WEBVTT 00:00:00.610 --> 00:00:06.391 - Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order. I'm Liz Fiddle. I'm the county council appointed 00:00:06.391 --> 00:00:12.172 - person for this subcommittee, which is the Collaborative Justice Project Working Subcommittee. And I'd 00:00:12.172 --> 00:00:17.898 - like to introduce my colleagues that are here so far. And one will come in shortly. So we have Sydney 00:00:17.898 --> 00:00:23.903 - Zulek, who is the Bloomington Common Council representative. We have April Wilson, who is the prosecutor's 00:00:23.903 --> 00:00:29.628 - office representative. And we have Karen Renbeck, who is the public defender's office representative. 00:00:29.628 --> 00:00:30.302 - So welcome. 00:00:31.074 --> 00:00:38.401 - So we need to adopt the agenda. So I presume you all can see the agenda that was at your place settings 00:00:38.401 --> 00:00:45.729 - here. So any comment on that? Or shall we just get right into adopting it? There was one thing I wanted 00:00:45.729 --> 00:00:52.845 - to ask. If we could move out public comment before the finalization of the metrics. I wasn't sure if 00:00:52.845 --> 00:00:58.622 - public comments was reviewing ones we'd received or allowing the public to share. 00:01:00.802 --> 00:01:07.530 - Was public comment there to review the ones we'd already received or to allow? So we're going to talk 00:01:07.530 --> 00:01:14.259 - about the resolution of the rules, right? And then further down is the metrics. And so public comment 00:01:14.259 --> 00:01:21.515 - is there. And so you're suggesting putting it where? I just wanted to make sure the public had an opportunity 00:01:21.515 --> 00:01:28.111 - to comment on the metrics prior to any finalization. And I wasn't sure if 5B was only our review of 00:01:28.111 --> 00:01:30.750 - public comments we received or allowed. 00:01:31.106 --> 00:01:39.814 - It seems to me that it does appear before finalization. Am I reading that correctly? Is that what you're 00:01:39.814 --> 00:01:48.356 - advocating for? Yes, I only saw it in eight. Okay, but there is public comments there under 5B, right? 00:01:48.356 --> 00:01:57.395 - Okay, so we are opening that part to the public. Thank you. Is that my understanding? 5B is public comments? 00:01:57.395 --> 00:01:59.966 - I believe that was the intent. 00:02:00.162 --> 00:02:06.100 - Yeah, and so then under, she's questioning then under eight, she wants to make sure that five B would 00:02:06.100 --> 00:02:12.213 - come before the finalization of the metrics, the public comment. That's how it's depicted on the agenda. 00:02:12.213 --> 00:02:18.152 - That's what I thought. Yeah. Thank you. Were you just asking if the public comments were referring to 00:02:18.152 --> 00:02:24.148 - written comments versus verbal comments? Yes. Okay. I think we should do verbal comments at five B and 00:02:24.148 --> 00:02:29.854 - eight. Perfect. Thank you. Great. That's what my question was. Thanks. Okay. So I'm assuming both 00:02:30.114 --> 00:02:39.063 - public comments refers to public comments at five B and eight. All right, anything else on the agenda? 00:02:39.063 --> 00:02:47.752 - All right, we'll adopt the agenda. Do I do a voice vote? Voice vote. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. 00:02:47.752 --> 00:02:56.788 - Thank you. All in favor was unanimous. All right, so we have a resolution on public comment rules. I'll 00:02:56.788 --> 00:02:58.526 - let Ms. Turner King 00:02:58.626 --> 00:03:12.809 - 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 00:03:12.809 --> 00:03:27.966 - well we drafted it in with Mr. Allen, who I believe is online. But it designates that the subcommittee has a 00:03:28.354 --> 00:03:34.586 - designated time for public comment. It's not to exceed three minutes that speakers wishing to give a 00:03:34.586 --> 00:03:40.818 - public comment must do so from the podium. They may not approach the seated area of the subcommittee 00:03:40.818 --> 00:03:47.051 - without permission of the chair. Comments are statements to be directed at the committee. It's not a 00:03:47.051 --> 00:03:53.468 - back and forth question and answer exchange. And then it outlines that comment should be civil and what 00:03:53.468 --> 00:03:55.998 - would happen if comments were not civil. 00:03:58.178 --> 00:04:06.507 - And then in the part in the section. I'm a little privileged here so below where it says now therefore 00:04:06.507 --> 00:04:14.837 - be resolved that next section it says the subcommittee values and then it says and the voices it seems 00:04:14.837 --> 00:04:23.328 - like there's something missing there's a little verbiage missing or is it just me. I think it's a strike 00:04:23.328 --> 00:04:27.614 - of the word and. Well we need to do something there. 00:04:29.410 --> 00:04:37.729 - would agree strike and then it would say if we stroke and it would say the subcommittee values the voices 00:04:37.729 --> 00:04:45.577 - instead of the subcommittee values and the voices that what we have in mind there you see where I'm 00:04:45.577 --> 00:04:53.817 - talking about so right here you're looking at the form the subcommittee values so it's right right below 00:04:53.817 --> 00:04:58.526 - now and after values I think that comes out right well that 00:04:58.690 --> 00:05:06.550 - take care of the problem and how it reads? Makes it more clear, I think, right? Yes. Okay, let's take 00:05:06.550 --> 00:05:14.026 - out and. So we need to vote on that. Maybe all those in favor of taking out and in that section? 00:05:14.026 --> 00:05:21.809 - Seeing none, saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, so we're gonna take that up. Do we not need motions? Do 00:05:21.809 --> 00:05:25.662 - I make a motion or can I ask if all are in favor? 00:05:27.266 --> 00:05:34.706 - There should be a motion to adopt. Okay, so I'll take a motion to strike and. I moved to strike and 00:05:34.706 --> 00:05:42.518 - and adopt the resolution on public comment rules as amended. All right, second. All right, now all those 00:05:42.518 --> 00:05:50.032 - in favor, you can tell I don't do this every day. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Okay, thank you. 00:05:50.032 --> 00:05:55.166 - So now we have the electronic attendance policy for public meetings. 00:05:56.194 --> 00:06:05.173 - Then there is a resolution on electronic meeting procedures. So anything there that we want to highlight, 00:06:05.173 --> 00:06:14.492 - it was in the packet, right? A copy of the resolution has been provided in the package. These were discussed, 00:06:14.492 --> 00:06:22.878 - these guidelines were discussed at the last meeting. It would allow members of the subcommittee to 00:06:23.010 --> 00:06:30.306 - participate electronically however only one member of the subcommittee can participate electronically 00:06:30.306 --> 00:06:37.816 - and it calls for 48-hour notice of any member who does want to participate electronically so if a member 00:06:37.816 --> 00:06:45.041 - wants to participate electronically they give notice to the council office and that's really just so 00:06:45.041 --> 00:06:51.550 - that we can confirm a quorum I'm answer discussion about this their emotion to accept this 00:06:52.226 --> 00:07:02.262 - latest document under now therefore be it resolved number one second line procedure set forth in also 00:07:02.262 --> 00:07:12.199 - strike and and just for procedural sake there is no exhibit a attached exhibit a would have been the 00:07:12.199 --> 00:07:17.118 - IC code did we include that in the public when we 00:07:18.370 --> 00:07:28.131 - Exhibit a was inadvertently not included in the packet, but it is the IC code So we're gonna leave that 00:07:28.131 --> 00:07:37.609 - the way it is or okay Anything else so you wanted to do an and also there? Where was the end in your 00:07:37.609 --> 00:07:42.302 - proposal there the second line of number one? and 00:07:42.594 --> 00:07:52.091 - Yes, so that one removed so I'm happy to move to remove and and also to adopt this resolution Second 00:07:52.091 --> 00:08:01.682 - all right. We have a motion and a second all those in favor of adopting this Electronic attendance of 00:08:01.682 --> 00:08:08.734 - policy say aye Excuse me who seconded? Thank you And all those any opposed 00:08:12.194 --> 00:08:21.964 - So the discussion of the metrics. So we are on duty here to talk about, as a committee, these metrics 00:08:21.964 --> 00:08:32.021 - for the project here. So who wants to lead us off here? Happy to start with just a brief overview, maybe 00:08:32.021 --> 00:08:42.174 - for people who weren't able to make the last meeting. All right. Hi. Yes, we're welcoming Mayor Thompson. 00:08:43.010 --> 00:08:50.780 - So first, thank you to whoever created the subcommittee website. It has the Monroe County site evaluation 00:08:50.780 --> 00:08:58.404 - metrics that I'm referring to. So in the June 11th, 2026 meeting of the County Council and City Council 00:08:58.404 --> 00:09:06.175 - that ended up forming the subcommittee, Commissioner Madeira referenced six factors and she also included 00:09:06.175 --> 00:09:07.934 - some questions. This is 00:09:08.098 --> 00:09:14.663 - I'm trying to take those subcategories with some liberties. I've added some questions and try to come 00:09:14.663 --> 00:09:21.485 - up with those concrete questions so we can take a more methodical, comprehensive, and transparent process 00:09:21.485 --> 00:09:27.921 - as we're trying to evaluate sites. I did take a little bit of liberty with site ownership. I called 00:09:27.921 --> 00:09:34.614 - it site profile. So there's a bit of some changes in names and additions of questions. And I also added 00:09:34.614 --> 00:09:35.966 - screening questions. 00:09:36.450 --> 00:09:42.297 - I in this I've included to is the property in a floodway, which is I know something we have to talk 00:09:42.297 --> 00:09:48.203 - about that term and is the owner willing to sell the property. The intent of the screening questions 00:09:48.203 --> 00:09:54.050 - is to have some questions that may eliminate properties that. For example, if it's illegal to be in 00:09:54.050 --> 00:09:58.494 - a floodplain that we won't be spending time on those particular properties. 00:09:58.754 --> 00:10:05.324 - We did the site evaluation metrics. They were open to the public. I know we hopefully have some public 00:10:05.324 --> 00:10:11.766 - comments on that, both verbally and written today. And then I know as the committee, we were allowed 00:10:11.766 --> 00:10:18.272 - to submit some recommendations. That's where we are right now. And then Chair Feidl. Well, let's see. 00:10:18.272 --> 00:10:24.715 - Do others have any comments before we can delve in a little further? Or that's her overview. Anybody 00:10:24.715 --> 00:10:28.478 - else have an overview they'd like to share before we delve 00:10:30.210 --> 00:10:41.384 - Okay, one metric. All right. Or I think so. Okay, I'm just wondering, under the first one under operational 00:10:41.384 --> 00:10:52.144 - adequacy, what is the reasoning behind 448 beds? Thank you. I'm glad you brought that up. So I actually 00:10:52.144 --> 00:10:57.214 - one of my recommendations that I made, I sent it 00:10:57.666 --> 00:11:04.713 - to one of the county attorneys is I think that question should first of all be split up into two separate 00:11:04.713 --> 00:11:11.893 - questions. One adequate space for 448 beds and two adequate space for a single floor jail. So just focusing 00:11:11.893 --> 00:11:16.414 - on the number 448 beds I got from actually the Kenray study report. 00:11:17.378 --> 00:11:25.797 - If you look on page 62, there's finding 10, and it says a 30-year bed capacity estimate indicates that 00:11:25.797 --> 00:11:33.970 - Monroe County needs 448 to 450 jail beds by the year 2049. So that's where I got the number. I went 00:11:33.970 --> 00:11:42.552 - with the lower of the two that was in the Kenray study. And the reason that I included a specific number 00:11:42.552 --> 00:11:45.086 - is as we're evaluating a site, 00:11:45.186 --> 00:11:52.908 - going to have to be able to evaluate size and whether or not the county council and commissioners decide 00:11:52.908 --> 00:12:00.336 - to build I think you've mentioned 200 beds whether or not they decide to build 200 beds 300 beds 400 00:12:00.336 --> 00:12:06.366 - or more in the next five and 20 years you would need adequate space to be able to 00:12:07.778 --> 00:12:16.554 - So I wasn't trying to make a determination on how many beds there were. I was trying to focus on what 00:12:16.554 --> 00:12:25.245 - is a number based on information that we have and data that we can use to try to adequately evaluate 00:12:25.245 --> 00:12:34.107 - site square footage. Okay. I have other comments on other criteria when we're ready, but. We're on the 00:12:34.107 --> 00:12:35.742 - metrics right now. 00:12:36.322 --> 00:12:43.275 - You have an overview? I don't have an overview when you're ready for more detailed feedback. 00:12:43.275 --> 00:12:50.827 - I have some. The first is that I think under Defensible to Court, it's my understanding that we have 00:12:50.827 --> 00:12:58.453 - missed all of the court's deadlines already. And we might consider changing that criteria to earliest 00:12:58.453 --> 00:13:05.182 - possible groundbreaking date or something of the sort. Because I think every one of these 00:13:05.762 --> 00:13:18.003 - can't check that box at this point, and so we'll have to, that may be a scoring rubric or something 00:13:18.003 --> 00:13:30.611 - like that. The other piece that I thought on the site profile, I think access to utilities is probably 00:13:30.611 --> 00:13:35.262 - pretty key. If they're already there, 00:13:36.834 --> 00:13:44.798 - It's a much faster route to closing. So I would probably add that under site profile. And that was access 00:13:44.798 --> 00:13:52.611 - to utilities? Yeah, all utilities. All utilities, okay. And Mayor, could I add to what you were just... 00:13:52.611 --> 00:14:00.200 - I think that's a perfect one. But there's a couple questions. Could we add sub-questions to that? So 00:14:00.200 --> 00:14:05.534 - does site have utilities? And then as a sub-question, which utilities? 00:14:05.698 --> 00:14:13.473 - If missing utility access, what process would need to occur to secure remaining utilities? How long 00:14:13.473 --> 00:14:21.403 - will that process take, and how much will this cost? Wondering if we could add those as sub-questions 00:14:21.403 --> 00:14:29.022 - to your suggestion. Do I meanable to that suggestion? Yes. Anybody else have anything about that? 00:14:36.322 --> 00:14:43.064 - or specifics? I don't know who's maintaining the draft version of this, but I think it would be helpful 00:14:43.064 --> 00:14:49.612 - to number all of these, too. Just number them one through however many there are, so that when we're 00:14:49.612 --> 00:14:56.160 - going through these metrics, we can refer to numbers instead of maybe the sections. I don't know who 00:14:56.160 --> 00:15:02.837 - over there, someone over there, I think maybe has a draft version. Just for maybe the next round, then 00:15:02.837 --> 00:15:06.014 - we can number 20 or number 25 or whatever it is. 00:15:06.882 --> 00:15:16.372 - Is that something that someone over here in our table has access to to update like she's suggesting. 00:15:16.372 --> 00:15:26.613 - I can pull up the Excel document and start editing OK. An additional question for the group, not necessarily 00:15:26.613 --> 00:15:36.478 - a suggestion. Do we want metric on whether or not the site would accommodate the jail on a single floor? 00:15:38.434 --> 00:15:49.926 - be a yes no it's it's not clear to me from recent interactions whether or not that is actually required 00:15:49.926 --> 00:16:01.087 - but would be good to have on a so the plan to split those two questions yes and I I'm glad thank you 00:16:01.087 --> 00:16:04.734 - mayor and thank you miss so like 00:16:04.930 --> 00:16:14.155 - I do think for the question under operational adequacy, adequate usable space for a single-floor jail 00:16:14.155 --> 00:16:23.742 - for 448 beds, if we could split that up to adequate space for 448 beds, adequate space for a single-floor 00:16:23.742 --> 00:16:32.606 - jail. I think that would get at the... I get that. Yep, okay. We have a couple other suggestions. 00:16:33.090 --> 00:16:41.296 - interesting to edit your own document, but if I could, under operational adequacy, will the site require 00:16:41.296 --> 00:16:49.189 - the jail to have elevators? Or question? Well, and I know you could also discuss whether or not some 00:16:49.189 --> 00:16:57.317 - of the justice services, there'll be multiple floors and not the jail, but do you think instead of just 00:16:57.317 --> 00:17:00.990 - keeping that in the same floor, Joe, question? 00:17:02.466 --> 00:17:08.278 - I don't think you need a separate question for elevators. And let's just remind us of our focus here 00:17:08.278 --> 00:17:14.032 - on this group. So I'm just going to read this. So we're all on the same page there, because I think 00:17:14.032 --> 00:17:19.844 - there may be some concern about how specific we're getting on the building itself. So we're supposed 00:17:19.844 --> 00:17:25.252 - to serve in an advisory role to help facilitate the identification of a possible location for 00:17:25.252 --> 00:17:31.582 - the construction of a new correctional center, justice center, and to identify the procedural steps necessary 00:17:31.714 --> 00:17:39.019 - Shall evaluate excuse me shall evaluate three to four properties within the city limits and recommend 00:17:39.019 --> 00:17:46.181 - one location to the larger group So that's our focus and so we some of these things. I I'm not sure 00:17:46.181 --> 00:17:53.343 - that There's consensus on whether or not their determinants to identify the site I'll just say that 00:17:53.343 --> 00:18:01.150 - So other than elevators and not adding that what about will the site have access to adequate public parking? 00:18:05.890 --> 00:18:12.778 - space for a Sally port for buses, space for outdoor recreation, and space for an evacuation area? I 00:18:12.778 --> 00:18:19.736 - thought those questions might go to site. What are your thoughts? Well, I don't know. It seems to me 00:18:19.736 --> 00:18:26.762 - like when the design people get involved, so to speak, that that's kind of a design thing in my mind, 00:18:26.762 --> 00:18:33.788 - right? No? How we could possibly, like, give a recommendation for one property without answering most 00:18:33.788 --> 00:18:35.166 - of these questions. 00:18:37.250 --> 00:18:43.819 - And I don't know that we have the answers to most of these questions. Maybe that's a bit of the problem 00:18:43.819 --> 00:18:50.135 - also, right? Well, so just focusing on the last two, outdoor recreation and evacuation area. One of 00:18:50.135 --> 00:18:56.451 - the concerns that I currently have for the justice building and the jail is an inadequate emergency 00:18:56.451 --> 00:19:03.210 - space when there's, for example, a gas leak, which has happened, and fire trucks show up. And I'm standing 00:19:03.210 --> 00:19:06.494 - outside the building, and inmates are still inside. 00:19:06.594 --> 00:19:14.279 - And I think what we do have from the North Park location is that they have done square footage estimates. 00:19:14.279 --> 00:19:21.602 - So we can use those numbers and be able not making a judgment on them, but use those and apply those 00:19:21.602 --> 00:19:28.997 - to the specific sites that we have. And I think outdoor recreation came up quite frequently in public 00:19:28.997 --> 00:19:36.030 - concern. And I'm worried about the emergency access. So a clarifying question, have all of those 00:19:38.210 --> 00:19:49.673 - Um. Services and facilities been incorporated into agreed upon minimum square footage. And if so, I 00:19:49.673 --> 00:20:01.136 - think we could have the simple criteria of does can the site accommodate this many square feet in a 00:20:01.136 --> 00:20:07.326 - building? Much better wording. I was basing it off of 00:20:07.554 --> 00:20:13.012 - There were two different presentations that were made to the county council and county commissioners 00:20:13.012 --> 00:20:18.416 - regarding site design, one in February of 25 and an additional one on August 29th of 2025. That was 00:20:18.416 --> 00:20:23.982 - actually one of the questions I had because they specifically outlined a place for an emergency access 00:20:23.982 --> 00:20:29.764 - and outdoor recreation. So I think the numbers exist somewhere. And if we phrase it like you're suggesting 00:20:29.764 --> 00:20:32.574 - it, I absolutely think we can answer that question. 00:20:38.914 --> 00:20:46.643 - if we have that data, we have the data, I'm sure, somewhere, right? I know we have the square footage 00:20:46.643 --> 00:20:54.372 - of the building part, and I know we had a square footage. The North Park design incorporated the area 00:20:54.372 --> 00:21:02.253 - that was going to be the expansion area. If they had to expand the capacity of the jail, put in another 00:21:02.253 --> 00:21:08.542 - couple of pods, they had used that area to put in the outdoor rec in the emergency 00:21:10.018 --> 00:21:17.305 - payment area. So we certainly can get those numbers. Or I think the jail area and then when I say jail, 00:21:17.305 --> 00:21:24.593 - I'm talking jail, jail staff, sheriff's department space, I think we could probably figure out how much 00:21:24.593 --> 00:21:32.020 - of that is the sheriff's department space, but I don't think we want to break out the jail administration 00:21:32.020 --> 00:21:39.518 - space. So I think we can get those numbers and then also the numbers for the rest of the justice facility. 00:21:39.938 --> 00:21:45.706 - And with some time, there might be a way to kind of parse out per department how much each department 00:21:45.706 --> 00:21:51.361 - has. I know we have those numbers somewhere, but I don't know if they were the number. I don't know 00:21:51.361 --> 00:21:57.073 - if the numbers were for the final design or kind of the, we went through these meetings with each of 00:21:57.073 --> 00:22:02.841 - the departments to figure out what kind of space they needed and all those kinds of things. I know we 00:22:02.841 --> 00:22:08.496 - had numbers at that point, and then it kind of fluctuated a little bit based upon budget and things 00:22:08.496 --> 00:22:09.118 - like that. 00:22:09.282 --> 00:22:15.357 - And so I don't know if we had a final, final version. Well, we didn't have a final, final version, because 00:22:15.357 --> 00:22:21.035 - we didn't have a final, final version of anything. But I don't know if we had an up-to-date version 00:22:21.035 --> 00:22:27.223 - of a per department for the justice side. Right. OK, so what you have, could that be submitted and available 00:22:27.223 --> 00:22:33.071 - to us before the next session, right? I think the square footage, I mean, I think you probably already 00:22:33.071 --> 00:22:38.238 - have it. But we can go ahead and figure and highlight that out. Yeah, that would be great. 00:22:38.498 --> 00:22:45.864 - Is that what you're seeking now? Yes. OK. And you have, in that vein, you were talking about questions 00:22:45.864 --> 00:22:53.444 - that maybe more on point for the site. I think there are some questions that I have that should be edited 00:22:53.444 --> 00:23:00.667 - to address that concern, actually. It's under fiscal path. There's a series of questions. That's how 00:23:00.667 --> 00:23:06.174 - much will it cost to build jail, the Sheriff's Office, court justice system. 00:23:06.466 --> 00:23:13.765 - I think to try to address your concern, Chair Feidl, about trying to stay focused on the site, could 00:23:13.765 --> 00:23:21.208 - we use the square footage question instead there and change those questions to say, what is the square 00:23:21.208 --> 00:23:28.652 - footage of the proposed jail and jail administration, proposed sheriff's office, proposed core justice 00:23:28.652 --> 00:23:33.566 - system, et cetera, and then move those questions really to the site 00:23:35.714 --> 00:23:47.015 - So the new questions under operational adequacy. And then we'll be able to use those numbers to evaluate 00:23:47.015 --> 00:23:58.317 - further questions down in the operational adequacy section. Shift those to how many square feet in each? 00:23:58.317 --> 00:24:04.990 - Versus cost. Versus cost. I would suggest that if we do that, 00:24:05.186 --> 00:24:17.465 - then add under fiscal path any fiscal considerations for additional site development on each of these. 00:24:17.465 --> 00:24:29.386 - Almost always hard to anticipate, but some things we do know will be, we know about sites and so if 00:24:29.386 --> 00:24:34.750 - they're particularly karst heavy, et cetera, 00:24:34.914 --> 00:24:45.744 - they could be significantly more expensive in site development. I think we can assume apples to apples 00:24:45.744 --> 00:24:56.679 - on per square footage development of single story and per square footage, a separate per square footage 00:24:56.679 --> 00:25:01.726 - on multi-story. That makes sense to folks here. 00:25:03.074 --> 00:25:10.248 - Do you recommend to do one singular item or multiple items? So for example, the North Park included 00:25:10.248 --> 00:25:17.421 - a topographical survey, two different environmental surveys, a geotechnical, would you want to line 00:25:17.421 --> 00:25:24.667 - item or just include a group question? Yeah, I don't think that we will have time to do all of those 00:25:24.667 --> 00:25:32.414 - studies on all of these sites. And so I think we should just go with known entity. So for instance, we know 00:25:32.546 --> 00:25:41.844 - One of the sites needs major power lines moved. That probably has a fiscal implication. So known significant 00:25:41.844 --> 00:25:45.598 - site development costs is what I'd itemize. 00:25:58.882 --> 00:26:06.514 - under the committee member comments. Anybody have anything additional about the metrics here? Could 00:26:06.514 --> 00:26:14.300 - we add a location or address under site profile? Explain to me where you want that to work and what's 00:26:14.300 --> 00:26:21.932 - that going to look like. So under site profile, I see there the very first question just simply say 00:26:21.932 --> 00:26:25.214 - location or address. Sometimes I feel like 00:26:25.538 --> 00:26:31.148 - When I'm talking to people about the jail project, they're like, well, where is that property? And I 00:26:31.148 --> 00:26:36.869 - was hopeful that long-term, the public would have one place to go and know at least the general region 00:26:36.869 --> 00:26:42.478 - that we're referring to. So you're asking maybe for whatever the location is to include the address? 00:26:42.478 --> 00:26:48.199 - Is that what you're suggesting? Yes. OK, I think we could probably do that. Is that agreeable from our 00:26:48.199 --> 00:26:54.142 - staff over here? We could add the address to this metrics of the properties, whatever properties they are. 00:26:55.938 --> 00:27:06.829 - I can end it. Thank you. Any suggestions? I would like some guidance on one that I left in as a placeholder, 00:27:06.829 --> 00:27:17.020 - but maybe we should strike it, was under operational adequacy. The very last question was distance to 00:27:17.020 --> 00:27:23.614 - services. My thought process of that, I will tell you, is because 00:27:24.194 --> 00:27:29.605 - frequently on the way to work, I go buy a beacon and I know people are having breakfast. And I know 00:27:29.605 --> 00:27:35.016 - that they also sometimes their individuals have to make it to day reporting by a specific time. And 00:27:35.016 --> 00:27:40.589 - I was just concerned about, I don't want anyone to have to choose between breakfast and make it to day 00:27:40.589 --> 00:27:46.379 - reporting. So that's why I put this question in. The challenge is, is we also can't pick specific services 00:27:46.379 --> 00:27:51.790 - because there's not one specific location and services move. I don't know if there's really another 00:27:51.790 --> 00:27:52.926 - way to capture that. 00:27:53.026 --> 00:28:05.003 - and maybe that's more working with what the time is for day reporting. Maybe that's not for this committee, 00:28:05.003 --> 00:28:16.759 - as long as we're keeping it a consideration distance. Forgive my ignorance on this. Day reporting happens 00:28:16.759 --> 00:28:20.862 - in the justice center, not the jail. 00:28:21.250 --> 00:28:31.013 - The community corrections building. It's at probation. Yeah, different building, but yes, right there. 00:28:31.013 --> 00:28:41.439 - Where early voting used to be. Okay, so does not necessarily go with this development. Part of my questioning 00:28:41.439 --> 00:28:46.462 - here is currently there's no visitation in the jail. 00:28:46.722 --> 00:28:56.370 - And so the need to be close to lots of services, et cetera, and even public transportation for the jail 00:28:56.370 --> 00:29:05.832 - itself seems to be, in my mind, at least, questionable. I have not heard why we need that with things 00:29:05.832 --> 00:29:15.294 - the way they are right now. To the justice facility, I absolutely see that. So that's why I'm asking. 00:29:15.778 --> 00:29:24.286 - where day reporting goes and things like that. But it's not at the jail. Right. So it sounds like maybe 00:29:24.286 --> 00:29:32.794 - removing that question might be captured. There's spaces already. Perhaps. So when I think of services, 00:29:32.794 --> 00:29:41.466 - I can't help but think of the testimony we heard from the woman who works in a community service capacity 00:29:41.466 --> 00:29:43.838 - now. And she and herself had 00:29:43.938 --> 00:29:50.955 - been in jail and was released and she walked two blocks to get to services and that said something to 00:29:50.955 --> 00:29:58.110 - me how important it was because she also testified in her current role in her current community service 00:29:58.110 --> 00:30:05.195 - job that she actually had to walk nine miles from somewhere to get and it was freezing cold and it was 00:30:05.195 --> 00:30:12.350 - a near medical emergency for him and so there's a big difference between in my mind two blocks and nine 00:30:12.610 --> 00:30:22.606 - So for me, that's where the close to services question comes in. Understood. And I'll just put it out 00:30:22.606 --> 00:30:32.504 - there that that is a one-time event per incarceration that likely could be easily solved with a ride 00:30:32.504 --> 00:30:42.206 - from the sheriff or et cetera. It's a one-time per incarceration distance that seems like it would 00:30:42.306 --> 00:30:50.520 - it could possibly have a different solve. Yeah, I mean, we just don't want something horrible to happen. 00:30:50.520 --> 00:30:58.578 - Of course. Yeah. So that's where I was at. So what are we going to do then with this question or issue 00:30:58.578 --> 00:31:06.636 - on the metrics here we have? What are you suggesting? I suggest we leave the metric as it is. I'm just 00:31:06.636 --> 00:31:12.190 - trying to understand the impact of being close to services and what is 00:31:13.474 --> 00:31:21.349 - what's impacted, justice versus jail, and if they're co-located, understanding that they. All right. 00:31:21.349 --> 00:31:29.302 - What else about the metrics here on our discussion? Could we maybe go to public comment and then come 00:31:29.302 --> 00:31:37.333 - back to the last little? When we finalize, yeah. Are we ready to go to public comment? Or does anybody 00:31:37.333 --> 00:31:41.310 - else have anything before we go to public comment? 00:31:43.106 --> 00:31:49.424 - My last major piece, which we can wait till after public comment, is if someone from legal could explain 00:31:49.424 --> 00:31:55.562 - the difference between floodway, floodway fringe, and floodway plane. And I don't necessarily need to 00:31:55.562 --> 00:32:01.700 - know the difference, as long as I know it sounds like it's illegal to build a jail under any of them. 00:32:01.700 --> 00:32:07.959 - And I just want to make sure we explain that before we finalize the wording on that question. So you're 00:32:07.959 --> 00:32:11.870 - interested in the flood terminology. The flood plane consists of 00:32:12.066 --> 00:32:18.741 - districts the floodway and the fringe. The fringe is defined by Indiana Administrative Code and its 00:32:18.741 --> 00:32:26.083 - portions of a floodplain lying outside the floodway. The floodway is the most dangerous bit of the floodplain 00:32:26.083 --> 00:32:32.958 - and by statute it means the channel of a river or stream and the parts of the floodplain adjoining the 00:32:32.958 --> 00:32:39.767 - channel that are reasonably required to efficiently carry and discharge the floodwater or flood flow. 00:32:39.767 --> 00:32:41.502 - So floodplains everything 00:32:42.050 --> 00:32:51.140 - and flood fringe are within the plane. Can you legally bill the jail in a floodway? So, flood development 00:32:51.140 --> 00:33:00.144 - is primarily governed by the Flood Control Act, which is regulated by DNR, local agencies, and sometimes 00:33:00.144 --> 00:33:09.662 - FEMA. According to Indiana Code 1428120, there's a list of things that you're not allowed to do in a floodway. 00:33:09.858 --> 00:33:18.552 - And it says, a person may not do any of the following. Erect in or on any floodway a permanent structure 00:33:18.552 --> 00:33:27.411 - for use of an abode or a place of residency, which is what eliminates building a jail within the floodway. 00:33:27.411 --> 00:33:35.939 - And you can't build a jail in the floodway fringe either. The statute doesn't specifically address the 00:33:35.939 --> 00:33:39.582 - fringe. It just says in or on any floodway. 00:33:39.746 --> 00:33:48.631 - doesn't say floodplain. It does not say floodplain, because floodplain would be both the floodway and 00:33:48.631 --> 00:33:57.428 - the fringe. Thank you. I appreciate that. Anybody else on that flooding issue? Grateful for our team 00:33:57.428 --> 00:34:05.790 - of lawyers at this table and that one. We're grateful for them being there for sure. All right. 00:34:06.146 --> 00:34:13.989 - So if I may, before going to public comment, I think I tried to encompass all of the committee's changes, 00:34:13.989 --> 00:34:21.537 - but I did start editing this document rather late into the discussion. So I want to share what I have 00:34:21.537 --> 00:34:29.454 - to make sure I got everything that you wanted in there. Let's do that with the group. TSD, can you provide 00:34:29.454 --> 00:34:31.230 - me permission to share? 00:34:41.922 --> 00:34:57.141 - is like the wizard. It is. There's no curtain. Too big. I've made it. Other than the screening questions, 00:34:57.141 --> 00:35:10.494 - I've, for each subcategory, labeled them with a number. And then each question underneath it 00:35:10.690 --> 00:35:18.578 - Underneath that category was labeled with a number. So for the site profile, the changes are highlighted 00:35:18.578 --> 00:35:26.165 - in yellow. So under defensible to the court, I changed the previous question to what is the earliest 00:35:26.165 --> 00:35:33.978 - groundbreaking date. Under site profile, I added a question requesting the address of the site and then 00:35:33.978 --> 00:35:36.382 - questions related to utilities. 00:35:38.594 --> 00:35:46.280 - Under operational adequacy, I broke that first question up and then didn't number them appropriately 00:35:46.280 --> 00:35:54.118 - thereafter, but I will fix that. So the first question was broken up into 448 beds as one question and 00:35:54.118 --> 00:36:01.728 - then the single jail floor under a separate question. Those are the changes that I've made. I think 00:36:01.728 --> 00:36:06.750 - which encompasses all them. So one version of this I saw had the. 00:36:06.946 --> 00:36:14.512 - locations at the top like where it's D E F G or all that right could the low to could the address not 00:36:14.512 --> 00:36:22.078 - 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 00:36:22.078 --> 00:36:23.710 - the properties I can. 00:36:23.842 --> 00:36:30.447 - I personally would approve that. I prefer that. Immediately under. Immediately under the name of the 00:36:30.447 --> 00:36:37.052 - property it could have, or the address first. Yeah, I guess we're calling it. Yeah, each one has its 00:36:37.052 --> 00:36:43.723 - own. And then it'd be the name of it and the address altogether, rather than looking over here on the 00:36:43.723 --> 00:36:50.459 - side. Seems a little disconnected. All right. We did make some changes, I thought, to this cost versus 00:36:50.459 --> 00:36:52.094 - square footage question. 00:36:52.386 --> 00:37:00.362 - under fiscal path. There were multiple questions on the cost for the jail, the sheriff's office, those 00:37:00.362 --> 00:37:08.416 - four questions. And instead, I think we asked or I proposed, what is the square footage of the proposed 00:37:08.416 --> 00:37:16.237 - jail and jail administration? And same format for the following three additional questions. And then 00:37:16.237 --> 00:37:19.102 - moving that to operational adequacy. 00:37:23.106 --> 00:37:31.064 - So just to make sure I'm following Ms. Wilson, under fiscal path, so F1, you would like to change that 00:37:31.064 --> 00:37:38.867 - to what is the square footage necessary for? Opposed to jail and jail administration? I thought that 00:37:38.867 --> 00:37:46.747 - was standard, that they're gonna get us the square footage of that from other meetings. And I thought 00:37:46.747 --> 00:37:49.374 - we were changing this fiscal path 00:37:49.570 --> 00:38:01.454 - to outline any significant additional site development costs? Correct. The question I'm proposing is, 00:38:01.454 --> 00:38:12.638 - under fiscal path, there's several questions that ask about cost. Instead of asking about cost, 00:38:12.802 --> 00:38:19.479 - We're going to ask what is the square footage of the proposed jail and jail administration based on 00:38:19.479 --> 00:38:26.490 - that August 29th, 2025 data, and then move those questions to operational adequacy. So they're not going 00:38:26.490 --> 00:38:33.501 - to stay in fiscal path. That would be the same answer for all of them. So basically, it would be merging 00:38:33.501 --> 00:38:41.246 - all those. Yes, across the way. And that will help us determine other questions within operational adequacy. Sorry. 00:38:41.602 --> 00:38:48.879 - The answer for the square footage is the same for every single site, correct? In terms of what the proposed 00:38:48.879 --> 00:38:55.616 - jail and jail administration will be? Correct. Yes. So do we need it on the evaluation sheet? I was 00:38:55.616 --> 00:39:02.421 - trying to create one space where the public can go instead of having to go through hundreds of pages 00:39:02.421 --> 00:39:05.790 - of documents throughout different county agendas. 00:39:06.882 --> 00:39:14.868 - And it also allows us to use those square footage numbers when we're then later saying it's not big 00:39:14.868 --> 00:39:22.773 - enough or it is big enough. We actually have the numbers right next to it for the public to check. 00:39:22.773 --> 00:39:30.839 - I see. If not evaluating that, I would suggest that perhaps we do a cover page on this that is basic 00:39:30.839 --> 00:39:35.710 - assumptions for every site. That's a good idea. I like that. 00:39:38.146 --> 00:39:44.006 - because those won't change, the standard, whatever it is. And the rezoning questions we think will be. 00:39:44.006 --> 00:39:49.810 - But all of these sites will, any site, pretty much any site in the city would require rezoning. We've 00:39:49.810 --> 00:39:55.556 - kind of agreed on that, I think based on what Mr. Cockrell said at the last meeting. So essentially, 00:39:55.556 --> 00:40:01.416 - if we wanna lay out a brief explanation of what that process is, it would make sense to put in a cover 00:40:01.416 --> 00:40:03.294 - letter instead of in this chart. 00:40:04.930 --> 00:40:11.092 - It's almost like basic givens, right? You're given this, you're given that. Yes, if you rezone, you 00:40:11.092 --> 00:40:17.255 - have to go to this board and then eventually to the city council. And I would say pending what, Mr. 00:40:17.255 --> 00:40:23.479 - Allen, if he has a different opinion. Yes. Can we go with his opinion? Is he online with us tonight, 00:40:23.479 --> 00:40:29.764 - can we tell? He was. Oh yes, I see him. He's there. He had also said he could provide kind of a rough 00:40:29.764 --> 00:40:34.078 - timeline estimate for that too. Yes. Based on this code or something. 00:40:35.010 --> 00:40:43.093 - That would go in a copper letter. Might be some variation with the Curry property because it has a historic 00:40:43.093 --> 00:40:50.802 - designation. That's the only one that comes to mind. I think it's a safe assumption that they probably 00:40:50.802 --> 00:40:58.585 - won't all have the exact same rezoning needs and so having something on here would be helpful. Historic 00:40:58.585 --> 00:41:00.606 - designation, some may need 00:41:01.058 --> 00:41:09.639 - for one reason or another have to go to BZA and Plan Commission. I mean, the assumption based on city 00:41:09.639 --> 00:41:18.473 - zoning is that nothing is the same. All right. Thank you. Way outside my bailiwick. Thank you. You don't 00:41:18.473 --> 00:41:26.718 - understand that at all. Thank you. That is very much your area of expertise, not ours. Thank you. 00:41:26.882 --> 00:41:37.144 - So I'm leaving the zoning questions alone, but for the fiscal path, because you're doing a basic assumption 00:41:37.144 --> 00:41:46.647 - cover sheet, do you want me to delete the first four questions? You save them into another document 00:41:46.647 --> 00:41:52.158 - just to ensure that those questions get answered in page. 00:41:57.378 --> 00:42:05.205 - I don't know that we're gonna have to figure out what the cost is, right? Well, just any of the information 00:42:05.205 --> 00:42:12.452 - that's available of the questions that are asked should be in the packet. But our charge, again, is 00:42:12.452 --> 00:42:20.062 - not the cost at this point. I mean, I go back to council, right, or the whole other larger group, right? 00:42:21.634 --> 00:42:30.064 - focusing on location. So just help me figure out how the cost is going to help with our focus here on 00:42:30.064 --> 00:42:38.659 - location. Our ultimate mission is to recommend one location and that in my evaluation would be impacted 00:42:38.659 --> 00:42:47.998 - by cost. Also been just from feedback I've gotten from the public incredibly difficult to find information about 00:42:48.226 --> 00:42:55.216 - the jail in general. And so I think that the more information you just want the information, yes, more 00:42:55.216 --> 00:43:02.071 - than any point. Yes, I think so. You want it on the metrics or you just want it somewhere in the one 00:43:02.071 --> 00:43:08.382 - pager and the one. Okay. Okay. Yes. So in the beginning, right? Where you're outlining. Yes. 00:43:08.546 --> 00:43:16.117 - the things that are kind of given, so to speak. The cost will be a given, so to speak, right? Yeah, 00:43:16.117 --> 00:43:23.916 - the two things impacting cost are additional site development and single story versus multi-story. And 00:43:23.916 --> 00:43:31.790 - we can just get a square footage cost on each of those. And what specific items will be in the facility 00:43:31.790 --> 00:43:32.926 - itself, right? 00:43:34.722 --> 00:43:41.750 - I mean, they estimated that already in the North Park design. Right. That would have included medical, 00:43:41.750 --> 00:43:48.709 - all the things that are necessary for a jail, I think. Meeting rooms, everything. Right. I already do 00:43:48.709 --> 00:43:55.533 - have that information. Okay, all right. And that would be up front, too? Is that what we're saying? 00:43:55.533 --> 00:44:03.038 - Makes sense to be in the cover letter. Gonna have a big cover letter, right? I just think I need to point out 00:44:03.202 --> 00:44:10.210 - some of these questions we don't have answers to, right? The difference between a two-story facility 00:44:10.210 --> 00:44:17.218 - versus a one-story facility and construction costs. We have a, I think, a two-story justice facility 00:44:17.218 --> 00:44:24.295 - kind of from the first round that was a higher cost. And so then we switched to a one-story building. 00:44:24.295 --> 00:44:31.234 - But I don't think we have ever done any estimates for what a two-story jail right now would cost to 00:44:31.234 --> 00:44:32.830 - build. I think we can. 00:44:33.602 --> 00:44:50.060 - that we would. Pretty easily get a local expert to volunteer some time to give us a basic square footage 00:44:50.060 --> 00:45:01.502 - difference between. That the changes in multi story versus single story. 00:45:02.498 --> 00:45:09.039 - helpful. There has been a comprehensive, there is a document somewhere that includes costs for all of 00:45:09.039 --> 00:45:15.581 - the different departments, and we could answer these questions. They won't be, I recognize they won't 00:45:15.581 --> 00:45:22.378 - be precise, but from watching the meetings that happened on August 29th of 2025, they were saying there's 00:45:22.378 --> 00:45:29.176 - certain things that they can't estimate anyway until they get further in design. So as long as we include 00:45:29.176 --> 00:45:32.062 - that limitation in our presentation, I would 00:45:32.642 --> 00:45:41.689 - think so look is right and the mayor's right i'd like to get that information to the public so at least 00:45:41.689 --> 00:45:50.562 - we have it available that's work so we're asking for um mr kukral and whoever to share what they have 00:45:50.562 --> 00:45:54.302 - right and i'm telling you we we don't have 00:45:55.042 --> 00:46:02.978 - a two-story jail cost. So that's not going to be there. Right. So I mean, I just straight up, we can 00:46:02.978 --> 00:46:10.915 - get you the one-story cost. But I mean, I don't know what the cost difference would be between them. 00:46:10.915 --> 00:46:18.930 - Yeah. So the cost that we have will be shared? That was at the meeting, so yes. Pardon me? I mean, it 00:46:18.930 --> 00:46:20.894 - was part of that packet. 00:46:21.122 --> 00:46:29.158 - Yeah. Yeah, it was presented at the council commissioner joint meeting. So I think we have that information. 00:46:29.158 --> 00:46:36.678 - So it can just be recouped and put on this in the beginning, right? Is that what we're talking? So we 00:46:36.678 --> 00:46:44.493 - have all those parameters out there that we're dealing with ultimately in the background and the overview 00:46:44.493 --> 00:46:50.686 - and all that. Does that make sense? Do you have anything else? So just for clarity, 00:46:50.882 --> 00:46:59.465 - I removed the first four questions on your fiscal path, and that's going to go in the cover letter. 00:46:59.465 --> 00:47:08.563 - Is it the committee's intent to remove all the questions in fiscal path and put that in the cover letter? 00:47:08.563 --> 00:47:17.147 - Do you want me to read them? I know it's really hard to see up there. I think some of the costs are 00:47:17.147 --> 00:47:19.550 - going to differ. Do we have 00:47:19.714 --> 00:47:27.301 - Yet on there, any site considerations, added site development costs? Because that is one of 00:47:27.301 --> 00:47:35.548 - those considerations. Under construction feasibility, question nine is known site development cost. 00:47:35.548 --> 00:47:43.795 - OK, so that one under construction rather than fiscal, OK? I can move it. Well, if it's going to be 00:47:43.795 --> 00:47:48.990 - the only thing under fiscal, it doesn't make sense to do that. 00:47:51.266 --> 00:48:06.014 - But I think that the transportation costs, did I miss conversation on that? I think if there is some 00:48:06.014 --> 00:48:21.054 - proposal to separate jail and justice building, those transportation costs and staffing costs related, 00:48:22.242 --> 00:48:30.925 - building space, et cetera. I think those are all considerations worth keeping. I guess my question would 00:48:30.925 --> 00:48:39.525 - be, would that also just go on the cover letter? I'm not sure there's going to be a material difference 00:48:39.525 --> 00:48:47.794 - in cost depending on how far it is away. It's an overview no matter what, right? There'll be a cost 00:48:47.794 --> 00:48:52.094 - for any location that's not the same as the courts. 00:48:53.218 --> 00:49:01.106 - Point so that would remove question one related to like vans gas additional cost and question two related 00:49:01.106 --> 00:49:08.993 - to personnel And that would go in the cover letters. I'm going to remove these Going to attempt to remove 00:49:08.993 --> 00:49:16.583 - them again because my computer did not get the message And so that leaves basically under fiscal path 00:49:16.583 --> 00:49:19.262 - just questions about renovation and 00:49:22.242 --> 00:49:32.751 - also could be cover letter letter yeah I think this section gets deleted part of our only other fiscal 00:49:32.751 --> 00:49:42.954 - question which I don't think has to go under this section is building off what the mayor was saying 00:49:42.954 --> 00:49:51.422 - you added site development but what about adding how much will it cost to complete 00:49:52.706 --> 00:49:59.184 - development I was understanding is if we have to move power lines we have to buy additional property 00:49:59.184 --> 00:50:05.599 - any type of development of the site but that's separate from geotechnical surveys and environmental 00:50:05.599 --> 00:50:12.398 - so should we add a question of how much will it cost to complete geotechnical reports site reconnaissance 00:50:12.398 --> 00:50:19.518 - those reports I would imagine that those are apples to apples not exactly but basically on every site and it's 00:50:19.650 --> 00:50:26.233 - beyond the purview of what we can probably get done in two weeks to get bids for those things. So we'll 00:50:26.233 --> 00:50:32.816 - have to do those on all. I think just known site development implications are what we want to add here. 00:50:32.816 --> 00:50:39.273 - Could we put it on the cover page of how much it costs to do them for any site so we're keeping track 00:50:39.273 --> 00:50:46.046 - of cost? If we know that. Since we did it on North Park it feels like we already have a bill we could use. 00:50:48.930 --> 00:50:58.847 - think if you assume that they charge the same, which I don't know, right? Yeah, it's basically going 00:50:58.847 --> 00:51:08.763 - to be apples to apples. It'll matter how many square feet you're dealing with, et cetera, et cetera. 00:51:08.763 --> 00:51:10.334 - So yes, we can. 00:51:12.642 --> 00:51:19.961 - So if we're removing, sorry, if we're removing geotechnical environmental studies, do you want me to 00:51:19.961 --> 00:51:27.208 - remove questions one through seven under construction feasibility, which all reference geotechnical 00:51:27.208 --> 00:51:34.673 - studies that have been completed, what need to be completed, identified problems, and how that impacts 00:51:34.673 --> 00:51:41.630 - usable square feet? And move it where? I mean, if the idea is that the geotechnical information 00:51:42.242 --> 00:51:51.115 - ballpark estimates going to go in the cover letter. I would say on some sites we may know something 00:51:51.115 --> 00:52:00.077 - has been done and it's worth putting it in the rubric. So I would keep it. General section for known 00:52:00.077 --> 00:52:02.206 - variables or something. 00:52:11.874 --> 00:52:19.171 - Public comment perhaps? Yes, I think I'm ready. Are you guys all ready to move to public comment? Okay. 00:52:19.171 --> 00:52:26.327 - All right, and we have somebody walking up now. Please state your name. Please come up and state your 00:52:26.327 --> 00:52:33.623 - name. And you'll have three minutes, right? And that should be on the screen, I think. Yes, Steve, will 00:52:33.623 --> 00:52:39.166 - you be able to put the time up that this person will have to speak? Thank you. 00:52:40.770 --> 00:52:51.904 - make sure the time is coming up here for you to work with. You can go ahead. Very good. Thank you. Hello, 00:52:51.904 --> 00:52:58.206 - my name is Seiforth Breeze. I wish to speak on the metrics. 00:52:58.306 --> 00:53:06.280 - and suggests that a metric be included that captures transit in some way. So it could be worded something 00:53:06.280 --> 00:53:13.952 - along the lines of what available transit resources already exist within half a mile or a mile of the 00:53:13.952 --> 00:53:21.474 - current or of the perspective site. And the reason why I'm suggesting this is that considering like 00:53:21.474 --> 00:53:28.094 - the North Park site, for example, when that was being considered a couple of years ago, 00:53:28.418 --> 00:53:36.436 - actually went to Weld at Merr Park. And I walked to the North Park site and walked back to simulate 00:53:36.436 --> 00:53:45.015 - the experience of somebody being released and having to walk to a place where there might be a bus station 00:53:45.015 --> 00:53:53.193 - nearby. It was on a very hot summer day. There was bits of broken glass and other sort of refuse from 00:53:53.193 --> 00:53:55.358 - cars that had lost things. 00:53:55.554 --> 00:54:05.155 - it was a pretty uncomfortable walk, especially in some sections where it was very narrow on the sidewalks. 00:54:05.155 --> 00:54:14.397 - I think choosing a site that has strong transit connections nearby, buses or bike lanes or things like 00:54:14.397 --> 00:54:23.998 - that, it's important to have just a bullet list of what is there and how regularly they're being serviced. 00:54:24.450 --> 00:54:31.721 - I think the last thing to consider there is how late. Circling back to one of the earlier metrics that 00:54:31.721 --> 00:54:39.416 - was being discussed, the metric of services within proximity, I think that's actually an extremely important 00:54:39.416 --> 00:54:46.828 - thing to keep in mind because when folks are released, I volunteer over at the Bloomington Bike Project. 00:54:46.828 --> 00:54:53.534 - I've only been doing that for a couple of months at this stage, maybe five months, six months. 00:54:53.730 --> 00:55:00.991 - And we've already had two people on the one day a week I come in who have come in asking if they can 00:55:00.991 --> 00:55:01.854 - get a bike. 00:55:02.018 --> 00:55:09.650 - because they've just been released. They don't have any other transit connections. They don't have a 00:55:09.650 --> 00:55:17.357 - phone or someone that they can reach out to with that phone, and they're desperate for a way to start 00:55:17.357 --> 00:55:25.367 - reaching all those other services. One of them in particular explicitly mentioned the fact that he needed 00:55:25.367 --> 00:55:29.598 - the bike to be able to go to a shelter for the evening. 00:55:29.794 --> 00:55:38.562 - 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 00:55:38.562 --> 00:55:47.587 - the door. And so I think services are extremely important to consider when it comes to where these sites 00:55:47.587 --> 00:55:57.214 - are, as well as transit. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Thank you for being here with us. Next. Hello. 00:56:04.802 --> 00:56:10.041 - Hi there. My name is Zach Ammerman. I emailed a couple of you, the elected officials at least earlier 00:56:10.041 --> 00:56:15.332 - with some comments, but I have some things I'd like to say too. One, I'd like for all the metrics that 00:56:15.332 --> 00:56:20.674 - 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 00:56:20.674 --> 00:56:25.811 - you consider or not, some public discussion of why you don't think renovation is an option. Because 00:56:25.811 --> 00:56:31.102 - I've yet to see any serious or convincing public discussion from elected officials about why you think 00:56:31.330 --> 00:56:36.657 - renovation isn't possible. Because to me, it seems like it's still an option. I've talked to other members 00:56:36.657 --> 00:56:41.885 - of the public who feel the same way, that we've not heard anything convincing at all about why you can't 00:56:41.885 --> 00:56:46.864 - do it yet. So whether or not that's adding it as a site or talking about in public on it in another 00:56:46.864 --> 00:56:52.142 - forum, I don't know, but I'd like to see some discussion of that. The second one is to not use a specific 00:56:52.142 --> 00:56:57.220 - number, 448 number of beds. Because to me, that's a huge increase based on the current number of beds 00:56:57.220 --> 00:57:00.606 - that would put us in a very high number of beds for our population. 00:57:00.866 --> 00:57:05.186 - and instead maybe look at a range of different options. For example, if you had 200 beds versus 300 00:57:05.186 --> 00:57:09.506 - beds versus 400 or whatever, how that would change the other metrics. I think it's always better to 00:57:09.506 --> 00:57:13.956 - give yourself options like that. If you did like 50 percent, 75 percent of 448 or something like that, 00:57:13.956 --> 00:57:18.406 - that might be good. It looks like you're not doing this based on the current metrics, but I still want 00:57:18.406 --> 00:57:22.769 - to repeat this anyway because this was included. The last time there was a major study of this done, 00:57:22.769 --> 00:57:27.305 - they looked at one of the things they mentioned on many of the sites was whether or not future expansion 00:57:27.305 --> 00:57:28.990 - of the jail was possible on this site. 00:57:29.570 --> 00:57:34.846 - future expansion of the jail on the site is a bad thing. I want to constrain the future expansion of 00:57:34.846 --> 00:57:40.541 - the jail because I don't want to increase incarceration in this county. It looks like you're not considering 00:57:40.541 --> 00:57:45.870 - that on the metrics now. I think that's a good thing because I think we should be trying to constrain 00:57:45.870 --> 00:57:51.355 - future incarceration rates. That's good. Also, I think another good metric you could potentially include 00:57:51.355 --> 00:57:56.318 - would be to record whether the site would be an infill, brownfield, or greenfield development. 00:57:57.666 --> 00:58:02.263 - green field development is lower than the others, because we should be trying to increase density. And 00:58:02.263 --> 00:58:06.993 - when you have to go out, it's more expensive, green field development is more expensive, and it increases 00:58:06.993 --> 00:58:11.456 - sprawl. So I think if you look at encouraging infill development is better, I think that would be a 00:58:11.456 --> 00:58:15.963 - better option. And it's something that you could consider. And then another thing in that same vein, 00:58:15.963 --> 00:58:20.739 - to measure the total acreage of the site in question and measure smaller sites is better, I think. Because 00:58:20.739 --> 00:58:25.291 - again, about trying to increase compactness and discourage sprawl and increase density. So that's the 00:58:25.291 --> 00:58:26.942 - main things I had to add. Thank you. 00:58:28.898 --> 00:58:40.448 - Thank you. Anyone else here from the public or maybe online? Is there anybody online? No, you said I 00:58:40.448 --> 00:58:52.113 - don't see anybody. Thank you. Any other public comment from the people that are here in the room? Now 00:58:52.113 --> 00:58:58.174 - we've got on our agenda the finalization of metrics. 00:59:00.162 --> 00:59:10.296 - I respond to some of the things brought up in public comment. My understanding of the Curry building 00:59:10.296 --> 00:59:21.133 - is that it's potentially an expansion of the Zitlow Justice Center. Is that the rest of our understandings? 00:59:21.133 --> 00:59:29.662 - What do you mean by that? It is my understanding that it can be. There is potential. 00:59:29.890 --> 00:59:40.048 - to expand the jail where the Curry building is with the potential of then moving inmates over there 00:59:40.048 --> 00:59:50.308 - while we renovate the other. That does bring into question what renovation is really feasible in the 00:59:50.308 --> 00:59:58.942 - old, the existing jail. We can call it the old jail. I think we all agree with that. 00:59:59.170 --> 01:00:07.057 - The primary argument or I guess the primary reasoning that I've been given why renovations can't happen 01:00:07.057 --> 01:00:15.096 - is that it's a size issue. And so I'm just curious if the Curry building would solve that issue. I don't, 01:00:15.096 --> 01:00:22.681 - to be fair, I do not know what the other renovations are that are needed. So that's why I'm asking. 01:00:22.681 --> 01:00:25.790 - Actually have something that might help. 01:00:28.642 --> 01:00:40.530 - If I could. I'd like to include this. I know we don't have time to read it today, but maybe we could 01:00:40.530 --> 01:00:51.358 - add it to things that we can include for discussion as we're including our site evaluation. 01:00:51.490 --> 01:00:59.440 - For the public, what I'm reading is, I actually got a copy of this. It's ACLU Indiana December 29th, 01:00:59.440 --> 01:01:07.547 - 2025 letter by Ken Falk. In the confines of this letter, it highlights some of the portions of the Ken 01:01:07.547 --> 01:01:16.126 - Ray study and other items that specifically look on page three. This assessment identified 53 problem areas. 01:01:17.474 --> 01:01:24.771 - So we're getting into this space question. I think one that might help our conversations when we start 01:01:24.771 --> 01:01:32.351 - doing site evaluation and when we get to any of the sites, including Curry. But this also might be helpful 01:01:32.351 --> 01:01:38.302 - to get a sense of some of the discussion with Ken Falk that's more recent regarding 01:01:38.402 --> 01:01:44.783 - the jail situation. This was a December 29, 2025 letter. I found it actually at the B Square Bulletin, 01:01:44.783 --> 01:01:51.103 - January 8, 2026 letter. I'm just going to hand a copy to Michelle, which I apologize, I failed you on 01:01:51.103 --> 01:01:52.094 - that last time. 01:02:05.122 --> 01:02:13.845 - also provided a copy to county legal in case the letters incomplete but I could include the letter maybe 01:02:13.845 --> 01:02:22.153 - this will help with our future discussion including about curry thank you okay we have anybody from 01:02:22.153 --> 01:02:30.710 - over here that wants to expand or add to this this letter or anything else related to the current jail 01:02:30.710 --> 01:02:33.950 - that might be valuable to get out here 01:02:46.018 --> 01:02:55.851 - we include outdoor recreation and evacuation area in our. No, we decided that it was a universal need 01:02:55.851 --> 01:03:05.588 - that that had been determined it would go on the cover sheet. One more comment and it is about beds. 01:03:05.588 --> 01:03:15.518 - I think we need to be careful, especially as a blue community in a red state to not add too many beds. 01:03:15.810 --> 01:03:24.113 - because my worst nightmare is we have extra space and that extra space gets automatically sucked up 01:03:24.113 --> 01:03:33.164 - by ice. I would like to be very careful that we do not allow that extra space to happen. But I do appreciate 01:03:33.164 --> 01:03:39.806 - where the number came from, but I'm not convinced that that's the right number. 01:03:48.546 --> 01:04:06.919 - What else? And Becky, you look like you have something to say now. Can I suggest that we add? I'm thinking 01:04:06.919 --> 01:04:12.414 - of how logistically to do this. 01:04:15.714 --> 01:04:24.654 - The second column next to the current curry building that would be the possibility of. Renovation of 01:04:24.654 --> 01:04:33.859 - the existing facilities and adding curry. So we look at those two possibilities separately. But include 01:04:33.859 --> 01:04:42.798 - the potential renovation. It's a great idea. Thank you curry the way it is and then add the combined 01:04:42.798 --> 01:04:44.126 - right correct. 01:04:44.386 --> 01:04:53.638 - with the assumption that there's some feasibility to put everything needed for the jail at Curry. Yes. 01:04:53.638 --> 01:05:02.979 - That makes sense over there to the editors of the document. Okay. Since we're adding properties, I left 01:05:02.979 --> 01:05:11.422 - off Fullerton unintentionally. Oh. Could I? I apologize. I wanted to make sure we added that. 01:05:11.874 --> 01:05:18.116 - I thought that we probably needed to add Hopewell one and Hopewell two and a North Park one and two 01:05:18.116 --> 01:05:24.483 - only because I've heard it talked about North Park was described at the last meeting as two different 01:05:24.483 --> 01:05:31.225 - sections. And I didn't want to speak about them singular way because I think I didn't want to be misleading 01:05:31.225 --> 01:05:37.530 - once I learned that. And Hopewell- Let me recap. You're talking about adding Fullerton, Hopewell one 01:05:37.530 --> 01:05:39.902 - and two and was there something else? 01:05:40.354 --> 01:05:47.888 - North Park one and two. Is it North Park on this list here? It is, but in council, an attorney Cockrell's 01:05:47.888 --> 01:05:54.995 - explanation last meeting, he shared that there are actually two different North Park particles that 01:05:54.995 --> 01:06:02.458 - were evaluated. And I just wanted to make sure that we were North Park one and two then. Okay. Different 01:06:02.458 --> 01:06:08.286 - ones, yeah. All right. I'll just note back to our mission that we are to evaluate 01:06:08.738 --> 01:06:15.591 - sites within city limits. North Park does not meet that criteria. They also said three to four, which 01:06:15.591 --> 01:06:22.579 - I think we're trying to be comprehensive. So that's why I was just trying to be as accurate as possible 01:06:22.579 --> 01:06:29.634 - of all the sites that were. We're to shout Mayor Thompson's right. We're three or four properties within 01:06:29.634 --> 01:06:36.286 - the city limits is pretty clear what our charges there. I don't see how North Park would fit that. 01:06:37.986 --> 01:06:45.618 - The consideration would just be if you want to look at, if you want to hold the existing North Park 01:06:45.618 --> 01:06:53.249 - so that the community can compare what we're looking at within city limits with the assumption that 01:06:53.249 --> 01:07:01.415 - we will not be, we won't be recommending it because it's not our charge to do so. Using it as a comparison 01:07:01.415 --> 01:07:06.910 - piece. It might go to the far right, make it the furthest right column. 01:07:07.874 --> 01:07:18.145 - I just did it alphabetical, so whatever. And then Hopewell one and two. Is Hopewell one singular property, 01:07:18.145 --> 01:07:27.743 - or? Hopewell is many properties. We now have Hopewell south platted. Well, not platted, but we have 01:07:27.743 --> 01:07:36.766 - zoning approval, and it's going to plat. So that's off the table. We have east and west left. 01:07:37.090 --> 01:07:43.062 - I know we have a screening question, is the owner willing to sell the property? So I think that's where 01:07:43.062 --> 01:07:48.861 - your comment, I just, I didn't realize that there were different sections of Hopewell. And I thought 01:07:48.861 --> 01:07:54.661 - maybe there might be other people who are encountering the list, would like to know the location and 01:07:54.661 --> 01:08:00.460 - sections. Yeah, the RDC has not been approached about that recently, but they declined earlier. It's 01:08:00.460 --> 01:08:05.054 - my understanding. There may be somebody in the room who can correct me on that. 01:08:13.986 --> 01:08:21.850 - hand raised up here on the screen, right? And are we ready to hear from that person? Did I look when 01:08:21.850 --> 01:08:29.637 - there was, was that person hand raised and I missed it? I'm concerned about that. I might've missed 01:08:29.637 --> 01:08:37.657 - it. I don't know. They weren't on there earlier. They weren't on there during public comment? No, they 01:08:37.657 --> 01:08:42.718 - were not. All right, thank you for keeping track of that for me. 01:08:43.746 --> 01:08:52.491 - I mean, thank you. You've got public comment coming up later. There'll be another round of public comment 01:08:52.491 --> 01:09:01.236 - number eight. Thank you for that also. Okay, great. Are we at any point where we can finalize the metrics 01:09:01.236 --> 01:09:09.734 - at this point? I move for the finalization of the metrics as amended. Mr. King's amendments. Yes. Yes. 01:09:09.734 --> 01:09:12.126 - There is a second. I second. 01:09:12.386 --> 01:09:21.786 - that. It's been moved and seconded to accept the finalized amendments based on Ms. Turner King's capture 01:09:21.786 --> 01:09:30.828 - of those. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, so now we've got our metrics as far as I can tell. 01:09:30.828 --> 01:09:39.422 - We did agree to add that site. That was in Ms. Turner King's edits. Combo, Curry, and existing. 01:09:41.250 --> 01:09:49.167 - I added Fullerton, North Park 1, and North Park 2. And renovations of current building with Curry. On 01:09:49.167 --> 01:09:57.084 - column now? Okay. Thank you. Yes, I thought we were only doing one North Park, which was the existing 01:09:57.084 --> 01:10:03.294 - and only for comparison. But we did not vote on that. It was simply my comment. 01:10:09.154 --> 01:10:17.836 - If so, we've accepted them so far. Is there any further changes? We may need another motion if there's 01:10:17.836 --> 01:10:26.687 - more changes that need to be made. We can see them. We're gonna accept or we're gonna continue to review 01:10:26.687 --> 01:10:35.285 - or what here? Move to accept as amended. Agreed. So what we just talked about again, right? Yes. With 01:10:35.285 --> 01:10:37.982 - Mayor Thompson's clarification. 01:10:38.082 --> 01:10:46.513 - And so there's a motion and a second, who's seconding? I'll second. All right, thank you. And all those 01:10:46.513 --> 01:10:55.025 - in favor of the final amendment of the revision to the metrics, say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. All right, 01:10:55.025 --> 01:11:03.213 - I think we have it now. Okay, so identify properties, which is the deadline of the submission of the 01:11:03.213 --> 01:11:04.510 - new properties. 01:11:06.274 --> 01:11:13.109 - Would you kind of explain where we're headed with that, Ms. Turner-King? What did you think that meant 01:11:13.109 --> 01:11:19.944 - on the agenda here? In discussing the agenda with Chairperson Feidl on Friday, she was suggesting that 01:11:19.944 --> 01:11:26.580 - if there's going to be the addition of properties, that there should be a deadline for such so that 01:11:26.580 --> 01:11:31.358 - you don't get halfway through the matrix and then a new property comes. 01:11:35.042 --> 01:11:44.492 - When would we like to have all the submissions that anyone has submitted, right? Think about our timeline 01:11:44.492 --> 01:11:53.675 - here, we need to have. Can we have the timeline up on the screen? Possibly. Yes, what we're discussing 01:11:53.675 --> 01:11:57.598 - at each meeting in order to set a deadline. 01:12:08.354 --> 01:12:23.457 - So I'm displaying the calendar that Miss Wilson prepared. Yeah. Zoom way and Molly so we can see the 01:12:23.457 --> 01:12:37.662 - actual calendar and not that. Oh, there's a paper copy here. That's. So it appears that we are 01:12:38.018 --> 01:12:48.429 - supposed to begin site evaluations today and continue them Wednesday. I would say, realistically, we're 01:12:48.429 --> 01:12:59.340 - probably not going to get a lot of data between now and Wednesday anyway. Could we have a Thursday deadline, 01:12:59.340 --> 01:13:05.246 - like Thursday noon, for folks to submit alternative sites? 01:13:05.442 --> 01:13:19.619 - so that we can get those before the holiday. From staff, deadline by noon on Thursday to submit alternative 01:13:19.619 --> 01:13:34.846 - sites with the holidays on Friday. It looks like you will continue site evaluations on the 6th and complete them on 01:13:34.978 --> 01:13:43.313 - the ninth. So if we, I don't know if that gives us enough time. I guess in my mind, I'm thinking of 01:13:43.313 --> 01:13:51.732 - Thursday, and it's gonna push a meeting in quite a while. So, you know, if the deadline is noon, I'm 01:13:51.732 --> 01:14:00.234 - not if if I receive them, I'm not going to get them processed till much later in the day, right? Much 01:14:00.234 --> 01:14:04.318 - more open schedule on Thursday, just going to be 01:14:04.546 --> 01:14:13.684 - for meeting. How about Wednesday noon? That we actually could see them at our meeting even. Discuss 01:14:13.684 --> 01:14:22.914 - whether or not to add them. You set the deadline and we'll do our best to get you the information as 01:14:22.914 --> 01:14:31.870 - soon as we can afterwards. Understood, yeah. Is Wednesday noon a more realistic deadline for you? 01:14:32.514 --> 01:14:39.587 - I think it would be easier to get it turned around quickly. Okay, let's do that. So let's do that. I 01:14:39.587 --> 01:14:46.730 - move we set the deadline for submissions of additional sites to noon Wednesday, July 1. Second. Okay. 01:14:46.730 --> 01:14:53.943 - And if I could just direct everyone who's listening and wants to submit it that there is a form on the 01:14:53.943 --> 01:15:01.086 - county's website where you can submit that your request and we would ask that you utilize that method 01:15:03.426 --> 01:15:09.821 - It's on this committee's web page, correct? And it's on the front page of the... It's on the front page, 01:15:09.821 --> 01:15:16.155 - okay. On the front page of the county website. You can get it to both places, but you open up the front 01:15:16.155 --> 01:15:22.429 - page and it's like one of the first set of big blue boxes. Great, thank you. And what is that blue box 01:15:22.429 --> 01:15:28.824 - called? Do you remember on the site? Subcommittee. The name of this committee's... Collaborative Justice 01:15:28.824 --> 01:15:32.478 - Project. Collaborative Justice Project. Subcommittee, yeah. 01:15:33.474 --> 01:15:40.190 - So look for that. And then there should be a place for comment there. Is that what we're saying? OK. 01:15:40.190 --> 01:15:46.972 - All right. So we've got that done. Begin site evaluations. I don't know how long we want this meeting 01:15:46.972 --> 01:15:53.888 - to go tonight. I don't know. I haven't heard anybody say they have to leave. But I would just move that 01:15:53.888 --> 01:15:59.806 - we don't have enough data to start evaluating sites tonight. And so I would move that we 01:16:00.994 --> 01:16:11.373 - move that discussion item from the agenda second. Okay so now we're back to public comment so we still 01:16:11.373 --> 01:16:21.449 - have public here anybody want to come up and speak now before we adjourn. That's right so we have a 01:16:21.449 --> 01:16:30.014 - JF it looks like online and there's two and I see so JF was first so if we can allow 01:16:30.338 --> 01:16:38.968 - They should be able to unmute now, I think. Yeah. So we have- JF. Good evening. I just wanted to- Can 01:16:38.968 --> 01:16:47.768 - you state your name, please? Oh, sorry. Sorry. I'm Jamie Ford. I'm a Monroe County resident. Thank you. 01:16:47.768 --> 01:16:56.229 - I just wanted to suggest that everything be released through no fault of this particular committee. 01:16:56.229 --> 01:16:59.614 - It seems like you're starting all over. 01:17:00.002 --> 01:17:07.148 - but Commissioner Thomas in the May 12th meeting said that work had been done. I think it would be interesting 01:17:07.148 --> 01:17:13.968 - to see what they claim to have done. Also in just the spirit of transparency because Commissioner Madera 01:17:13.968 --> 01:17:20.529 - said they had done due diligence, but they had also said that they hadn't. So I know I'm the type of 01:17:20.529 --> 01:17:27.090 - person that I would comb through all of that just to see what they have done historically for all of 01:17:27.090 --> 01:17:27.870 - this versus 01:17:28.226 --> 01:17:35.456 - Now, if that's possible. Again, I'm not blaming anybody in this committee. I appreciate the work you're 01:17:35.456 --> 01:17:42.686 - doing. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Then maybe back to the room this 01:17:42.686 --> 01:17:49.777 - time. We're going to alternate. Please state your name and then tell us what you want us to hear. Hi, 01:17:49.777 --> 01:17:54.782 - I'm Jeff Richardson. I'm glad to be here. Thank you all for doing this. 01:17:54.914 --> 01:18:02.269 - meeting and doing it cooperatively, modeling good behavior with local government. So thank you. Just 01:18:02.269 --> 01:18:09.550 - one minor thing. I've been following this quite carefully and I must say that I had to be told what 01:18:09.550 --> 01:18:17.342 - the Collaborative Justice Coalition meant. So I would just make a plea for the public, at least one public 01:18:17.762 --> 01:18:24.838 - person to use language that people understand. So if this is the language you've adopted, then I would 01:18:24.838 --> 01:18:31.846 - suggest in parens, get the darn jail built committee or something like that so people know what it is 01:18:31.846 --> 01:18:38.716 - that, especially with this very short timeline that you're asking people to get in. So just in your 01:18:38.716 --> 01:18:42.494 - communications, and I know Dave and others have really 01:18:42.562 --> 01:18:50.690 - worked hard to do that. But just generally speaking, especially with the HD having a day delay, just 01:18:50.690 --> 01:18:58.899 - something that explains what this committee is in language that people can get, embrace, and then act 01:18:58.899 --> 01:19:07.269 - on. Keep up the good work. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And we have someone else online. So we did. 01:19:07.269 --> 01:19:11.454 - Is it still there? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Sure. Yes. 01:19:11.554 --> 01:19:25.952 - So please, I think you should be able to speak, EF. EF, can you hear me? Can you unmute? It says it 01:19:25.952 --> 01:19:41.214 - looks like you're muted, EF, so maybe you can unmute and try to chime in here. An inadvertent hand raise. 01:19:46.882 --> 01:19:54.268 - And they're there. Okay. So I need to be requesting they unmute me. That was what they might be doing. 01:19:54.268 --> 01:19:57.566 - So let's see if they can still want to speak. 01:20:12.930 --> 01:20:18.572 - I think we have waited a little bit here, so I think we may be done with public comment in person and 01:20:18.572 --> 01:20:24.158 - online. And maybe EF will chime in next time. So I think we're going to call this adjourned, if that 01:20:24.158 --> 01:20:29.689 - works for everybody. So I think we're adjourned. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you for 01:20:29.689 --> 01:20:33.118 - working with us. Our next meeting. Our next meeting's online. 01:20:33.858 --> 01:20:39.791 - That's right. Our next meeting is on Wednesday. Thank you for the reminder. At 6 p.m. And our famous 01:20:39.791 --> 01:20:43.550 - name is the Collaborative Justice Project Working Subcommittee.