, we would have to go back to the goal of this is a problem. We all own that problem in a constitutionally sound
- option must be maintained beyond what the sheriff has done. And I simply wonder if we need to just as a county communicate generally to the General Assembly about that first paragraph and then add just a slight bit of language. And friends, I keep it simple and I'll tell you why and then I'll stop talking. I just think we say something like first paragraph, maybe even take out that last sentence in the first paragraph and simply say,
- Can you work with us so we can continue our pursuit of offering a constitutionally sound correctional facility? And here's what happens. And I say this just for public knowledge, before I served here, I finished state careers, chief of staff for the House Democrat Legislative Caucus. When a legislator wants to make a change, whatever that change is, whether you like it or not, they literally pick up a phone, they call a
- literal bank of attorneys who are well qualified in legislative services agency and they simply say, I'd like to offer a tax rebate for somebody buys a cheeseburger on Fridays every other Friday, you figure it out. And they work with that. And then the messiness of legislating starts to move towards solutions. Now we know that they're aware, right? I mean, some of our local officials have already told us on both sides of the aisle, there were some issues in SCA one.
- that we know that. We know that we've heard other counties have that too, and things are on the horizon. I think sometimes the simplest form of communication expresses the intent. I don't think there's many people that disagree with that notion that we've got to do something. I don't think anyone's saying go back, throw out completely doing this, but help us to get back on track. So I would offer that. When we kind of get to that, I think we get agreeable portions.
- And I think it's hard for them to disagree with that because I, you know, they always ask us that too. What are you guys going to do about that? What's your, your solutions? And so this is an entree details, start to work out with that legislation and on down the road we go. Thank you. Commissioner Madeira. Thank you.
- So I think the commissioners realized when we proposed this letter that this letter is not intended to address every eventuality. It's intended to be a short, sweet letter to the legislature that it's not meant to address basically every particular pernicious detail. It's intended basically to say, legislature, you've posed certain obstacles, foreseen or otherwise, to the effort of building the jail.
- and we would like to work with you on addressing these obstacles. Its intent was not to address matters, in other words, as comprehensive as how we are going to address the process of building the jail, what's going to go into this building, whether it's going to include treatment, whether it's going to include a certain number of beds, our construction
- and I think Commissioner Thomas would agree with me on these efforts. Let's not waste our time on it, and let's waste our time on other matters, perhaps.
- And I mean, waste our time facetiously, right? Let's spend our time on other matters for the public good. Let's put our time where it's best spent. One matter that might be a very good use of our time is talking about these larger issues. Our building is sick. In addition to just this ACLU mandate, we should care about this issue because we frankly have county residents that spend a great deal of time in this building, not just inmates, but staff members,
- the sickness is affecting not only our inmates, but our correctional staff, as we've heard, our guards, our judges, our prosecutor's staff. And frankly, I'm concerned about all of these people, and our solution needs to address all of this comprehensively. And so I'm fine with pulling this letter. I think Commissioner Thomas is fine with pulling this letter. And I would like to hear her thoughts on this matter, but I'm fine.
- with moving on to more constructive topics. Commissioner Thomas, I know you are virtual, but did you want to chime in? No, I think it's fine to pull this letter. We've got conversations we're going to have with various legislators on either way. So I don't want to spend time editing a letter that nobody wants to send. Let's not send it. Let's just move on to the next agenda item. That's my suggestion. Thank you.
- Thank you. All right. Councilor Frida, I'll kind of take it back to you since you didn't get an opportunity. Well, I just didn't take my opportunity. I wanted to hear more. So I like to hear what's being said and then maybe reflect on a lot of that. I do think that pulling it is the most likely productive thing to do at this time.
- I agree with what's been said about not sure what it will do or how it will help anything. And I also think that, you know, I believe the legislature is well aware of the consequences that have happened as a result of their actions. And I do think that many are listening and hope to address this. So I think, you know,
- mom, grandma, pardon me, would like to say maybe we need to give them a chance to fix this issue, right? So that's where I would be at at this point. Agreed. Thank you. So it seems to be that maybe there is a general consensus that we pull it, but then this is also the season and the time for us to really sit
- down. Maybe this is a little bit of a saving grace for us to really stop and take a minute. I was going to say stop, collaborate, and listen. But something to think about, it's Friday. I'm trying to be funny. But a way for us to really think about, what does this mean for us right now? We hear the Sheriff's Office and the Sheriff and the Chief Deputy
- tell us the incident that happened last night. We have heard so many different times in our council meetings about appropriations of funds because we've had leaks that have caused major issues. We've heard several times. I usually try to walk in that building often as I can.
- Just alone, the smell just kind of hits you from just the lobby area. So there's everybody, even the general public that goes into that building. I'm very much concerned about what we are doing. But on the other aspect of all of this, I keep going back to this timeline and really going, how do we get to this point?
- And again, just kind of looking at my notes here and having the conversations with a lot of stakeholders and community members countless times since being, you know, caucused in this seat in December of 21. We keep hearing, you know, we got to do better, we got to do better. And then we had the CJRC meetings and don't even want to go back into those, but you know, then we had the JFAC meetings and we've had community members, multiple people come in and tell us that we should really think about
- if we're going to continue on to this process of building a new facility, that we really need to also take a step at what we are hearing as who is in there. And then looking at the amount of people that have been going through, and I have my notes. And so when Chief Deputy Parker was talking about notes, yeah, we've seen all the way from 241 all the way up to 258.
- And that number continues to keep going. And I've seen everything from possession to violation of mental health, which is like, whoa, I don't even know what that means, but we have that in there. And so it tells us that in addition to building this new facility, we also need to really think about the other aspects and the people who are in there.
- And I've heard people, and having several conversations with people in the past, talk about how Monroe County used to have a work release center. And we've talked to Representative Dave Hall, who also came from a county who also had a work release center.
- And I'm saying to you all here today that maybe we need to start thinking about those types of things. Maybe we need to start thinking about what that looks like. If we're going to build a jail, and we have heard, and we've seen the people that are in there that are very violent offenses, and then I do believe that those people need to have their due process, but they also are in there in a constitutional facility, such as what we have here.
- But we really need to start thinking about what else can we do for our community. And I want to caution all of us right now because we see all the way at the federal level last year when the Supreme Court told us that it is okay to criminalize people that are unhoused and then we saw
- you know, governors out in California really tried to clean up the facilities and, you know, encampments and trying to, and some of those people were incarcerated. And then we also saw this year that the General Assembly tried to propose a bill that was going to also criminalize homelessness. And then we just saw a few weeks ago, correct me if I'm wrong, that the
- president also had an executive order to do something very similar. And then we don't have to go very far because we can go in seminary on the south side where I will stay in Crawford. And we can see all of these people who just really need some type of help. And right now, we see that we keep having bookings from a result of all of these people that are getting round up for various crimes.
- possession, mental health, failure to appear, contempt, all of those things. So we look at this and we go, we could be, and this is just me, and I know this is where maybe I have people that will not agree with me when I say this, but I'm concerned that when we are all gone, when we are all not in our seats, when the sheriff is gone, that we could be building
- blueprint for somebody to come in and make it their own. We already see what's happening in Miami County with the thousand count bed that is happening. We already see Camp Atterbury that's also being used as ICE detention holders. And I'm not definitely saying that's not what y'all doing. So please don't take that in any way that I'm saying. I am just concerned that what we are doing in 2025 can be held against us at any means necessary.
- And that's why I'm saying, I really think that we should really start thinking about, what else can we do? If we're going to talk about building a new jail, how about we can talk about, if they did it in Jennings and Jackson County, why can't Monroe County do it too? Why can't we sit here for a moment and talk about trying to figure out and doing this together? We've had the reports. We've had all of these things since 2019, 2008, going back in through the B-square and ahead of timeline.
- What are we doing here? And then the other aspect is, I'm just going to be honest, and we've all heard it from constituents, and we've seen it on social media and whatever. This is a high ticket cost that we are expected to do right now. So I say all that to say that I think that if we're going to pull this letter, that we also take a step and really think about what we are doing with this project
- And I think that if we're going to ask people in budget seasons and all of this other stuff to scale back on things, then I think we need to look at how we can scale back this cost. Because it is crazy expensive. People are losing jobs left and right. People are taxed to the max. And we could be hurting people.
- At the same time, I know and understand we have to do what we have to do to continue to this, because this lawsuit isn't going away. So all I say is, as we are thinking about this, we need to be thinking about really key points and things that we've already paid money on and move forward, but also think about how we can do certain things, such as work release program. So that's all I was going to say. Councilor Williams.
- Thank you for that. That's a lot for us to think about. And I agree that there are a lot of concerns about the cost, about the jail population rising. There are things that have been put in place at the state level that are going to negatively impact the jail population.
- It's hard to move forward knowing that there's so much uncertainty. It seems like sometimes the only certainty is that the price is going up. To your point, I just want to remind everyone that we, as a council, approved the
- I was going to say the year, but I don't remember when we did it. It was a while back. And there were substantive recommendations in that list that can help guide conversations, collaboration, and decision-making. So I just wanted to put that out there, if that's the direction that you're
- that would be a resource. I would also start by saying that one of the things that I consistently come back to, we've had several individuals who have asked, you know, what about that building we have? What about that building? It's there. Could we get it? Could we do something with it? I don't think that's a viable option. And I think that that's
- been established by several studies. Twice we've had professional studies that the county has commissioned from experts at great expense. Those experts have not been individuals that have ties to companies that build jails. They've been neutral experts whose
- Basically, professional credentials are evaluating buildings. That's what they do. They evaluate buildings. They do not have ties to the prison industrial complex, in other words. They do not benefit from declaring buildings sick if they are not sick.
- They would benefit not at all from saying that we could rehab the building. They would benefit no more from saying that we could not rehab the building. In other words, there is nothing at stake to them from either outcome. And twice these companies have concluded that we cannot rehab that building. We have staff members who report seeing mold. We have staff members who report leaks. We have staff members who have to cover up their computers at the end of every day.
- with plastic so that their equipment does not get damaged. We have judges who have to work with buckets on their desks. We have judges who have had sewage come down in their offices onto their computers. We have individuals whose work, whose
- productivity whose efficiency is damaged. This does not count for the constant drip of taxpayer money into that building. And we have had to put money that we will never recoup into elevators. We have had to put money as band-aids into this building that we cannot ever regain, right? And I can,
- point to the assessors, I'm sorry, the auditor's office. I can point to the sheriff's office for numerous examples, the prosecutors, the board of judges. These individuals daily have to call in more money for just band aids that are put into this building. And if anybody just goes over there, as I have, as anyone can do,
- There's dryers. People were working in 80 degree offices in June just to keep the conditions habitable in that building from forming more toxic airborne elements, I guess I would say. This doesn't even touch the security issues that we've seen.
- The security issues that come from having a two story jail, let alone issues of overcrowding and constitutionality and so I could go on and I won't because I know that we have to save time and we have a limited amount of finite amount of time here together today, but that building.
- for many reasons, it's not only sick, it's dangerous, and we need to leave that building behind, and we need to leave that argument behind as a community, and we need to move forward together. Whatever that issue is, we need to talk about moving forward into a new facility, and I think that should just be a step forward that we take in our discussion. Thank you. Councilor Henry. Thank you, and thank you for the comments this round. I think as a point of,
- order first. I know this is a work session, but are you looking to take a vote on whether or not we're sending this, or do you feel it's a settled issue today with the letter? I think we don't need to, since it seems like, you know... Okay, I just want to be clear that we're done with the letter as today, if we're on to just talking requirements. And I appreciate
- all the comments so far in the second round here. I may want to bring it back to a frame of the fiscal control piece, which is really why we're even talking, right? And maybe to Councilor Deckard's ears, I'm sorry, I'm going to do an analogy. I'm going to try to tell a story. It's not going to go well, but I'm going to do my best. If we were to relate the conditions that the governor and SEA 1 put on the county as the county's credit card with the bond.
- We had our maximum credit lowered to a point where we can't ask for the total amount as proposed as we understand in the project from DLZ right now. We just can't do it by law.
- Okay, so our credit limit was lowered, and we're asking for that to go back up, or that was one of the ideas behind the letter, except we've done nothing to improve our income as a county in terms of assessed value on property, which comes two ways, right? Either we're building things on parcels we own, or we're retracting businesses or whatever. So no more income, but get us back to our credit limit where we wanted to be. We all understand, I think, why that's a challenge. So I have to put it back on the state to say because they lowered the limit,
- We now have to operate under a new budget idea of how much do we have, really, to try to address the questions that Commissioner Madera or Councilor Crossley brought up. I know we haven't seen this yet in the schematic discussion, but clearly, clearly, we can't afford the $227 million and some reporting $280 million that the project has now crept up to.
- frustrating because I know good work was put into this council and commission before I was seated in January to try to get down the path of answers. So now our limit's been lowered. We now are looking at what is $180 million thereabouts by the county in terms of the answer to the questions that you're wrestling with every day that the ACLU consent decree is hovering over us with. I think if we're operating from that space, well, one thing that has to be said
- is we know in other counties in Indiana, co-location is a luxury and that many counties operate on a jail in one location and everything else in another. We don't understand transportation costs right now if we had to do that. But what we do understand or I understand is if we had to build a brand new facility, we could do that to meet the core requirements of the jail piece, not the justice center piece. What seems to be breaking the bank is everything in one location elsewhere.
- That was something I think all of you thought you could probably achieve up until December 31st of last year. That has changed. That's our new reality. So I'm interested in trying to figure out what we do with the resources we have to get to the place where the Sheriff and Chief Deputy do not have to come here and tell us the stories because we've met some of those answers. But to Commissioner, I'm sorry, I keep doing that. You're over here because I see the three of you. I'm sorry, Counselor Crossley. I'm promoting you, sorry.
- You know, I take to heart what Representative Hall told me about the Jackson County Work Release Program, too. And these are rough on the back of a napkin numbers, but I want to share them with everybody, what he told me. Jackson County has a population of 47,000 people. When they were at their overcrowding in their facility, they were 300, up from 179, which is a good hold. After the creation of the Work Release Program in that county, they moved 100 inmates into work release. I mean, that lowered the population of their jail 100 into male and female
- of housing and the ability to check in through community corrections. They had the project done under $8 million in 2019 and it was open in 24 months, which we know even if we put shovels on the ground today on as is, we're four to five years out, right? So I guess I have a question on this. Maybe it'd be great to have community corrections here, but if that is a release valve that is available, a short-term two-year project-ish,
- to get something going in a work release pattern with prosecutors, judges, community corrections? And maybe no one has this answer today. Is that a feasible alternative for this county that has a three times size population compared to Jackson County? Again, I'm a little new. Maybe this has been explored, but what if, I want to take your question a little farther. If that's a possibility and we could do that for 10 million and fund that cash even, what prevents that? What don't I know? What don't I know about
- how work-release works. Well, a couple things. We had this discussion privately, and we've been a little bit hesitant to go out front here, and if the sheriff kicks me in the table, I'll shut up. But go back to the essentials of
- What is the private settlement agreement directing us to do? It's to build a jail. That's the whole nucleus of this whole thing. So we have often said that co-location with the courts is our primary concern.
- And while other things are nice, and other things would be really, really handy, if I'm sitting on the Indiana legislature, I'm gonna ask that question. Okay, are you, and I'll use the term here, you're wanting to build the Taj Mahal, but what do you really need? So I'm glad you brought it up, Councilor, because we've had this discussion, have we not, Sheriff?
- So moving on to, and that's going to be a much, much wider discussion as we go forward involving stuff above our pay grade. But going back to work release, I've worked in two different locations where work release was a reality of those facilities. And it brings on a host of different issues, but it's not a novel idea. I mean, it goes on all over this state and it would
- it would require a certainly a different configuration of your housing and how those individuals are housed and how they're released and how they come back in. And it's a large policy thing and it's a huge safety thing. But I can't sit here and tell anybody in this room that it's not feasible in Monroe County because it's feasible in lots of counties.
- If that's going to be a consideration, that needs to be built into the design of this. And more importantly, we need to know what we're designing. Because we have spent, I had someone ask me the other day, what is the transition team really doing? And the transition team has been very, very busy back and forth, back and forth as things change, square footage reductions,
- redo the whole jail and then when one thing moves in that design two other things may have to move so you know we can keep going through this exercise and all it's doing is adding adding time to it but the budget rules that's what we really really got to consider and then next to the budget what rules is where are our constitutional obligations so
- I'm refreshed at this conversation. I don't know if I'm over talk to my pay grade here, but. It's tough for us to really, we want to be team players, but I've been saying from day one, the whole purpose of this, when we came to into this position is to bring forth the situation of the jail.
- I never fathomed being in a position right now that, OK, we have restraints, just like Dave mentioned, for the budget. So we have to work within those restraints. And I respect that completely. In a perfect world, if we could do the whole thing one time, I'm in. But I've got to be very realistic and tell you the reason why I'm saying what I'm saying is because we are the ones in that building constantly.
- Face with this situation, which we walked into and has been here for a long time and here we are. It's a tough decision. We can't move unless you move. So I echo what the chief said. We asked, we have the conversation, tremendous amount of conversation about the same very topic, but it falls on you how we proceed in the sense of, okay,
- We know what the budget. What are we going to build with that budget? Now, in a perfect world, I would love everyone to be a justice center. We don't have that. It's a tough decision. If we had that and we didn't do it, then I could see why people would be upset. But we got very intelligent people in this county to go and understand, OK, they're doing the very best with what they have under the environment that we're in right now. So the urgency for us.
- is the jail. Now, it'd be perfect because that'll take care of an aspect of security purposes. But this is where we're at. This is what we have. So I hope to answer your question in the sense where we're at. In the sense to me, it's simple. This is what we have. So we have to deal with what we have with and move forward right now. I just want to follow up. Go ahead. Chief Deputy Parker, I want to make sure I heard you right.
- The schematic design, are you saying that you haven't seen those current designs or numbers today? It kind of went to transition team and then, I want to make sure I heard you. Are you aware of the current state of things? Yes, in terms of you talk about the design, the whole design is put together. Yes, but what I was saying is that over the course of this design are, what would I say,
- are marching over the goal posts have been moved numerous times because of how the footprint where the property is. Now, Senate Bill 1 happens. We've got a downsize by 15%. So there has been a constant back and forth of changing that footprint based upon the location that we're in,
- the PUD, the fiscal restraints that we're now facing. So it's been a very, very evolving, almost, I can't say daily, but there's weekly discussions about what we need to do based upon our current, I'll call them restrictions or our current conditions is a better way as how we make it work.
- So for example, when the square footage issue came along, that was, well, me and the sheriff and I and Commander Gibbons joined the transition team, it was four solid days of trying to move all the pieces around to make it work. I don't know if I'm answering your question. No, you are. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. And that's been part of the challenge, right? We haven't had a full public
- discussion about the latest design. I think some folks are more aware than others. I was just trying to gauge how aware you were of where we were, because I'm not as aware, but I appreciate that you were aware of where we are. I guess the answer is right now there is no final design. It's a daily change. But the problem for us is that we need to make lockdown certain steps one before we can actually sit down this time logically and finally get the design locked in.
- Every time we think we have it locked in, something else happens. And it just, we have to go right back to drawing board. A very small suggestion of changing what we really put in writing affects us a certain way. And to be fair to everybody, you might have a suggestion that seems logical to you. But when it comes to our world, it changes everything because we see and we deal with it every day in and out that you might not understand it. Something very simple as someone leaving that facility.
- When someone leaves the facility, you've got to be careful. The public is not aware of what individuals being released when and what time. You have to make sure that when people are released, they're not in the middle. If someone is coming in for something differently, and God forbid, violence happens. So we see that from that context. We cannot move forward in a productive manner, in a timely manner, when we
- are not establishing the budget and how we're going to move forward. Because right now, when people ask me, what is the transition team doing, they're doing a tremendous amount of work, but it's very frustrating when we have to go back and say, OK, we've got to fix this again because it was changed at the table at the time. So to answer your question, oh,
- We could do certain things that sometimes people don't understand it, and we could come back and articulate it, but we have to start with phase one, which is to set the budget and move forward. Short of that, we're going to keep doing what we're doing right now. Thank you. I think the other thing that I wanted to kind of
- figure out with this, since Councilor Henry brought up the whole idea of co-location and how expensive it is, we already know it's going to be really expensive. And I don't know if she's still online. And I don't know if Commissioner Madeira would be able to answer this as well. But I was under the impression
- that the proposed site for North Park technically had to come with co-location because there was something in the purchase agreement that basically says that we kind of have to do both at the same time because there's this notion that people don't want to have just a jail out at the North Park site. And so I think that in itself ties our hands and holds us up.
- But yeah, to your point, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to speak on that. Yes, I'm going to defer to Commissioner Thomas. And I know that also she has to leave for another meeting at 1.30. And so I'd like to see if she is, with your permission, if she has any other remarks that she would like to give. Yes, absolutely. Commissioner Thomas? Yeah, I appreciate this discussion and everybody's input.
- So I will ask Jeff Cockrell, who's online, I believe, or he may be in the room too, he's in the room, to comment on the purchase agreement for the land. I don't wanna say the wrong thing. We can talk about building a jail, but we still have a building that cannot function
- for very long as an effective place for our other departments and offices, such as the courts and prosecutors, et cetera. So there's another issue that's, you're not gonna make that problem go away by building a jail. And of course there are a whole host of security issues and costs that come with dividing
- a jail from the rest of the court facilities. And that would have to be borne by county residents. I think my understanding of work release is a bit different in that if somebody is safe enough to be in the community at a job, they should be home with their families at night rather than having to be forced to go back to jail.
- reduce our costs at the jail, but it also helps families stay together, which I think is really important and more supportive than a jail environment. So, you know, I think the thing that we, the public should know is what information are you waiting on to make a decision? And where is that information going to come from?
- Um, and how, what will that look like? And I think, I think the public, uh, deserves that, um, information as well, um, at this moment. So, but if Mr. Cockro can talk about the purchase agreement, that would be great. Thank you.
- Yes, I can answer that question. In the purchase agreement with the county and the developer that was approved by the commissioners and approved by the county council, it says that the use of the jail will not occur until there are at least bids out for the construction of courts.
- specify the extent to which courts are located there? Like how many? What offices? I have to look at it again, but it does not specify all of them. It does not specify any of the other departments or anything like that. It is simply courtrooms is what is referenced in that agreement. Well, yeah, that seems
- workable in that. I mean, if some courts could be there and. I mean, you're not sure what the purchase agreement and I can confirm this. I think the purchase agreement was you cannot operate the jail until you have a bid out for some courtrooms in that. I don't remember the exact is it some is there's not a number in it, so it's it's it's a pretty generic statement.
- in there. So I guess we're talking, it certainly is not the entire co-location that we are contemplating. We did not include all that in that purchase group. And I think that's hopefully what answers your question pretty well. What might be the philosophy on having some of the courts there?
- explain that a little bit. I wasn't around when that happened, please. I think there was a discussion early on and I kind of, I'm going to put out the caveat that there are many elected officials, some of them did not like just some of the courts, some of the, I really think the judges and I believe the prosecutor, the public defender really felt strongly that the entire court system
- along with the prosecutor and public defender needed to be together. And I think they fairly strongly believe that they needed to be co-located with the jail. So I don't wanna, what I'm about to say is kind of an alternative that is not strongly or at all endorsed by people working in the system. And I wanna be clear about that. But when we started this,
- 10 years ago or something, kind of one of the initial thoughts was, hey, if we go to jail and we had a couple of courtrooms there to handle the inmates, that would be something that may be adequate. Now, we had meetings, and I think it was a CJRC meeting or something like that, where it was very clear from the people who worked in the system that we weren't thinking about it correctly, right? But what I wanted
- what the purchase agreement and the intention of only putting the courts in there was to give flexibility in case things changed, right? And so things may or may not have changed. That's kind of the elected official's decision on whether it's changed to the point that we have to change things. But the intent was to give us some flexibility as to staging or things moving out there while still kind of fulfilling the thought that, hey,
- for this location, and I know we talked with people from Ellitsville who were very concerned about this, that this location was not solely going to be a jail, that it was truly going to be a justice facility. Because there was a lot of public comments about that at the time. Here we go. Marty's microphone's always better.
- Just recalling the discussions that we had, I can recall in the early days, we floated lots of different scenarios and a lot of different discussions. And back then, if I remember the discussions, and I don't like to put words in people's mouths, but essentially, there was the original notion that you've got to have the jail near the courts. Courts said, we need our people largely
- if not all together, because we've got to have them together for the function. It goes, when you get that, then of course a court needs the prosecution who want to be in proximity to it. And then of course, on the counter side, you've got to offer public defender. So that discussion was had, and even years ago, and judges that are watching, forgive me for saying it, but years ago when I was court liaison,
- Some, one of you was with me on that. Maybe it was Jeff McKim back then, but I said, I have to float this question because the public will ask me this and I'm doing my job, but don't throw any gavels at me. I said, if we were to do a little bit of what we did during the pandemic where you had a zoom option here or there, how would that go? Um, and the,
- Judges at that time, again, I'm not trying to put words of mouth, but they made a very strong defense on why, in theory, that was a really cool idea for me to have or me to flow and to get answers on, but how impractical was it? And somebody said to me, they said, now, if you were the defendant in the Zoom situation,
- How would you feel about that with your attorney? And I thought about all the Zoom times I'm in control teaching a class or otherwise. And I started to think about that. And they made a really good case that during the pandemic, those things were tried. Those things got us through the worst public health crisis that we had in a century. But then that was that. And so many of these questions and discussions
- about who is located where and how you get there. Really, there's a set of overlapping issues that fold into all of these entities kind of being down there. I wanted to provide that history because I never want anyone to think that past councils just kind of sat there and were fishing all the time. These thoughts and questions kind of were out there in the mess.
- Anybody else? I just want to say maybe as clearly as I can that the whole project is cost to the county and the taxpayers in the county. I think that's the overriding cadence I hear regardless of people's opinions of how big or how small. So whether we invest in work release programs or a larger facility or co-location,
- every nickel is a taxpayer dollar that we have to make a judgment about. So I don't split those differences in the manner that I just heard them, but I gotta say, if we're gonna speculate about cost benefit, you know, of the cost of transport versus co-location, if we're gonna speculate about the value of work release programs, I need a chart with numbers on it to start making those decisions as a fiscal person at this table. And so I don't wanna go into wild speculation about
- The cost benefit analysis of the what abouts if we do or don't do certain things i'm sorry that is addressed commissioner Thomas I mean that's very clear right we are we are being very cautious with all the dollars are talking about here here's my bottom line on all of it right it's a 21% cut from the governor's office and STA SCA one as is maybe that is what we have right now.
- And if the tactical choice of let's lobby to get our money back to where we were versus this is our new normal, I'm trying to figure out how to use the new normal to get where we need to go. So 21% cut, $47 million off of whatever was sitting on the desk for schematics prior to the approach of writing a letter. And whenever we get that new schematic, we already know, unless that document's being adjusted right now, it's probably somewhere around 40 million over what we can actually do right now.
- I guess I'm trying to get to a place of what does the $180 million budget get us? I hope it can answer a lot of the questions we've heard. Maybe it gets us a few court facilities attached to the sheriff's office and jail at a location. Maybe it is investment in alternatives and prevention and other values that our community values on how to address the challenges we're facing. But we don't have the budget as of the passage of SCA-1 as imagined.
- going into this design phase that we gotta start trimming requirements out of it somewhere. And everyone's got some things, but I'm hearing some really urgent things. I also wanna say this too. We are years away from seeing the doors open on anything. We are gonna blow by your number, it sounds like at some point. Maybe I'm speculating, but in the next five years, would you anticipate that we're gonna see overcrowding while we're trying to build a facility? So I mean, we have to find a shorter term solution of perhaps,
- and alternatives and work release to keep the number down in my view today. But you tell me, do you think we're going to be in harm's way in five years while we're trying to build? Logically, the answer is yes. OK, so we are going to have those costs. I don't mean to interrupt you, but we are going to be sending folks off. We're going to have to think outside the box and deal with that as it comes. But one thing I want to make clear for all of us here, we're a very strong component of having the courts with us.
- Logically speaking, you would think that would be something that's crystal clear to all of us. We would like the courts with us. That would be a good thing for us. However, that being said, what you're just literally to, it's hard for me to predict the future. But I can tell you right now, when I first took over, I did say, hey, these numbers are going to go up. And here we are. So I can't sit here and tell you in clear consciousness that they're not. So we're trying to deal with a situation
- that we don't know how to proceed, but we're going to have to. That's one thing we're going to have to do. But to get back to the courts, no, we strongly urge that the courts and the jail are together. To Commissioner Madeira.
- And then I want to go to Councilor Feidl. And with the respect of time, because I know Council Iverson had to leave and myself have to leave shortly and want to be able to get to public comment, those that are here in the room or virtually as well. So I just want us to kind of start wrapping things up. So I'll go with Commissioner Madeira and then Councilor Feidl.
- Yes, I just wanted to buzz in real quickly to say that the tax the council passed will get us to 225 million. That does not commit us to spend all of it, but that does commit us to looking at what we need. We must build a facility that lasts us the next 40 to 50 years. At some point, we will need new courtrooms. Those new courtrooms must carry us forward technologically, space-wise. At some point, we will need new prosecutor's offices, new clerks' offices, new jail.
- new community corrections, space for support staff, all of that. By kicking the can down the road, we also kick the costs of that can down the road. And it must not be the popular option. We know that. But as we prolong this debate, we also make this more expensive. We make it more protracted, and we make it more unpopular. And so at some point, we must build. And it is more expensive if we do not build and co-locate together. And we also
- must risk the most unpopular and the most dangerous of costs, and that is the human cost. So I'll just leave it there. Thank you. Oh, there we go. So I'm big on function. So how is all of this going to function no matter what we do, right? So
- And that might bring me to something of, have there been any studies or analysis of different facilities out there? This state, another state, another country, I don't care where, that functioned well. What's functioning well? Where's the data on that? I haven't heard anybody talk about that. Where are we functioning well when we do these kind of things out there?
- I won't be able to answer that question to you but I can tell you that every area is very different and is unique to its own needs. Bloomington faces, the Morroco County faces certain issues that other counties do not face. Are we a very caring population? Yes we are. And are we attracting people that don't even live in this county? Yes we are. Are we addressing problems that wasn't even homegrown? Yes we are. So we're unique.
- It's going to take tremendous amount of time. And like President Carson mentioned, we might not be here when we see the results. But I could tell you that the actual foundation needs to be strong from us. Because right now, we have no luxury of repeating the mistakes we were repeating before in the past, because we're paying that price right now as we speak. So I could see your logic is reasonable.
- difficult to answer because I could tell you in working for the state police, every county that I patrolled in or city that I was in had their own different ways of doing different things. It's just the way it is. So it's unique for us to do certain things the way we do it that might not make sense to another county, if that makes sense.
- Yeah, but I wondered if there was any data anywhere. Do you know about anybody that's done any research? There must be something somewhere. I mean, there's a university. It might be data that says what works for them, where they're located. I don't know if we take that template and make it fit in Bloomington to work. I could show you before I got here that I'm assuming, and I thought I was told that before the research was done on what to do in Bloomington.
- I leave that up to you how you want to proceed with that. All I can show you right now and tell you exactly real time is the urgency that we're facing and what we're facing. Yeah, I can certainly get the here and now. True. But what you're asking for, I believe it was done before. I don't know where it's at. I don't know who did it. I'll leave that up to you to do your own research. I can tell you that our hands are tremendously full of the urgency that here now
- I don't need a study to tell me exactly what I need to do. Yes, you know where you're at. I just don't need it because we live every single day. And to the point that I mentioned before, what keeps me awake at night is what happened last night. It will continue to happen that. And I also mentioned before certain things of our population, our strength, our capability to do what we're doing. As I sit here and I think about those things, I don't know how to articulate any more than I have been articulating because
- I don't want something to happen and come back and say, okay, this is what we've been trying to avoid. So I understand the question. I have to digress and depend and trust that the council and the commission would do what needs to be done, what they need to do so we could do our job as well, because we can't do without you. That's just about it. Right. Thank you.
- One of the things that may help answer your question a little bit is that that's part of what the transition team has been doing. They've been to numerous locations, both in the state of Indiana and outside of the state of Indiana, and they're looking what works operationally in those facilities. And they're bringing those back and they're plugging those into that design. And that has been going on for several, several months now. So yeah, I don't know if I would call it research.
- You go look at it firsthand and then based upon, as the sheriff said, our different operational needs based upon our population, based upon what our goals and objectives are, those things may integrate into that facility and they may not, but there has been a wealth of information that has come from these visits that are already woven into the design of this facility as it
- as an operational blueprint, if you will, if that makes sense. As an example, and we're kind of off track here somewhat, I can't remember what meeting it was, and someone asked the question, well, what's the transition team doing? Was it Georgia? I can't remember where it was. I think it was Georgia. And one of the things that came out, they went down there to look at the factory, because for some, Indiana has a particular, I think it's a policy of statute where you have to have tile hooks, something simple as that.
- So when it went down there, as a team, they realized they were building the cells for Indiana with the hooks. Well, we don't want that in that degree that we were building it because someone... For the whole purpose, what the chief is referring to, that we do these visits before what is gonna be built here suits what we do in this county, is for that purpose that they could see it
- and then come back and bring it to us and we say, we're gonna have to tailor this to that journey, but to also meet how we do things in the local. Thank you. Councillor Woods. I just have kind of a process question because to Councillor Henry's point about, sounds like we would like numbers to make
- decisions about numbers. We've had numbers in the past. We've made decisions and that's fine. I think if there's any information from the processes that are taking place around the design that could inform that, updates are always welcome. We don't receive any updates and so it is
- It's hard to know how to make a decision, and I don't need to know, I mean, I don't need to know the itsy bitsy detail, but even just a, hey, this is what we've figured out, X amount of dollars, we'll get you, or get us, and here are our concerns about that, and the next month, well, now we've seen this, and this is the amount, and I have,
- I don't know when the price skyrocketed. I know that we approved a certain theoretical amount last fall. And then all of a sudden I heard that it was a lot more. And then we had the presentation of the plans that I was like, this is a lot for handing it to me at the meeting. So anyway, I guess process wise, we should determine exactly what it is we need to do next.
- and get the information to do that. Can I ask a question? Yeah. How involved has the transition team been in this decision making process? In the decision making process, I'd say very little. In the design process, I mean, it's so hard to run all this down in kind of a chronological order.
- To Kate's point, what happens is when the design team was employed, it was like, what do you need to make this thing the best operationally sound facility that you can in terms of safety, in terms of efficiency, in terms of all of those things? So you develop this.
- Like, okay, that's gonna cost X. That's way too much. Okay, what can we do to adjust that? And that's what I was trying to allude to earlier that this design has changed dozens and dozens of times. Now you throw on Senate Bill 1 and that changed it too. So I don't know if I'm answering your question, Commissioner, but what happens then is whatever changes and the design team tries to make their adjustments
- then DLZ will come back and say, okay, that lobbed off X number of dollars to the design. And then in terms of how we're actually going to settle on a final design, the way I believe it works in working with the commissioners, as far as the jail concern,
- They're not really concerned about what goes on in the four walls of the jail and how it's designed. They leave the operational part to us, but we have to keep whittling away based on the budget. So I think what we could do to help your concern is I think the transition team can come and give you updates about, hey, here's what we found here. Here's what we're looking at here. Here's why I think we think this is a good idea. But then I think additionally to,
- We don't have the knowledge base or the skills to translate that design into cost. That's where DLZ could come in and then brief you all up. So sounds like to me, just based on what I'm hearing here, is we could have a few more of these meetings with the commissioners and the council with brief ups from what the transition team has
- discovered in their data search or their research. And then as we have a design that includes those deals, he can start talking about this. This is the cost of that. But the first thing we got to do is figure out what we're building. So and he'd be to that because we have no problem. I mean, we have no problem coming in and updates. I prefer that. But it changes constantly.
- So what we might update date to you on one period of time and then something changes with someone has another idea for the jail or whatever. And now we have to go back with DLZ and then now then we have to get involved and change it because the safety issues. I have no problem giving updates, but at what point, you know, so. So that's that's that's honest on that one, you know,
- So we won't have to do it, but keep in mind that it will change. OK. So again, because I literally have to go. And so I see Mr. Cockrell that wants to come up. So if you want to come up to this empty seat here. So we'll kind of end with that. A couple of things that I just wanted to say and here in that, though, I know that the 19th of August was a floated idea of us having
- Jill's schematic design update, and so it seems to be that we all need to be privy on this type of conversation. Just as much as what we did back in February, it's way overdue, and I think it's time for everybody to come to the table and hear those updates. The other one thing that I wanted to add in terms of research, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was in my CJRC days.
- that I swear that we did something with ARPA dollars where we funded some type of data program that IU was supposed to help us with. And I think I remember asking that question before about an update, and we never really received it. So this would be a grand old, good old time for us to figure out, because at the end of 26,
- those funds, if they are opera related, have to be used. So it would be a good idea for us to figure out the public facing dashboard or something that I do recall. And I'm seeing some nod in head, so at least I think I'm not alone in that regard. And I know there's a member of the public here that might remember those conversations that we talked about as well, way back when. But again, yeah, we probably need to do that.
- really would like to get on the books for us to have a conversation. Because at the end of the day, all seven of us hold the purse strings, and we are the fiscal body. And we also need to be included. Everybody needs to be included in these conversations. So I would like to have that schedule. I know we're on the horizon of budget season, which would mean another meeting. But we'll make it work. All right.
- We'll go to Mr. Cockrell and then I'd like to go to public comment so we can adjourn. Yeah, and I was just gonna people refer to DLC as the estimators. It's really WGS when. Garmong and smooth smooth, so it's just roles and trying to keep those clear and then I was going to.
- talk about, hey, we've got this next meeting coming up. I don't think it's been scheduled, but we should have the information by the 19th, or the information would be available for the presentation by the 19th. And so Jen already went through, President Crossley already went through all that, so I won't repeat myself. Yes.
- Is my mic on? There it is. Just real quick while you're here. And I think, Councillor Wilts, something that you touched on that the public might be confused by. Jeff, can you give a brief overview of how the decisions have been made thus far? I think the public might assume that we're all in the room at all times when decisions are being made on the jail design. And we're not. We can't be because of open door laws. So if you could just give like a two second overview on that.
- Well, I think how it's gone is, well, I know how it's gone, because I've been part of it. After the February meeting, the 237, whatever number came up, and everybody understood that's way too much. The commissioner said, hey, we got to work on bringing that down. And so as they worked to bring it down, it looked like it was going up. And so then Angie and I working with them to kind of
- how are we going to get these down? And so there would be suggestions made, and then we'd go back to the departments to kind of go over those suggestions. It's really a lot of a tug of war where departments naturally are going to advocate for their departments because they believe in their missions and they want to do the best job that they possibly can, where we've got to kind of be the, yeah, we hear yeah,
- you know, we can't afford that. And so we've got, and that meat grinder took a long time, longer than I would have hoped, but we were, I mean, at that $237 million number, I think when we kind of started this, where are we really at, the projections were closer to 60 to 70. So we've been, and I told them straight up, we're not gonna have another meeting with that until we are at least in a ballpark of what we can afford.
- And so that's kind of why it's taking so long. So I don't we don't have the number from the estimators yet. And that seems to be a trigger point that makes it look like it costs more than it should. Or then we anticipated not should we anticipate it. And so once we get those, hopefully we'll be on a closer to being on budget schedule, but until we have all that
- accumulated and and at times we will talk to the president commissioners and the president of the council to kind of try to get them involved with some of the decisions we're making because ultimately at the end of the day they're not our decisions to make and that we want want to have that kind of feedback so i guess a little longer in two minutes but that's kind of in the nutshell how it's worked it has been i probably we've probably gone through that process four or five different times in the last since february or since april
- Yep. All right. Thank you. All right. Next up, before we adjourn, we have a discussion for public comment. So if you are on Teams, you can raise your hand via Teams. You'll have up to three minutes to make your comment. Or if you're here in the NetU Hill Room, you can come to the lectern right over here, right behind Councilor Decker and speak as well. And you'll also have up to three minutes as well, too.
- And I see one hand already raised. But if you are here in the room and want to come ahead, you can start walking up here. So it looks like Ernie Frazo has their hand raised. So you should be able to unmute, and you'll have up to three minutes to make your public comment.
- Hello? Yes, we can hear you. OK. Yeah. One comment I would have is I think needs more emphasis is the fact that the Justice Build itself or Justice Building is a sick building. And even though the jail is driving from the settlement, the building itself is unsafe for all people there. And I think that needs to be emphasized as well. Co-location.
- is an excellent idea for all concerned, security being paramount. So I would urge you to pursue that dual track of sick building and the court settlement and the need to protect all people working in that sick building. That's all. Thank you. All right. It looks like we have a public commenter here in the NETU Hill Room again.
- state your name and you'll have up to three minutes. Need to sign? Yes, please. Thank you. Yes, sure. Good afternoon. My name is Seth Mutchler Monroe County resident.
- I don't really have any sort of statement prepared today. There was a lot discussed at this meeting, so I sort of have a little bit of a lightning round. I wanted to start by just thanking you all for this meeting. There was a lot covered, a lot of variety of topics, and I feel like it was a meeting that was less narrowly focused than a lot that I've attended, and I appreciated the reach into not just incarceration, but treatment, housing,
- potential other ways to help our community. So I wanted to give thanks to that. I also know that I often come and sort of say what things I think the county is doing wrong. So I wanna also be sure to applaud when I think the county is doing things right. And I wanna thank the council for, I know it's just the provisional budget, but for increasing the Sophia Travis grant allotment for the upcoming fiscal year. I know that that money is going to make a really big impact in the community. So thank you for doing that at the end of your meeting.
- Let's see, sort of in my lightning round. So I know we talked about, yeah, you talked about the jail count, and I know that it's particularly high right now, and I hear that it's been climbing for the last four to six months. I don't think it's a secret to know what else has been going on in the last four to six months, and will unfortunately continue for the next three and a half years, hopefully no longer.
- And I do want to say the numbers happen going up, but they were also going down year over year from 2020 to 2023. So I don't think it's a given that they will just continue to rise year over year as a constant. I think that they can go down and there are ways that we can make it go down. I know that I'm in a county building talking to county officials, so I don't want to dip too deep into city business.
- but it would help maybe if the city was not rounding people up and committing, doing raids in Seminary Square Park and installing flock surveillance cameras in our downtown with the explicit purpose as someone I spoke to on BPD to apprehend people who are unhoused. I do appreciate, as Council Member Iverson said, as many of you said, that we do need to be focusing on treatment, spending our time on other matters.
- Council Member Feidl, I heard you say, right, asking for research, and I hear that the transition team has been visiting jails, but that's gonna really only, if jail folk go to jails to ask about jails, you're gonna get information about jails. We do have a lot of research. We have the research that Housing First works, that long-term substance use treatment in non-carceral settings work. A lot of that research is in the Eve Hill study, and I hear, Sheriff Marte, that every community is different, but also,
- basic needs of housing, food, and healthcare are universal to all people regardless of where you are. And I know I'm almost out of time, but I look back to hearing from Tracy, the assistant director of Pantry 279, hearing how when they feed people in sober living and transitional housing, the violence goes down in those homes because needs are getting met. And so I hear you about your correctional officer getting hurt. And I think that is a very unfortunate consequence of when you put people on top of each other that
- we have these outcomes, and I think we can alleviate that in a lot of ways. So I am out of time. Thank you all so much. All right. Just looking again, if there is anybody left in the NatU Hill room, again, you can come to the lectern or last call here for anybody to make public comment via Teams. Again, raise your hand, state your name, and then you'll have up to three minutes to make your comment.
- and seeing no hands raised and nobody else here in the NETU Hill Room. I just thank everybody for their time today, lots of discussion. Hope we can move forward and we are adjourned. Thank you.