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.