- Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. I'm Liz Fiddle. I'm the county council appointed
- person for this subcommittee, which is the Collaborative Justice Project Working Subcommittee. And I'd
- like to introduce my colleagues that are here so far. And one will come in shortly. So we have Sydney
- Zulek, who is the Bloomington Common Council representative. We have April Wilson, who is the prosecutor's
- office representative. And we have Karen Renbeck, who is the public defender's office representative.
- So welcome.
- So we need to adopt the agenda. So I presume you all can see the agenda that was at your place settings
- here. So any comment on that? Or shall we just get right into adopting it? There was one thing I wanted
- to ask. If we could move out public comment before the finalization of the metrics. I wasn't sure if
- public comments was reviewing ones we'd received or allowing the public to share.
- Was public comment there to review the ones we'd already received or to allow? So we're going to talk
- about the resolution of the rules, right? And then further down is the metrics. And so public comment
- is there. And so you're suggesting putting it where? I just wanted to make sure the public had an opportunity
- to comment on the metrics prior to any finalization. And I wasn't sure if 5B was only our review of
- public comments we received or allowed.
- It seems to me that it does appear before finalization. Am I reading that correctly? Is that what you're
- advocating for? Yes, I only saw it in eight. Okay, but there is public comments there under 5B, right?
- Okay, so we are opening that part to the public. Thank you. Is that my understanding? 5B is public comments?
- I believe that was the intent.
- Yeah, and so then under, she's questioning then under eight, she wants to make sure that five B would
- come before the finalization of the metrics, the public comment. That's how it's depicted on the agenda.
- That's what I thought. Yeah. Thank you. Were you just asking if the public comments were referring to
- written comments versus verbal comments? Yes. Okay. I think we should do verbal comments at five B and
- eight. Perfect. Thank you. Great. That's what my question was. Thanks. Okay. So I'm assuming both
- public comments refers to public comments at five B and eight. All right, anything else on the agenda?
- All right, we'll adopt the agenda. Do I do a voice vote? Voice vote. Okay, all those in favor? Aye.
- Thank you. All in favor was unanimous. All right, so we have a resolution on public comment rules. I'll
- let Ms. Turner King
- speak about that, or do you want me to just go over that? I can go over it if you'd like. It's pretty
- well we drafted it in with Mr. Allen, who I believe is online. But it designates that the subcommittee has a
- designated time for public comment. It's not to exceed three minutes that speakers wishing to give a
- public comment must do so from the podium. They may not approach the seated area of the subcommittee
- without permission of the chair. Comments are statements to be directed at the committee. It's not a
- back and forth question and answer exchange. And then it outlines that comment should be civil and what
- would happen if comments were not civil.
- And then in the part in the section. I'm a little privileged here so below where it says now therefore
- be resolved that next section it says the subcommittee values and then it says and the voices it seems
- like there's something missing there's a little verbiage missing or is it just me. I think it's a strike
- of the word and. Well we need to do something there.
- would agree strike and then it would say if we stroke and it would say the subcommittee values the voices
- instead of the subcommittee values and the voices that what we have in mind there you see where I'm
- talking about so right here you're looking at the form the subcommittee values so it's right right below
- now and after values I think that comes out right well that
- take care of the problem and how it reads? Makes it more clear, I think, right? Yes. Okay, let's take
- out and. So we need to vote on that. Maybe all those in favor of taking out and in that section?
- Seeing none, saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, so we're gonna take that up. Do we not need motions? Do
- I make a motion or can I ask if all are in favor?
- There should be a motion to adopt. Okay, so I'll take a motion to strike and. I moved to strike and
- and adopt the resolution on public comment rules as amended. All right, second. All right, now all those
- in favor, you can tell I don't do this every day. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Okay, thank you.
- So now we have the electronic attendance policy for public meetings.
- Then there is a resolution on electronic meeting procedures. So anything there that we want to highlight,
- it was in the packet, right? A copy of the resolution has been provided in the package. These were discussed,
- these guidelines were discussed at the last meeting. It would allow members of the subcommittee to
- participate electronically however only one member of the subcommittee can participate electronically
- and it calls for 48-hour notice of any member who does want to participate electronically so if a member
- wants to participate electronically they give notice to the council office and that's really just so
- that we can confirm a quorum I'm answer discussion about this their emotion to accept this
- latest document under now therefore be it resolved number one second line procedure set forth in also
- strike and and just for procedural sake there is no exhibit a attached exhibit a would have been the
- IC code did we include that in the public when we
- Exhibit a was inadvertently not included in the packet, but it is the IC code So we're gonna leave that
- the way it is or okay Anything else so you wanted to do an and also there? Where was the end in your
- proposal there the second line of number one? and
- Yes, so that one removed so I'm happy to move to remove and and also to adopt this resolution Second
- all right. We have a motion and a second all those in favor of adopting this Electronic attendance of
- policy say aye Excuse me who seconded? Thank you And all those any opposed
- So the discussion of the metrics. So we are on duty here to talk about, as a committee, these metrics
- for the project here. So who wants to lead us off here? Happy to start with just a brief overview, maybe
- for people who weren't able to make the last meeting. All right. Hi. Yes, we're welcoming Mayor Thompson.
- So first, thank you to whoever created the subcommittee website. It has the Monroe County site evaluation
- metrics that I'm referring to. So in the June 11th, 2026 meeting of the County Council and City Council
- that ended up forming the subcommittee, Commissioner Madeira referenced six factors and she also included
- some questions. This is
- I'm trying to take those subcategories with some liberties. I've added some questions and try to come
- up with those concrete questions so we can take a more methodical, comprehensive, and transparent process
- as we're trying to evaluate sites. I did take a little bit of liberty with site ownership. I called
- it site profile. So there's a bit of some changes in names and additions of questions. And I also added
- screening questions.
- I in this I've included to is the property in a floodway, which is I know something we have to talk
- about that term and is the owner willing to sell the property. The intent of the screening questions
- is to have some questions that may eliminate properties that. For example, if it's illegal to be in
- a floodplain that we won't be spending time on those particular properties.
- We did the site evaluation metrics. They were open to the public. I know we hopefully have some public
- comments on that, both verbally and written today. And then I know as the committee, we were allowed
- to submit some recommendations. That's where we are right now. And then Chair Feidl. Well, let's see.
- Do others have any comments before we can delve in a little further? Or that's her overview. Anybody
- else have an overview they'd like to share before we delve
- Okay, one metric. All right. Or I think so. Okay, I'm just wondering, under the first one under operational
- adequacy, what is the reasoning behind 448 beds? Thank you. I'm glad you brought that up. So I actually
- one of my recommendations that I made, I sent it
- to one of the county attorneys is I think that question should first of all be split up into two separate
- questions. One adequate space for 448 beds and two adequate space for a single floor jail. So just focusing
- on the number 448 beds I got from actually the Kenray study report.
- If you look on page 62, there's finding 10, and it says a 30-year bed capacity estimate indicates that
- Monroe County needs 448 to 450 jail beds by the year 2049. So that's where I got the number. I went
- with the lower of the two that was in the Kenray study. And the reason that I included a specific number
- is as we're evaluating a site,
- going to have to be able to evaluate size and whether or not the county council and commissioners decide
- to build I think you've mentioned 200 beds whether or not they decide to build 200 beds 300 beds 400
- or more in the next five and 20 years you would need adequate space to be able to
- So I wasn't trying to make a determination on how many beds there were. I was trying to focus on what
- is a number based on information that we have and data that we can use to try to adequately evaluate
- site square footage. Okay. I have other comments on other criteria when we're ready, but. We're on the
- metrics right now.
- You have an overview? I don't have an overview when you're ready for more detailed feedback.
- I have some. The first is that I think under Defensible to Court, it's my understanding that we have
- missed all of the court's deadlines already. And we might consider changing that criteria to earliest
- possible groundbreaking date or something of the sort. Because I think every one of these
- can't check that box at this point, and so we'll have to, that may be a scoring rubric or something
- like that. The other piece that I thought on the site profile, I think access to utilities is probably
- pretty key. If they're already there,
- It's a much faster route to closing. So I would probably add that under site profile. And that was access
- to utilities? Yeah, all utilities. All utilities, okay. And Mayor, could I add to what you were just...
- I think that's a perfect one. But there's a couple questions. Could we add sub-questions to that? So
- does site have utilities? And then as a sub-question, which utilities?
- If missing utility access, what process would need to occur to secure remaining utilities? How long
- will that process take, and how much will this cost? Wondering if we could add those as sub-questions
- to your suggestion. Do I meanable to that suggestion? Yes. Anybody else have anything about that?
- or specifics? I don't know who's maintaining the draft version of this, but I think it would be helpful
- to number all of these, too. Just number them one through however many there are, so that when we're
- going through these metrics, we can refer to numbers instead of maybe the sections. I don't know who
- over there, someone over there, I think maybe has a draft version. Just for maybe the next round, then
- we can number 20 or number 25 or whatever it is.
- Is that something that someone over here in our table has access to to update like she's suggesting.
- I can pull up the Excel document and start editing OK. An additional question for the group, not necessarily
- a suggestion. Do we want metric on whether or not the site would accommodate the jail on a single floor?
- be a yes no it's it's not clear to me from recent interactions whether or not that is actually required
- but would be good to have on a so the plan to split those two questions yes and I I'm glad thank you
- mayor and thank you miss so like
- I do think for the question under operational adequacy, adequate usable space for a single-floor jail
- for 448 beds, if we could split that up to adequate space for 448 beds, adequate space for a single-floor
- jail. I think that would get at the... I get that. Yep, okay. We have a couple other suggestions.
- interesting to edit your own document, but if I could, under operational adequacy, will the site require
- the jail to have elevators? Or question? Well, and I know you could also discuss whether or not some
- of the justice services, there'll be multiple floors and not the jail, but do you think instead of just
- keeping that in the same floor, Joe, question?
- I don't think you need a separate question for elevators. And let's just remind us of our focus here
- on this group. So I'm just going to read this. So we're all on the same page there, because I think
- there may be some concern about how specific we're getting on the building itself. So we're supposed
- to serve in an advisory role to help facilitate the identification of a possible location for
- the construction of a new correctional center, justice center, and to identify the procedural steps necessary
- Shall evaluate excuse me shall evaluate three to four properties within the city limits and recommend
- one location to the larger group So that's our focus and so we some of these things. I I'm not sure
- that There's consensus on whether or not their determinants to identify the site I'll just say that
- So other than elevators and not adding that what about will the site have access to adequate public parking?
- space for a Sally port for buses, space for outdoor recreation, and space for an evacuation area? I
- thought those questions might go to site. What are your thoughts? Well, I don't know. It seems to me
- like when the design people get involved, so to speak, that that's kind of a design thing in my mind,
- right? No? How we could possibly, like, give a recommendation for one property without answering most
- of these questions.
- And I don't know that we have the answers to most of these questions. Maybe that's a bit of the problem
- also, right? Well, so just focusing on the last two, outdoor recreation and evacuation area. One of
- the concerns that I currently have for the justice building and the jail is an inadequate emergency
- space when there's, for example, a gas leak, which has happened, and fire trucks show up. And I'm standing
- outside the building, and inmates are still inside.
- And I think what we do have from the North Park location is that they have done square footage estimates.
- So we can use those numbers and be able not making a judgment on them, but use those and apply those
- to the specific sites that we have. And I think outdoor recreation came up quite frequently in public
- concern. And I'm worried about the emergency access. So a clarifying question, have all of those
- Um. Services and facilities been incorporated into agreed upon minimum square footage. And if so, I
- think we could have the simple criteria of does can the site accommodate this many square feet in a
- building? Much better wording. I was basing it off of
- There were two different presentations that were made to the county council and county commissioners
- regarding site design, one in February of 25 and an additional one on August 29th of 2025. That was
- actually one of the questions I had because they specifically outlined a place for an emergency access
- and outdoor recreation. So I think the numbers exist somewhere. And if we phrase it like you're suggesting
- it, I absolutely think we can answer that question.
- if we have that data, we have the data, I'm sure, somewhere, right? I know we have the square footage
- of the building part, and I know we had a square footage. The North Park design incorporated the area
- that was going to be the expansion area. If they had to expand the capacity of the jail, put in another
- couple of pods, they had used that area to put in the outdoor rec in the emergency
- payment area. So we certainly can get those numbers. Or I think the jail area and then when I say jail,
- I'm talking jail, jail staff, sheriff's department space, I think we could probably figure out how much
- of that is the sheriff's department space, but I don't think we want to break out the jail administration
- space. So I think we can get those numbers and then also the numbers for the rest of the justice facility.
- And with some time, there might be a way to kind of parse out per department how much each department
- has. I know we have those numbers somewhere, but I don't know if they were the number. I don't know
- if the numbers were for the final design or kind of the, we went through these meetings with each of
- the departments to figure out what kind of space they needed and all those kinds of things. I know we
- had numbers at that point, and then it kind of fluctuated a little bit based upon budget and things
- like that.
- And so I don't know if we had a final, final version. Well, we didn't have a final, final version, because
- we didn't have a final, final version of anything. But I don't know if we had an up-to-date version
- of a per department for the justice side. Right. OK, so what you have, could that be submitted and available
- to us before the next session, right? I think the square footage, I mean, I think you probably already
- have it. But we can go ahead and figure and highlight that out. Yeah, that would be great.
- Is that what you're seeking now? Yes. OK. And you have, in that vein, you were talking about questions
- that maybe more on point for the site. I think there are some questions that I have that should be edited
- to address that concern, actually. It's under fiscal path. There's a series of questions. That's how
- much will it cost to build jail, the Sheriff's Office, court justice system.
- I think to try to address your concern, Chair Feidl, about trying to stay focused on the site, could
- we use the square footage question instead there and change those questions to say, what is the square
- footage of the proposed jail and jail administration, proposed sheriff's office, proposed core justice
- system, et cetera, and then move those questions really to the site
- So the new questions under operational adequacy. And then we'll be able to use those numbers to evaluate
- further questions down in the operational adequacy section. Shift those to how many square feet in each?
- Versus cost. Versus cost. I would suggest that if we do that,
- then add under fiscal path any fiscal considerations for additional site development on each of these.
- Almost always hard to anticipate, but some things we do know will be, we know about sites and so if
- they're particularly karst heavy, et cetera,
- they could be significantly more expensive in site development. I think we can assume apples to apples
- on per square footage development of single story and per square footage, a separate per square footage
- on multi-story. That makes sense to folks here.
- Do you recommend to do one singular item or multiple items? So for example, the North Park included
- a topographical survey, two different environmental surveys, a geotechnical, would you want to line
- item or just include a group question? Yeah, I don't think that we will have time to do all of those
- studies on all of these sites. And so I think we should just go with known entity. So for instance, we know
- One of the sites needs major power lines moved. That probably has a fiscal implication. So known significant
- site development costs is what I'd itemize.
- under the committee member comments. Anybody have anything additional about the metrics here? Could
- we add a location or address under site profile? Explain to me where you want that to work and what's
- that going to look like. So under site profile, I see there the very first question just simply say
- location or address. Sometimes I feel like
- When I'm talking to people about the jail project, they're like, well, where is that property? And I
- was hopeful that long-term, the public would have one place to go and know at least the general region
- that we're referring to. So you're asking maybe for whatever the location is to include the address?
- Is that what you're suggesting? Yes. OK, I think we could probably do that. Is that agreeable from our
- staff over here? We could add the address to this metrics of the properties, whatever properties they are.
- I can end it. Thank you. Any suggestions? I would like some guidance on one that I left in as a placeholder,
- but maybe we should strike it, was under operational adequacy. The very last question was distance to
- services. My thought process of that, I will tell you, is because
- frequently on the way to work, I go buy a beacon and I know people are having breakfast. And I know
- that they also sometimes their individuals have to make it to day reporting by a specific time. And
- I was just concerned about, I don't want anyone to have to choose between breakfast and make it to day
- reporting. So that's why I put this question in. The challenge is, is we also can't pick specific services
- because there's not one specific location and services move. I don't know if there's really another
- way to capture that.
- and maybe that's more working with what the time is for day reporting. Maybe that's not for this committee,
- as long as we're keeping it a consideration distance. Forgive my ignorance on this. Day reporting happens
- in the justice center, not the jail.
- The community corrections building. It's at probation. Yeah, different building, but yes, right there.
- Where early voting used to be. Okay, so does not necessarily go with this development. Part of my questioning
- here is currently there's no visitation in the jail.
- And so the need to be close to lots of services, et cetera, and even public transportation for the jail
- itself seems to be, in my mind, at least, questionable. I have not heard why we need that with things
- the way they are right now. To the justice facility, I absolutely see that. So that's why I'm asking.
- where day reporting goes and things like that. But it's not at the jail. Right. So it sounds like maybe
- removing that question might be captured. There's spaces already. Perhaps. So when I think of services,
- I can't help but think of the testimony we heard from the woman who works in a community service capacity
- now. And she and herself had
- been in jail and was released and she walked two blocks to get to services and that said something to
- me how important it was because she also testified in her current role in her current community service
- job that she actually had to walk nine miles from somewhere to get and it was freezing cold and it was
- a near medical emergency for him and so there's a big difference between in my mind two blocks and nine
- So for me, that's where the close to services question comes in. Understood. And I'll just put it out
- there that that is a one-time event per incarceration that likely could be easily solved with a ride
- from the sheriff or et cetera. It's a one-time per incarceration distance that seems like it would
- it could possibly have a different solve. Yeah, I mean, we just don't want something horrible to happen.
- Of course. Yeah. So that's where I was at. So what are we going to do then with this question or issue
- on the metrics here we have? What are you suggesting? I suggest we leave the metric as it is. I'm just
- trying to understand the impact of being close to services and what is
- what's impacted, justice versus jail, and if they're co-located, understanding that they. All right.
- What else about the metrics here on our discussion? Could we maybe go to public comment and then come
- back to the last little? When we finalize, yeah. Are we ready to go to public comment? Or does anybody
- else have anything before we go to public comment?
- My last major piece, which we can wait till after public comment, is if someone from legal could explain
- the difference between floodway, floodway fringe, and floodway plane. And I don't necessarily need to
- know the difference, as long as I know it sounds like it's illegal to build a jail under any of them.
- And I just want to make sure we explain that before we finalize the wording on that question. So you're
- interested in the flood terminology. The flood plane consists of
- districts the floodway and the fringe. The fringe is defined by Indiana Administrative Code and its
- portions of a floodplain lying outside the floodway. The floodway is the most dangerous bit of the floodplain
- and by statute it means the channel of a river or stream and the parts of the floodplain adjoining the
- channel that are reasonably required to efficiently carry and discharge the floodwater or flood flow.
- So floodplains everything
- and flood fringe are within the plane. Can you legally bill the jail in a floodway? So, flood development
- is primarily governed by the Flood Control Act, which is regulated by DNR, local agencies, and sometimes
- FEMA. According to Indiana Code 1428120, there's a list of things that you're not allowed to do in a floodway.
- And it says, a person may not do any of the following. Erect in or on any floodway a permanent structure
- for use of an abode or a place of residency, which is what eliminates building a jail within the floodway.
- And you can't build a jail in the floodway fringe either. The statute doesn't specifically address the
- fringe. It just says in or on any floodway.
- doesn't say floodplain. It does not say floodplain, because floodplain would be both the floodway and
- the fringe. Thank you. I appreciate that. Anybody else on that flooding issue? Grateful for our team
- of lawyers at this table and that one. We're grateful for them being there for sure. All right.
- So if I may, before going to public comment, I think I tried to encompass all of the committee's changes,
- but I did start editing this document rather late into the discussion. So I want to share what I have
- to make sure I got everything that you wanted in there. Let's do that with the group. TSD, can you provide
- me permission to share?
- is like the wizard. It is. There's no curtain. Too big. I've made it. Other than the screening questions,
- I've, for each subcategory, labeled them with a number. And then each question underneath it
- Underneath that category was labeled with a number. So for the site profile, the changes are highlighted
- in yellow. So under defensible to the court, I changed the previous question to what is the earliest
- groundbreaking date. Under site profile, I added a question requesting the address of the site and then
- questions related to utilities.
- Under operational adequacy, I broke that first question up and then didn't number them appropriately
- thereafter, but I will fix that. So the first question was broken up into 448 beds as one question and
- then the single jail floor under a separate question. Those are the changes that I've made. I think
- which encompasses all them. So one version of this I saw had the.
- locations at the top like where it's D E F G or all that right could the low to could the address not
- go there or is that the same form I'm looking at that I had a copy of. The address up here by each of
- the properties I can.
- I personally would approve that. I prefer that. Immediately under. Immediately under the name of the
- property it could have, or the address first. Yeah, I guess we're calling it. Yeah, each one has its
- own. And then it'd be the name of it and the address altogether, rather than looking over here on the
- side. Seems a little disconnected. All right. We did make some changes, I thought, to this cost versus
- square footage question.
- under fiscal path. There were multiple questions on the cost for the jail, the sheriff's office, those
- four questions. And instead, I think we asked or I proposed, what is the square footage of the proposed
- jail and jail administration? And same format for the following three additional questions. And then
- moving that to operational adequacy.
- So just to make sure I'm following Ms. Wilson, under fiscal path, so F1, you would like to change that
- to what is the square footage necessary for? Opposed to jail and jail administration? I thought that
- was standard, that they're gonna get us the square footage of that from other meetings. And I thought
- we were changing this fiscal path
- to outline any significant additional site development costs? Correct. The question I'm proposing is,
- under fiscal path, there's several questions that ask about cost. Instead of asking about cost,
- We're going to ask what is the square footage of the proposed jail and jail administration based on
- that August 29th, 2025 data, and then move those questions to operational adequacy. So they're not going
- to stay in fiscal path. That would be the same answer for all of them. So basically, it would be merging
- all those. Yes, across the way. And that will help us determine other questions within operational adequacy. Sorry.
- The answer for the square footage is the same for every single site, correct? In terms of what the proposed
- jail and jail administration will be? Correct. Yes. So do we need it on the evaluation sheet? I was
- trying to create one space where the public can go instead of having to go through hundreds of pages
- of documents throughout different county agendas.
- And it also allows us to use those square footage numbers when we're then later saying it's not big
- enough or it is big enough. We actually have the numbers right next to it for the public to check.
- I see. If not evaluating that, I would suggest that perhaps we do a cover page on this that is basic
- assumptions for every site. That's a good idea. I like that.
- because those won't change, the standard, whatever it is. And the rezoning questions we think will be.
- But all of these sites will, any site, pretty much any site in the city would require rezoning. We've
- kind of agreed on that, I think based on what Mr. Cockrell said at the last meeting. So essentially,
- if we wanna lay out a brief explanation of what that process is, it would make sense to put in a cover
- letter instead of in this chart.
- It's almost like basic givens, right? You're given this, you're given that. Yes, if you rezone, you
- have to go to this board and then eventually to the city council. And I would say pending what, Mr.
- Allen, if he has a different opinion. Yes. Can we go with his opinion? Is he online with us tonight,
- can we tell? He was. Oh yes, I see him. He's there. He had also said he could provide kind of a rough
- timeline estimate for that too. Yes. Based on this code or something.
- That would go in a copper letter. Might be some variation with the Curry property because it has a historic
- designation. That's the only one that comes to mind. I think it's a safe assumption that they probably
- won't all have the exact same rezoning needs and so having something on here would be helpful. Historic
- designation, some may need
- for one reason or another have to go to BZA and Plan Commission. I mean, the assumption based on city
- zoning is that nothing is the same. All right. Thank you. Way outside my bailiwick. Thank you. You don't
- understand that at all. Thank you. That is very much your area of expertise, not ours. Thank you.
- So I'm leaving the zoning questions alone, but for the fiscal path, because you're doing a basic assumption
- cover sheet, do you want me to delete the first four questions? You save them into another document
- just to ensure that those questions get answered in page.
- I don't know that we're gonna have to figure out what the cost is, right? Well, just any of the information
- that's available of the questions that are asked should be in the packet. But our charge, again, is
- not the cost at this point. I mean, I go back to council, right, or the whole other larger group, right?
- focusing on location. So just help me figure out how the cost is going to help with our focus here on
- location. Our ultimate mission is to recommend one location and that in my evaluation would be impacted
- by cost. Also been just from feedback I've gotten from the public incredibly difficult to find information about
- the jail in general. And so I think that the more information you just want the information, yes, more
- than any point. Yes, I think so. You want it on the metrics or you just want it somewhere in the one
- pager and the one. Okay. Okay. Yes. So in the beginning, right? Where you're outlining. Yes.
- the things that are kind of given, so to speak. The cost will be a given, so to speak, right? Yeah,
- the two things impacting cost are additional site development and single story versus multi-story. And
- we can just get a square footage cost on each of those. And what specific items will be in the facility
- itself, right?
- I mean, they estimated that already in the North Park design. Right. That would have included medical,
- all the things that are necessary for a jail, I think. Meeting rooms, everything. Right. I already do
- have that information. Okay, all right. And that would be up front, too? Is that what we're saying?
- Makes sense to be in the cover letter. Gonna have a big cover letter, right? I just think I need to point out
- some of these questions we don't have answers to, right? The difference between a two-story facility
- versus a one-story facility and construction costs. We have a, I think, a two-story justice facility
- kind of from the first round that was a higher cost. And so then we switched to a one-story building.
- But I don't think we have ever done any estimates for what a two-story jail right now would cost to
- build. I think we can.
- that we would. Pretty easily get a local expert to volunteer some time to give us a basic square footage
- difference between. That the changes in multi story versus single story.
- helpful. There has been a comprehensive, there is a document somewhere that includes costs for all of
- the different departments, and we could answer these questions. They won't be, I recognize they won't
- be precise, but from watching the meetings that happened on August 29th of 2025, they were saying there's
- certain things that they can't estimate anyway until they get further in design. So as long as we include
- that limitation in our presentation, I would
- think so look is right and the mayor's right i'd like to get that information to the public so at least
- we have it available that's work so we're asking for um mr kukral and whoever to share what they have
- right and i'm telling you we we don't have
- a two-story jail cost. So that's not going to be there. Right. So I mean, I just straight up, we can
- get you the one-story cost. But I mean, I don't know what the cost difference would be between them.
- Yeah. So the cost that we have will be shared? That was at the meeting, so yes. Pardon me? I mean, it
- was part of that packet.
- Yeah. Yeah, it was presented at the council commissioner joint meeting. So I think we have that information.
- So it can just be recouped and put on this in the beginning, right? Is that what we're talking? So we
- have all those parameters out there that we're dealing with ultimately in the background and the overview
- and all that. Does that make sense? Do you have anything else? So just for clarity,
- I removed the first four questions on your fiscal path, and that's going to go in the cover letter.
- Is it the committee's intent to remove all the questions in fiscal path and put that in the cover letter?
- Do you want me to read them? I know it's really hard to see up there. I think some of the costs are
- going to differ. Do we have
- Yet on there, any site considerations, added site development costs? Because that is one of
- those considerations. Under construction feasibility, question nine is known site development cost.
- OK, so that one under construction rather than fiscal, OK? I can move it. Well, if it's going to be
- the only thing under fiscal, it doesn't make sense to do that.
- But I think that the transportation costs, did I miss conversation on that? I think if there is some
- proposal to separate jail and justice building, those transportation costs and staffing costs related,
- building space, et cetera. I think those are all considerations worth keeping. I guess my question would
- be, would that also just go on the cover letter? I'm not sure there's going to be a material difference
- in cost depending on how far it is away. It's an overview no matter what, right? There'll be a cost
- for any location that's not the same as the courts.
- Point so that would remove question one related to like vans gas additional cost and question two related
- to personnel And that would go in the cover letters. I'm going to remove these Going to attempt to remove
- them again because my computer did not get the message And so that leaves basically under fiscal path
- just questions about renovation and
- also could be cover letter letter yeah I think this section gets deleted part of our only other fiscal
- question which I don't think has to go under this section is building off what the mayor was saying
- you added site development but what about adding how much will it cost to complete
- development I was understanding is if we have to move power lines we have to buy additional property
- any type of development of the site but that's separate from geotechnical surveys and environmental
- so should we add a question of how much will it cost to complete geotechnical reports site reconnaissance
- those reports I would imagine that those are apples to apples not exactly but basically on every site and it's
- beyond the purview of what we can probably get done in two weeks to get bids for those things. So we'll
- have to do those on all. I think just known site development implications are what we want to add here.
- Could we put it on the cover page of how much it costs to do them for any site so we're keeping track
- of cost? If we know that. Since we did it on North Park it feels like we already have a bill we could use.
- think if you assume that they charge the same, which I don't know, right? Yeah, it's basically going
- to be apples to apples. It'll matter how many square feet you're dealing with, et cetera, et cetera.
- So yes, we can.
- So if we're removing, sorry, if we're removing geotechnical environmental studies, do you want me to
- remove questions one through seven under construction feasibility, which all reference geotechnical
- studies that have been completed, what need to be completed, identified problems, and how that impacts
- usable square feet? And move it where? I mean, if the idea is that the geotechnical information
- ballpark estimates going to go in the cover letter. I would say on some sites we may know something
- has been done and it's worth putting it in the rubric. So I would keep it. General section for known
- variables or something.
- Public comment perhaps? Yes, I think I'm ready. Are you guys all ready to move to public comment? Okay.
- All right, and we have somebody walking up now. Please state your name. Please come up and state your
- name. And you'll have three minutes, right? And that should be on the screen, I think. Yes, Steve, will
- you be able to put the time up that this person will have to speak? Thank you.
- make sure the time is coming up here for you to work with. You can go ahead. Very good. Thank you. Hello,
- my name is Seiforth Breeze. I wish to speak on the metrics.
- and suggests that a metric be included that captures transit in some way. So it could be worded something
- along the lines of what available transit resources already exist within half a mile or a mile of the
- current or of the perspective site. And the reason why I'm suggesting this is that considering like
- the North Park site, for example, when that was being considered a couple of years ago,
- actually went to Weld at Merr Park. And I walked to the North Park site and walked back to simulate
- the experience of somebody being released and having to walk to a place where there might be a bus station
- nearby. It was on a very hot summer day. There was bits of broken glass and other sort of refuse from
- cars that had lost things.
- it was a pretty uncomfortable walk, especially in some sections where it was very narrow on the sidewalks.
- I think choosing a site that has strong transit connections nearby, buses or bike lanes or things like
- that, it's important to have just a bullet list of what is there and how regularly they're being serviced.
- I think the last thing to consider there is how late. Circling back to one of the earlier metrics that
- was being discussed, the metric of services within proximity, I think that's actually an extremely important
- thing to keep in mind because when folks are released, I volunteer over at the Bloomington Bike Project.
- I've only been doing that for a couple of months at this stage, maybe five months, six months.
- And we've already had two people on the one day a week I come in who have come in asking if they can
- get a bike.
- because they've just been released. They don't have any other transit connections. They don't have a
- phone or someone that they can reach out to with that phone, and they're desperate for a way to start
- reaching all those other services. One of them in particular explicitly mentioned the fact that he needed
- the bike to be able to go to a shelter for the evening.
- we closed at like eight. And so it was a rush to get him a bike set up and ready to go to get him out
- the door. And so I think services are extremely important to consider when it comes to where these sites
- are, as well as transit. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Thank you for being here with us. Next. Hello.
- Hi there. My name is Zach Ammerman. I emailed a couple of you, the elected officials at least earlier
- with some comments, but I have some things I'd like to say too. One, I'd like for all the metrics that
- you're to consider. One, I'd like to see whether it's a metric or not, or whether it's one of the sites
- you consider or not, some public discussion of why you don't think renovation is an option. Because
- I've yet to see any serious or convincing public discussion from elected officials about why you think
- renovation isn't possible. Because to me, it seems like it's still an option. I've talked to other members
- of the public who feel the same way, that we've not heard anything convincing at all about why you can't
- do it yet. So whether or not that's adding it as a site or talking about in public on it in another
- forum, I don't know, but I'd like to see some discussion of that. The second one is to not use a specific
- number, 448 number of beds. Because to me, that's a huge increase based on the current number of beds
- that would put us in a very high number of beds for our population.
- and instead maybe look at a range of different options. For example, if you had 200 beds versus 300
- beds versus 400 or whatever, how that would change the other metrics. I think it's always better to
- give yourself options like that. If you did like 50 percent, 75 percent of 448 or something like that,
- that might be good. It looks like you're not doing this based on the current metrics, but I still want
- to repeat this anyway because this was included. The last time there was a major study of this done,
- they looked at one of the things they mentioned on many of the sites was whether or not future expansion
- of the jail was possible on this site.
- future expansion of the jail on the site is a bad thing. I want to constrain the future expansion of
- the jail because I don't want to increase incarceration in this county. It looks like you're not considering
- that on the metrics now. I think that's a good thing because I think we should be trying to constrain
- future incarceration rates. That's good. Also, I think another good metric you could potentially include
- would be to record whether the site would be an infill, brownfield, or greenfield development.
- green field development is lower than the others, because we should be trying to increase density. And
- when you have to go out, it's more expensive, green field development is more expensive, and it increases
- sprawl. So I think if you look at encouraging infill development is better, I think that would be a
- better option. And it's something that you could consider. And then another thing in that same vein,
- to measure the total acreage of the site in question and measure smaller sites is better, I think. Because
- again, about trying to increase compactness and discourage sprawl and increase density. So that's the
- main things I had to add. Thank you.
- Thank you. Anyone else here from the public or maybe online? Is there anybody online? No, you said I
- don't see anybody. Thank you. Any other public comment from the people that are here in the room? Now
- we've got on our agenda the finalization of metrics.
- I respond to some of the things brought up in public comment. My understanding of the Curry building
- is that it's potentially an expansion of the Zitlow Justice Center. Is that the rest of our understandings?
- What do you mean by that? It is my understanding that it can be. There is potential.
- to expand the jail where the Curry building is with the potential of then moving inmates over there
- while we renovate the other. That does bring into question what renovation is really feasible in the
- old, the existing jail. We can call it the old jail. I think we all agree with that.
- The primary argument or I guess the primary reasoning that I've been given why renovations can't happen
- is that it's a size issue. And so I'm just curious if the Curry building would solve that issue. I don't,
- to be fair, I do not know what the other renovations are that are needed. So that's why I'm asking.
- Actually have something that might help.
- If I could. I'd like to include this. I know we don't have time to read it today, but maybe we could
- add it to things that we can include for discussion as we're including our site evaluation.
- For the public, what I'm reading is, I actually got a copy of this. It's ACLU Indiana December 29th,
- 2025 letter by Ken Falk. In the confines of this letter, it highlights some of the portions of the Ken
- Ray study and other items that specifically look on page three. This assessment identified 53 problem areas.
- So we're getting into this space question. I think one that might help our conversations when we start
- doing site evaluation and when we get to any of the sites, including Curry. But this also might be helpful
- to get a sense of some of the discussion with Ken Falk that's more recent regarding
- the jail situation. This was a December 29, 2025 letter. I found it actually at the B Square Bulletin,
- January 8, 2026 letter. I'm just going to hand a copy to Michelle, which I apologize, I failed you on
- that last time.
- also provided a copy to county legal in case the letters incomplete but I could include the letter maybe
- this will help with our future discussion including about curry thank you okay we have anybody from
- over here that wants to expand or add to this this letter or anything else related to the current jail
- that might be valuable to get out here
- we include outdoor recreation and evacuation area in our. No, we decided that it was a universal need
- that that had been determined it would go on the cover sheet. One more comment and it is about beds.
- I think we need to be careful, especially as a blue community in a red state to not add too many beds.
- because my worst nightmare is we have extra space and that extra space gets automatically sucked up
- by ice. I would like to be very careful that we do not allow that extra space to happen. But I do appreciate
- where the number came from, but I'm not convinced that that's the right number.
- What else? And Becky, you look like you have something to say now. Can I suggest that we add? I'm thinking
- of how logistically to do this.
- The second column next to the current curry building that would be the possibility of. Renovation of
- the existing facilities and adding curry. So we look at those two possibilities separately. But include
- the potential renovation. It's a great idea. Thank you curry the way it is and then add the combined
- right correct.
- with the assumption that there's some feasibility to put everything needed for the jail at Curry. Yes.
- That makes sense over there to the editors of the document. Okay. Since we're adding properties, I left
- off Fullerton unintentionally. Oh. Could I? I apologize. I wanted to make sure we added that.
- I thought that we probably needed to add Hopewell one and Hopewell two and a North Park one and two
- only because I've heard it talked about North Park was described at the last meeting as two different
- sections. And I didn't want to speak about them singular way because I think I didn't want to be misleading
- once I learned that. And Hopewell- Let me recap. You're talking about adding Fullerton, Hopewell one
- and two and was there something else?
- North Park one and two. Is it North Park on this list here? It is, but in council, an attorney Cockrell's
- explanation last meeting, he shared that there are actually two different North Park particles that
- were evaluated. And I just wanted to make sure that we were North Park one and two then. Okay. Different
- ones, yeah. All right. I'll just note back to our mission that we are to evaluate
- sites within city limits. North Park does not meet that criteria. They also said three to four, which
- I think we're trying to be comprehensive. So that's why I was just trying to be as accurate as possible
- of all the sites that were. We're to shout Mayor Thompson's right. We're three or four properties within
- the city limits is pretty clear what our charges there. I don't see how North Park would fit that.
- The consideration would just be if you want to look at, if you want to hold the existing North Park
- so that the community can compare what we're looking at within city limits with the assumption that
- we will not be, we won't be recommending it because it's not our charge to do so. Using it as a comparison
- piece. It might go to the far right, make it the furthest right column.
- I just did it alphabetical, so whatever. And then Hopewell one and two. Is Hopewell one singular property,
- or? Hopewell is many properties. We now have Hopewell south platted. Well, not platted, but we have
- zoning approval, and it's going to plat. So that's off the table. We have east and west left.
- I know we have a screening question, is the owner willing to sell the property? So I think that's where
- your comment, I just, I didn't realize that there were different sections of Hopewell. And I thought
- maybe there might be other people who are encountering the list, would like to know the location and
- sections. Yeah, the RDC has not been approached about that recently, but they declined earlier. It's
- my understanding. There may be somebody in the room who can correct me on that.
- hand raised up here on the screen, right? And are we ready to hear from that person? Did I look when
- there was, was that person hand raised and I missed it? I'm concerned about that. I might've missed
- it. I don't know. They weren't on there earlier. They weren't on there during public comment? No, they
- were not. All right, thank you for keeping track of that for me.
- I mean, thank you. You've got public comment coming up later. There'll be another round of public comment
- number eight. Thank you for that also. Okay, great. Are we at any point where we can finalize the metrics
- at this point? I move for the finalization of the metrics as amended. Mr. King's amendments. Yes. Yes.
- There is a second. I second.
- that. It's been moved and seconded to accept the finalized amendments based on Ms. Turner King's capture
- of those. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, so now we've got our metrics as far as I can tell.
- We did agree to add that site. That was in Ms. Turner King's edits. Combo, Curry, and existing.
- I added Fullerton, North Park 1, and North Park 2. And renovations of current building with Curry. On
- column now? Okay. Thank you. Yes, I thought we were only doing one North Park, which was the existing
- and only for comparison. But we did not vote on that. It was simply my comment.
- If so, we've accepted them so far. Is there any further changes? We may need another motion if there's
- more changes that need to be made. We can see them. We're gonna accept or we're gonna continue to review
- or what here? Move to accept as amended. Agreed. So what we just talked about again, right? Yes. With
- Mayor Thompson's clarification.
- And so there's a motion and a second, who's seconding? I'll second. All right, thank you. And all those
- in favor of the final amendment of the revision to the metrics, say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. All right,
- I think we have it now. Okay, so identify properties, which is the deadline of the submission of the
- new properties.
- Would you kind of explain where we're headed with that, Ms. Turner-King? What did you think that meant
- on the agenda here? In discussing the agenda with Chairperson Feidl on Friday, she was suggesting that
- if there's going to be the addition of properties, that there should be a deadline for such so that
- you don't get halfway through the matrix and then a new property comes.
- When would we like to have all the submissions that anyone has submitted, right? Think about our timeline
- here, we need to have. Can we have the timeline up on the screen? Possibly. Yes, what we're discussing
- at each meeting in order to set a deadline.
- So I'm displaying the calendar that Miss Wilson prepared. Yeah. Zoom way and Molly so we can see the
- actual calendar and not that. Oh, there's a paper copy here. That's. So it appears that we are
- supposed to begin site evaluations today and continue them Wednesday. I would say, realistically, we're
- probably not going to get a lot of data between now and Wednesday anyway. Could we have a Thursday deadline,
- like Thursday noon, for folks to submit alternative sites?
- so that we can get those before the holiday. From staff, deadline by noon on Thursday to submit alternative
- sites with the holidays on Friday. It looks like you will continue site evaluations on the 6th and complete them on
- the ninth. So if we, I don't know if that gives us enough time. I guess in my mind, I'm thinking of
- Thursday, and it's gonna push a meeting in quite a while. So, you know, if the deadline is noon, I'm
- not if if I receive them, I'm not going to get them processed till much later in the day, right? Much
- more open schedule on Thursday, just going to be
- for meeting. How about Wednesday noon? That we actually could see them at our meeting even. Discuss
- whether or not to add them. You set the deadline and we'll do our best to get you the information as
- soon as we can afterwards. Understood, yeah. Is Wednesday noon a more realistic deadline for you?
- I think it would be easier to get it turned around quickly. Okay, let's do that. So let's do that. I
- move we set the deadline for submissions of additional sites to noon Wednesday, July 1. Second. Okay.
- And if I could just direct everyone who's listening and wants to submit it that there is a form on the
- county's website where you can submit that your request and we would ask that you utilize that method
- It's on this committee's web page, correct? And it's on the front page of the... It's on the front page,
- okay. On the front page of the county website. You can get it to both places, but you open up the front
- page and it's like one of the first set of big blue boxes. Great, thank you. And what is that blue box
- called? Do you remember on the site? Subcommittee. The name of this committee's... Collaborative Justice
- Project. Collaborative Justice Project. Subcommittee, yeah.
- So look for that. And then there should be a place for comment there. Is that what we're saying? OK.
- All right. So we've got that done. Begin site evaluations. I don't know how long we want this meeting
- to go tonight. I don't know. I haven't heard anybody say they have to leave. But I would just move that
- we don't have enough data to start evaluating sites tonight. And so I would move that we
- move that discussion item from the agenda second. Okay so now we're back to public comment so we still
- have public here anybody want to come up and speak now before we adjourn. That's right so we have a
- JF it looks like online and there's two and I see so JF was first so if we can allow
- They should be able to unmute now, I think. Yeah. So we have- JF. Good evening. I just wanted to- Can
- you state your name, please? Oh, sorry. Sorry. I'm Jamie Ford. I'm a Monroe County resident. Thank you.
- I just wanted to suggest that everything be released through no fault of this particular committee.
- It seems like you're starting all over.
- but Commissioner Thomas in the May 12th meeting said that work had been done. I think it would be interesting
- to see what they claim to have done. Also in just the spirit of transparency because Commissioner Madera
- said they had done due diligence, but they had also said that they hadn't. So I know I'm the type of
- person that I would comb through all of that just to see what they have done historically for all of
- this versus
- Now, if that's possible. Again, I'm not blaming anybody in this committee. I appreciate the work you're
- doing. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Then maybe back to the room this
- time. We're going to alternate. Please state your name and then tell us what you want us to hear. Hi,
- I'm Jeff Richardson. I'm glad to be here. Thank you all for doing this.
- meeting and doing it cooperatively, modeling good behavior with local government. So thank you. Just
- one minor thing. I've been following this quite carefully and I must say that I had to be told what
- the Collaborative Justice Coalition meant. So I would just make a plea for the public, at least one public
- person to use language that people understand. So if this is the language you've adopted, then I would
- suggest in parens, get the darn jail built committee or something like that so people know what it is
- that, especially with this very short timeline that you're asking people to get in. So just in your
- communications, and I know Dave and others have really
- worked hard to do that. But just generally speaking, especially with the HD having a day delay, just
- something that explains what this committee is in language that people can get, embrace, and then act
- on. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And we have someone else online. So we did.
- Is it still there? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Sure. Yes.
- So please, I think you should be able to speak, EF. EF, can you hear me? Can you unmute? It says it
- looks like you're muted, EF, so maybe you can unmute and try to chime in here. An inadvertent hand raise.
- And they're there. Okay. So I need to be requesting they unmute me. That was what they might be doing.
- So let's see if they can still want to speak.
- I think we have waited a little bit here, so I think we may be done with public comment in person and
- online. And maybe EF will chime in next time. So I think we're going to call this adjourned, if that
- works for everybody. So I think we're adjourned. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you for
- working with us. Our next meeting. Our next meeting's online.
- That's right. Our next meeting is on Wednesday. Thank you for the reminder. At 6 p.m. And our famous
- name is the Collaborative Justice Project Working Subcommittee.