- Good evening, it's 6.01. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Liz Fiddle. I'm the county
- representative for the Collaborative Justice Project Working Subcommittee. And with me here on the dais
- is council member, city council member, Sydney Zulek, representing the city council. And Karen Renbeck,
- representing the public defender's office. And April Wilson, representing the prosecutor's office.
- and then we have staff here as well with the county. So I think we'd like to adopt the agenda. I believe
- Ms. Turner-King might have had something to talk about with the agenda. Am I thinking that's right here?
- Did you have something to talk to about the agenda? You were talking about adopting the agenda at some point.
- We need to formally amend the agenda. I think Mr. Allen does have an update that he will provide whenever
- you feel appropriate. Sure. Okay. All right. Great. So can we adopt the agenda as presented here? I'll
- take a motion. Can I actually move to amend the agenda? Oh, I guess we can talk about it. I there's
- one metric I wanted to add. And so I just would like to move on the metrics sheet. Is it a question or what?
- Yes, so I think there's one key one that we left off and it's whether or not it can maintain constitutional
- standards of care. I just want to make sure that we. Yeah, we'll be we'll be working on the site evaluation.
- So maybe can we talk about it there and add it there as long as yes, I think adding is I just want to
- make sure I keep track of the question because all of our metrics don't actually get to that issue that
- they don't. And so we might pick a site based on the metrics.
- but ultimately if it can't pass muster of being able to maintain constitutional standards of care. Right.
- I hear you. So you put it down under the site of an evaluation. Thank you. To add an item. Okay. So
- can we adopt the agenda as presented for now? I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. I second.
- All in favor? Aye.
- Well, I guess we all voted yes, so it doesn't matter. All right. So next on our agenda is the square
- footage, and I believe that maybe Jeff Cockrell, Attorney Cockrell, might have had something to present
- there, as I understand. I'm not sure I had something to present, but I did send an email to Kim Schell.
- You did? Sorry. Yesterday, that I hope got to you, had the minimum square footage, as well as
- An estimated cost for both the sheriff's side and the other side. I assume that that got sent out. I
- think I sent it to you yesterday after we talked. Kind of do that. You just sent it to Kim? Yes. And
- if I need to, I can go print it off and I can recite it. It's not a problem. Is it very long? Would
- it be okay to go get it? I'll be back in a second.
- Let me double check. I know that I sent several things off, so I don't want you to... I know that I
- forwarded... Sorry. I hope I sent it. Got me second guessing it. Well, I don't recall it, but that doesn't
- mean anything.
- chair wishes I can talk about some public comments that were received at this point while we look for
- the square footage. That would be great. Thank you. You some economics here. We did receive a few public
- comments through the form variety of comments. Some of them suggesting new properties generally. So
- one just kind of talked about a concern
- If you'd like to know each one, my plan is to also share this with you from a read only so you all can
- see this. But we received one comment that was basically that this is taking too long. They do not believe
- that the North Park site was a good fit. The cost of the land is outrageous, and people are tired of
- higher taxes. And so they wanted to just encourage you to keep going on your mission and exclude the
- North Park site.
- We also received extensive comment from Commissioner Jodi Madeira as well talking about the requirements
- for the lawsuit in regard to the site, which I think I don't know if Commissioner Madeira wants me to
- necessarily summarize that particular part here. I think that that's been pretty well covered as well.
- She also had some significant suggestions for metrics to make sure that those are included.
- as well, which I'm happy to share with the group. Is that different than what we have on our metric
- form now? Did you know? It critiques various lists of the portions of it. If you'd like me to read it,
- I'm happy to read it. It would take quite a while to read the full thing. I would be interested to know
- what's different about what we already have, if there's a way to figure that out. Yeah.
- The first recommendation is to create a pass fail gate before scoring. A site should not proceed to
- preference scoring if it's legally impossible or lacks the minimum usable acreage, cannot be controlled
- in time, or has any fatal environmental floodway problems, or cannot possibly support construction on
- the litigation timeline. The second recommendation is to weight each of the criteria, so they're scored
- with different weights, such as, you know,
- Purchase price and distance to walking paths, et cetera, are parallel weighted. Those are not equal
- considerations in accordance to Commissioner Madeira. And she is here, so I don't want to mischaracterize
- anything at all if she wants to at some point approach. But you're reading from what was submitted,
- right? I'm reading from what's submitted.
- Require evidence for each answer each site should have an evidence column GIS source owner communication
- appraisal zoning memo engineer architect opinion utility provider letter environmental report Transit
- confirmation etc. Without that the matrix can become a set of impressions rather than a defensible work
- record Weaknesses slash fixes first the quote-unquote
- Defensible to the court is underdeveloped. The only listed question under that heading is the earliest
- groundbreaking date. That is important, but court defensibility should include more. Is the site legally
- available? Is there a documented path to acquisition? Are utilities available on a reliable timeline?
- Are zoning slash permitted steps ministerial or discretionary? Is the site free from known
- fatal environmental and floodway obstacles? Can the county show that the site does not create
- quote, unreasonable delay, unquote, compared with alternatives. Does the site support a facility that
- actually remedies the unconstitutional conditions? Second, the metrics do not distinguish must-have
- from nice-to-have. For example, floodway status, minimum usable acreage, and the site control should
- be threshold questions. Walking paths, future transit, and proximity to services are important but should
- not be allowed to outweigh the fatal timeline legal barrier.
- Third, within city limits should be treated as a scope constraint, not a quality metric. Because the
- subcommittee is charged to evaluate properties within the city limits, that criteria should be a gate.
- So again, that pass fail gate may be a gate for this committee, but it should not be scored as though
- being inside the city automatically makes a site operationally or legally superior. Fourth, the owner's
- willing to sell is too vague. Willing to sell should be replaced or supplemented with
- Written expression of interest, asking price, appraisal basis, option or purchase agreement, feasibility,
- title issues, relocation issues, condemnation risk and timeline, likelihood of price escalation once
- the site is publicly discussed. Fifth, and just to preview this, there are eight total main points and
- still three more sub points, so this goes on for a little bit more. Thank you. The cost metrics are
- too narrow.
- Purchase price is only one part of the cost. The matrix should evaluate total site cost, including
- acquisition, demolition, relocation of existing occupants, road improvements, utility extension, grading,
- stormwater, environmental remediation, legal fees, delay, inflation cost, temporary prisoner transfer
- cost, operational cost over time. Sixth, operational adequacy needs more jail-specific detail. The current
- metrics ask about 448 beds, single-floor design, co-location transit.
- Entrances, exits, hospital distance, emergency services, and distance to services. That is useful, but
- it misses key operational questions such as secure vehicles, Sallyport feasibility, separation of public
- staff service, detainee circulation, adequate setbacks, secure perimeter, ambulance fire access, staff
- parking and shift change flow, visitor family access, attorney visitation, medical and mental health
- space, classification separation intake, release flow, programming space, future expansion without disruption
- of operations.
- Seventh, 448 beds should be handled carefully. The metric asks whether the site adequately has usable
- space for 448 beds. The B-square reports that the number was tied to the 2020 criminal justice
- and incarceration studies 30-year estimate of 448 to 150 beds by 2049. That may be a useful capacity
- planning ceiling, but the matrix should avoid making 448 beds look like a policy commitment
- Better phrasing would be, or can is, can the site accommodate the adopted program, required classification
- separation, medical mental health programming space, future expansion of capacity if needed. Eighth,
- renovation plus curry should not be treated as just another site without special scrutiny. If the current
- jail plus curry is included, the matrix needs extra questions.
- Can the existing building be made constitutional? Can the renovation occur while the jail remains occupied?
- What temporary housing transfer plan would be required? What is the cost of phasing? Does renovation
- create unreasonable delay? Does the existing structure allow modern classification, medical, mental
- health programming, and staff safety needs? Would the site actually add enough net usable detention
- and service space? Suggested revised scoring structure.
- We could divide the matrix into gates and scored criteria, pass fail gates. A site should fail early.
- And if any of these are not satisfied, the gate questions could be legal feasibility. Just give me one
- second. I'm sorry. Legal feasibility, my apologies. I'm just trying to deal with a team's issue. The
- gate question, legal feasibility, is a site legally available for jail justice use without
- fatal floodway zoning statutory barrier site control can the county obtain control quickly enough through
- purchase option donation or other documented path minimum usable area does the site meet the minimum
- usable acreage square footage of the adopted program utility feasibility can water sewer electric gas
- fiber stormwater needs be met in the required timeline environmental geotechnical feasibility are there known
- fatal environmental soil floodplain wetland remedial remediation issues litigation timeline can the
- site plausibly support a court defensible construction schedule. Then weighted scoring after those gates
- are satisfied suggested weight for each category court defensibility speed to construction should be
- 25 percent of all the scores.
- operational adequacy in jail design functionality should be 20 percent legal zoning permitted certainty
- 15 percent total site development and life cycle cost 15 percent access to courts council services transit
- families 10 percent expandability resilience and long-term flexibility 10 percent evidence quality confidence
- level 5 percent that concludes her significant comments and then just as additional
- We received additional comments of additional sites. Those included two recommendations for the former
- hospital site, so the Hopewell sites has been split up. We also had some significant suggestions from
- city council member Flaherty, including some new properties and including some that you have already
- considered. Those include the convention center parking lot that's just
- West of the beeline, which I believe is county owned the city hall parking lot. So the parking
- lot immediately in front of city hall off of Morton street hope well again and then A privately owned
- site. There have been two sites recommended for for that are currently in private hands
- My recommendation and of course this board does not have to follow my recommendation but my
- best recommendation would be for those properties that are owned privately. We may want to set 30 minutes
- aside to meet an executive session just to discuss those properties in their details. That way you know
- we avoid some of the problems that we talked about before. Of course that's a discussion matter for
- you all but we did receive at least two suggestions. One from the site owner themselves in terms of
- private property that could be available and then another is just
- the community member observed underutilized space. Thank you. And might you know on the two additional
- ones that may or may not need a meeting, do you know if they're in the city? They're both in the city
- as I recall. It's possible one isn't, but I think they're both in the city. Okay. Thank you. And I just
- maybe a slight other detail is I understand we are
- just for the sake of the operation of this board. We are working on getting you those details. So as
- Commissioner Madeira had recommended, some of those details are important obviously that are already
- on your metrics. We think it's important to have those in a very
- usable summary format that's uniform. So that is something we are going to work on and to hopefully
- provide to you by the next meeting Monday is that you'll have every site listed with those details,
- including what the current zoning is, what their responsibility was, is it historically designated,
- what the parcel is, is it in private hands, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There are obviously some
- answers that we won't know. Some of those are very detailed construction questions, just due to that
- would be farther down the line, but we'll provide the information that we possibly have.
- Thank you for the I hope it'll be ready by next Monday's meeting, right? I will make sure that it's
- ready for next month. Thank you so much. That's very useful. Did you know we're under we're under a
- tight timeline. So there was a lot to hear here. I'd like to hear what you all are thinking about the
- whole list of things that were presented that Larry read from Commissioner Madura. Is there a comment?
- feedback on that at this point. Personally, I'm really appreciative for all the public comments that
- we've received. My first feedback is I know Mr. Allen shared that he's going to send them to us. I didn't
- receive anything from Councillor Flaherty yet, so if we could all receive a copy of them, I'd appreciate
- it. Yeah, we were getting those today.
- My thought, again, is to have the read-only spreadsheet. So you'll just be able to see them as they
- come in so you can look. You just can't comment with each other. Right. That'd be great. Read-only is
- fine. So since there's so much to review, would it be OK if we can kind of digest those new comments,
- start our site evaluations? And if we need to add metrics, we can do that along the way. It'll let us
- fine tune. Right. Some of them I think we have.
- pretty good capture of some of them that were on here is I mean I wasn't looking at it wasn't comparing
- everything is they were all read off but I thought there were some that may have been at least similar
- so we can fine tune them maybe and add others right that what you're thinking right right anybody else
- have anything on that yes based on attorney Allen's comments I'm wondering if everyone would be available
- at 530 on Monday to have an executive session or at 515
- make sure we have enough time to do the transition, but to have that executive session to discuss the
- private property. Briefly. One issue is probably Monday's not going to be available to you because of
- the 48-hour rule, because Friday's a holiday, and so we don't have the 48 hours at this point. You could
- meet after the meeting and executive session, but we'd have to post it literally now, as the clock runs.
- So Wednesday is a more viable option. I'm sorry.
- Are we not meeting on Thursday? It's possible Thursday. Thursday. Actually, it's Thursday.
- It's not Wednesday. It's not Wednesday. Boston, the fruit's out of my mouth. Is the Naughty Hill Room
- available at 515 on Thursday next? I believe it's July 9th. I think typically you would do an executive
- session in a different meeting room. Oh, a conference room. We can do it in my conference room. Great.
- Thank you. Are you all available? I think so, but let me check. What day is it?
- So Thursday the 9th at 515 in the HR Council conference room. And do you know where that is? So you
- know where the council office is. There's a conference room right next to it.
- That's 306, right? The council office is 306. That will be the executive session. I have 15. Okay.
- All right. So that brings us to thank you, Jeff, for giving me the information about the square footage.
- Should I just read that, you think, or do you want to read it for us? I could just go through it real
- briefly. That would be great. Thank you.
- I think that we have, when we, and these are all from a document, which I think you did. Yeah,
- I just came, I just printed it. Yeah, so all these numbers came from that document, and there's more
- in there, so dig into your heart's content. The total score, that document's from August 20th, 2025,
- so it probably is not the most up-to-date, accurate,
- If we had gone through the final process that we were working on finishing in December, so there might
- be some slight changes, but I think it's a good baseline for what we're talking about here. The total
- planned square foot for the joint facility was 237,316 square feet. And the total building, the estimated
- cost, construction cost was 194 million
- $90,689 that did not include a little over $30 million of soft costs and soft costs would include things
- such as purchase price of the property and furniture and a lot of other things. I think maybe even utility
- work as well.
- of that, the budget for the construction of the sheriff and jail space was for 123,455 square feet and
- that budget was the estimate was $122,256,182. I'm not positive if that included any of the site
- I mean, if you look in the document, it's a little unclear. With the remaining 113,861 square feet,
- or were associated with the courts in the justice-related department, and that estimated cost was going
- to be $71,834,507. I would say that we've been told by the estimator all along that for every year,
- you're going to look at 5% to 10% increase in construction costs.
- So that is a factor. The other thing I included in the email is we talked about jail transport. And
- so we actually not too long ago, the jail did purchase a transportation van and it was about $105,000.
- And so in the starting jail staff is approximately $30 an hour, $29.99. When we were looking at transport,
- we were thinking of maybe six swing shifts in this
- different aspect of this, but I'm not sure it would be needed for this portion. And we were looking
- at it, it'd be about $500,000 for the personnel side if you needed six people. Again, when we were looking
- at that, we were thinking, what happens if we have to transport people out of county and bring them
- back? And so that was what we were thinking about with that estimate, but I think it's a number that
- you guys should be made aware of.
- I do have some questions if you don't mind. I guess just starting at the end of the memo, so what, could
- we find out what the annual cost of each jail employee would be, including benefits, because I think
- that's what the budget would require. Could we get that? That $500,000 figure, I have it on a spreadsheet
- in my office. That would be for six. I could just take a six of that to get that number, and that is
- for a starting
- jail staff, right? Yes. I think the answer is the cost of employment of that would be easy to find out.
- Okay. And then when you talk about a jail transport van, how many people would be able to be transported?
- I'd have to talk with the jail staff about that. No idea. And so these are only six employees needed
- to be on the transport van from go to one place to the other.
- this is not additional staff that might be needed once they get to that location. In the context of
- what you guys are looking on, I can't answer that question. I don't know how that would be. I guess
- in my mind, if I am the person responsible, and we'd have to talk to the jail transition team about
- the answer to this question.
- completely, but if we're going out of county, it's going to be a longer trip, and so therefore, I'm
- not sure if they couldn't do double duty and transport in, stay with the person through their court
- time, and then transport back out. Whether that needs to be two different shifts, one shift, I just
- don't know. That would be a question for them. The jail transition team? We could send an email to the
- jail transition team to get more details.
- Can I keep going? I do have some more if you don't mind. Yes, I think so. Go ahead. Okay. So it says
- the total square footage of the planned facility, and I have that. I was hopeful that we could get per
- department and the shared spaces. And I know there's a version of that. When I was watching the CATS
- meeting from 225,
- about seven minutes and 50 seconds into that video, DLC during their presentation puts up a building
- programming spreadsheet in which they were like, this is a sampling and this spreadsheet shows what
- the square footage is for each of the departments. It would be helpful to know those if we're trying
- to come up with creative solutions and what square footage we need for the project.
- I could not find those yesterday when I sent this email, but I think I have those now, so I can forward
- that to Kim and she can process it through this evening still. Oh, perfect. And I just want you guys
- to be aware is that these numbers, these numbers that we talked about, those would include all shared
- spaces, hallways, bathrooms. I think when you look at department-specific spaces, the numbers will be
- smaller than the total because of that, right?
- 70 or 113,000 square feet divvied up amongst all the departments, it will be, some of that's divvied
- up, but the hallways and things would not be assigned necessarily to any department. I think I'm hopeful
- if I get the spreadsheet I could do the math and maybe show my work and you can correct me if I've.
- And my last question was when we're, I think frequently talk about the project, we talk about sheriff
- and jail. And I was trying to be very specific
- I understand what we're talking about. When we talk about building the jail, I'm thinking literally
- the jail and jail administration. Then the sheriff is separate really from that in some ways. So when
- you talk about the sheriff in the jail space, the budget was $122 million in change.
- Can you tell me how much was that for the jail and jail administration versus the sheriff's office?
- What I plan to send you has the square footage, I think, for the jail and the sheriff's spaces. I don't
- know what the cost difference allocation between those are. If you look at the material, it basically
- talks about the sheriff's space, including the jail and the
- non-sheriff's face, a justice face. So I don't have it broken down between sheriff and jail. Is there
- someone we could follow up with to find out what the breakdown is?
- I think the person who I would talk to if we still had them under contract and we still had the ability
- to compensate them would be the WGS group who is the estimators for this. They would be the one who
- put together all these numbers and said this is what it's going to cost. The county doesn't have any
- spreadsheets that we could look at that we could maybe figure it out.
- I think what you have is probably the closest. I can look for additional, but I'm not sure. I don't
- recall ever breaking out the sheriff from the jail space. Thank you. I appreciate it. Anyone else? This
- design, the numbers you have, this was a single story, correct?
- There was no double stories anywhere in this one? Not the Justice Building, sorry. I know that was double
- stories or two stories, but just the jail part. The jail part would have... I don't consider it two
- stories, but there would be a mezzanine level where the staff would be so that they could see into the
- secured areas. So it's not a... The jail itself would have
- the current situation where they're staying on two different floors in the same block is what you're
- saying. I kind of want to make sure I'm extremely clear on this because if you walk into a block in
- the current jail, there's one level of cells and there's a second level of cells. I think that remains.
- What I don't think is that you have one level of cells, second level of cells, another floor, one level
- of cells, second level of cells. Okay. So when we say single story, we do mean potentially two floors.
- just not in the same way that it is now. Two housing floors, one floor for common area. Yes. Okay.
- I gotcha. Okay. That is my understanding. Okay. In the course of all the discussions with cost estimates,
- did the county commissioners or county council receive any estimates regarding multiple floors, multiple
- floored jail? Not for the jail, no.
- Okay, we're good I think. Okay. So now we have that. Thank you for presenting this to us. No problem.
- So now on the data, I guess we're on to side evaluations maybe, no? Yeah. So we have, I gave you,
- The staff printed out a copy of the most recent updated site metrics evaluation, which includes an address
- or near address where it may be close to an intersection. So how, shall we just go through it? Is that
- the best way or do you have a priority as far as doing different areas first or second or third or whatever?
- You have two recommendations.
- Oh, that's right, you do it, I forgot. So the first one is, I was hopeful that any properties that we
- receive to evaluate would be included on the spreadsheet. And even if they ultimately get screened,
- I just wanted one place for the public to be able to look to know everything that was suggested. I heard
- a few tonight. I know that Attorney General is gathering those, but by next meeting, with permission,
- if I could just add those into the spreadsheet so that we don't lose track.
- I think it's fine to put them out there in the same spreadsheet, no? Yeah. If they're private, I will
- not name them. I'll just simply say private site one, private site two. I'm happy to do that so we can
- provide that for the next time. And yeah, we'll give some sort of designation for any private site that's
- added. Perfect. Then I was hoping we could add the question if it, as a metric,
- whether or not it can maintain constitutional standards of care. That's right. And where would that
- fit in, you think? I think it would actually be a screening question. Screening, OK. I recognize that
- there are many components to reaching constitutional standards of care. For example, if we look at the
- ACLU letter that I shared with everyone on Monday, I think we get some of that information there, which
- I'm hoping we can share on the county website for the subcommittee if we can. And the Ray report.
- I'm just concerned that we may pick a site that can't reach those standards. What would the screening
- question say on our form here? Does it meet constitutional care or something like that? It meets the
- constitutional standards of care. Can the property, shall we say, can the property, will the property
- meet? That's a great suggestion.
- that you sent me that I would send those properties to you once I had them but it sounds like mr. Allen
- is gonna be able to do that for me okay sorry I was looking for something so misunderstood and then
- my last suggestion would be we start with the screening questions specifically the floodway question
- because I think we learned Ms. Turner-Kings was sharing with us the floodway conversation, which if
- anyone needs from the public would like to hear that again, we could do that. But my understanding is
- we cannot build a jail within a floodway because it's a property where someone is in a boat while they'll
- be sleeping. That would be my suggestion if you're. So that's the first question you think still.
- And then where does this new one we just added fit? The question would be the third question under the
- screening questions. We have basically 312 if I wrote it up above. Okay. So is the property on a floodway?
- Shall we start there? I have another question though. I don't think Monroe Hospital is in the city.
- Can you confirm that?
- I think I had two questions about that one. One, are you really talking about Monroe Hospital or are
- you talking about the property south of Monroe Hospital? I thought we were talking about the property
- south of Monroe Hospital. Okay. It is not in City Women's, if that's your question. Okay. Yeah. So I
- thought that column should probably be deleted if we're not keeping non-city properties. Right. I think
- in some ways, I think that's what we ought to do first for me. Right.
- We move up question B2, which says within city limits, move that up to a screening question, that'd
- be screening question four, and just say within city limits. But parentheses by county council resolution,
- because the within city limits was because county council put that in the resolution forming
- the subcommittee. We have not evaluated it, we have not made a determination on that they did.
- So I just, I think my concern is if we keep non-city columns in here,
- like we can just keep adding columns to infinity. We didn't choose the mandates of how we came to be
- in the subcommittee, but I do think, and I understand keeping North Park, I suppose, for comparison
- purposes, I think I'd suggest moving it all the way to the right, just so it's kind of in its own zone,
- perhaps, because that is the property that's kind of been evaluated maybe the most already. But in terms
- of Monroe Hospital or any other,
- I think all the rest of these are in city limits, but if I missed one, I apologize, but I think anything
- other than North Park should be struck. I just don't think it's productive to be listing, because I
- mean, there's 10 more things we could add on this list that have been evaluated previously. I mean,
- we talked about several of them, and I don't know. I just think we can draw a line somewhere, but that's
- my position.
- going to make a motion or where I would move to strike Monroe Hospital and move North Park like to the
- furthest right on this column and maybe you know just somehow mark that it's for comparison only second
- okay all those in favor I I'm gonna pose it I think miss Renbeck is completely right about how there
- could be several on here the reason I'm a
- I'm opposing it because I was hopeful there would be one spreadsheet the community can go to and say
- what sites have been suggested. It will be screened out so we won't do the evaluation, but I'm opposing
- it because I don't want members of the community to have to go through hundreds of documents and CATS
- videos to be able to figure out what we did. So that's the only reason. Let me offer a friendly suggestion
- here maybe. Can it be shaded or something so that we know it's not available? That column, that whole column?
- Well, to indicate to the public that it was on there, but we're not considering it now. We talked about
- a cover letter too. So if we want to include a list in the cover letter of, you know, other properties
- that were, we could not consider because they were not in the, you know, other properties that have
- been considered previously, but are not in the city. So we could not consider them. Right. Because I
- know there's several. Something like that. I don't know. Maybe the cover letter.
- Here are the ones we are aware of. Mr. Cockrell at our first meeting, I think, you know, it's already
- listed some of them. We already have them. Okay. Colonel Pike and a few others, I think he said.
- Colonel Pike, there's one that's called the one really far south and then the Monroe Hospital. Yeah.
- The hospital or the three that. So then maybe that's a place they could be. The north parts. Accessible
- to the public, but not necessarily on here.
- I think that's fair. I would agree with that. If we voted on that, I would. So do you want to make it
- a friendly amendment? I would make a motion, then. Well, I'm going to keep my previous motion. I think
- it's been voted on. But wait, can we? I'm sorry. Previous motion has already been voted on. Right.
- Can we? We've done this before. We could be in the draw. I'm going to amend my motion. Can we not withdraw
- them? You can vote it on. OK. OK.
- You could just do a motion to reconsider. Okay, thank you. I knew there was some other terminology.
- Sure, then I guess I do a motion to reconsider and just continue to strike Monroe, move North Park to
- the far right, and then include a section in our cover letter that describes a list of the other properties
- that are not in the city that have been considered previously. So it's all in one location. Second.
- All right. So all those in favor of the, what did we call that? I motion to reconsider. Reconsider,
- that's the term. To reconsider, say aye.
- Opposed. Okay. We have come to terms with that. Thank you. Now we're down to. So do we. Are we are we
- thinking about. Hospital was or wasn't in the city. It is not. So that one stays in or goes out. That
- goes out. Okay. Thank you. West side of.
- Yes, I know where it is. I just want to make sure I got the city criteria right. Yeah. Well, it's like
- south of the hospital too. Yeah. All right. So let's reaffirm where we're at with the number of properties
- we have left. 11 plus North Park, but that doesn't include the ones Mr. Allen's going to add. Okay.
- So are we all on the same page now?
- Okay, he has I think he I think four though, right? You said city parking convention parking and then
- to private And then to private for potentially more. Okay. Okay. All right So now are we down to the
- is the property in a floodway or by my keeping track? All right. Yes Okay, so Start from the left and
- work our way to the right I mean, I guess I'd ask if anyone from any of the legal's know if any of these
- properties are in a floodway
- off the top of their heads. I think the Bloomington tarantula garage is so it's partially in the floodway.
- The eastern most edge of the transit property is in 100 year floodway. So it's not it's not in the most
- volatile floodway area. It's on the fringe of it.
- And some of the documents I think we presented before have shown the maps of those, right? The various
- floodways. So those have been in previous agenda, or yeah, packets. Okay. So the next one, the Curry
- Building? I don't think, I think the next one on the list that may or may not be is, I know part of
- the HT building is in a floodplain, but I don't know if
- I guess I don't know if that necessarily precludes you from being able to build the jail. I do think
- it, my memory is that it might preclude you from being able to co-locate both the jail and the justice
- facility on that site. I don't know how you want to answer that. Was the ruling on floodways not directly
- related to people inhabiting a boat? Would that not be the jail?
- Part of the property is, but I think there's enough room outside the floodway that you could still build
- the facility. Okay. Thank you. But not enough room to build justice departments. Correct. I'm not sure.
- I think the property's just not big enough for both uses. Maybe this is a dumb question, but justice
- departments can be built in the floodway. They can. Correct. No one lives there.
- I don't know if that's advisable, but it's possible. And also, thank you. I drive by that building every
- day when I go home. The floodway is a floodway, and I don't think you want to build on that. The question
- then is, if we re-envision this, is there a way to build both of those on there? For this particular
- site, yeah. The issue is not just a floodway. It's the hidden creek that runs behind there. So there's
- a significant slope.
- on the western edge of that property that goes down into a literal waterway. So that's why it's partially
- in the floodplain. So that's what Mr. Cockrell's speaking about. It's not really, it's not buildable
- space. All the buildable space is probably, just looking at the map, is outside of the floodplain. Okay.
- How would we describe that?
- Yes, asterisks. I think it's good to be specific and then to the extent we can estimate how much acreage
- is actually buildable, that would be another criteria for you all to consider. Thank you. And the other
- one I think is the south of post office I believe is in a flood. That one is in flood? Pretty sure,
- yes. I think it's the same floodway as the
- as the transit garage. Are those the only properties that are in a floodway that are on the list? Out
- of all the properties on the list, are those the only properties in a floodway? That I'm aware of. So
- there's pretty much three, is that right? Could we please verify that by the next meeting? Thank you.
- Oh, north and south, OK. So the only ones that would then be eliminated
- south of Post Office, HT building, with an asterisk, and then Bloomington Transit Garage. Right. So
- we have those three. The rest of them remain, right? Okay. All right. The next one is, are we ready
- to move on to the next one? I'm ready to go. Okay. Is the owner willing to sell the property?
- other information that we may or may not know about up here? I guess my response is, I'm not sure how
- we want to answer the things that the county currently already owns, because I don't know if that's
- a yes or a no. I would say it's not applicable. I think it's not applicable, yes. So I would say the
- Curry building and the renovations of current building with Curry would be not applicable. I think
- would be not applicable? I guess when I spoke with the people at IU, they had plans for the Bloomington
- Transit garage. So at that point in time, I guess I would say no. Does IU actually own that? Ah, okay.
- A fell iron bender. I don't know for certain, but I think one of the reasons
- One of the few reasons we really quit looking at it is that we understood that it was going through
- the city planning process, at least the fell iron was. And so I believe that site had sold, so I would
- be skeptical whether that would be available for sale, but I have not talked to whoever purchased it.
- I think it ended up in the property transfer section, as I remember. I think it was going through the
- city planning process when we began looking at it.
- And so we kind of backed away because if it was going to be reused. So I'm guessing it's not for sale
- because they already just sold. Just for transparency then, could we confirm that between the next meeting
- and we can just leave that blank until we know for certain? City legal. Thank you. In regard to Hopewell.
- That would be up to the Redevelopment Commission, who I have not spoken to them recently, but I believe
- the last time they took up the issue, they voted it down. Can you help me a little bit with Hopewell?
- This is where I guess, and this is probably my own ignorance, so I need the education. I thought of
- Hopewell as one kind of monolith.
- My understanding is it's actually three different segments and we talked about this in a prior meeting
- but would you mind kind of explaining what the multiple segments are because we're talking about it
- like it's only one. Well I'm probably not the most well equipped to explain that in detail but there
- are three different properties all are I believe in different stages of the zoning process. The Bloomington
- City Council just approved the south
- parcel to be under a PUD for development. I, truth be told, do not know the exact status update of the
- other two properties, but I believe this did come to the Redevelopment Commission not recently, but
- in the past few years, and I believe they declined to sell either of them. But I follow up with RDC.
- And when you say either it's south, east, or is it west? So the south property is what we just voted
- on. And then I believe they're the east and west properties. And I guess when we were looking, and I
- don't know the city's nomenclature for where we're, but when we were looking at it, we were looking
- at it on the property that currently has the old parking garage from the city.
- I know there's some reuse going on with the historic part of the hospital, but we were looking at kind
- of the rest of that block, for lack of a better word. I think the Hunter School is still owned by the
- school corporation, so basically from the Hunter School east to Rogers, I think is what, when we looked
- at it, is what we were looking at with that corner where the historic building is being
- You remember a known thing. Sorry. Do you remember if the county actually went to the RDC and asked
- or my memory and I could be very wrong because this is a prior administration. But my memory was basically
- that county had sort of informally approached the prior administration and was told basically absolutely
- not. But I don't mean I did not attend an RDC meeting where that question was asked of them. So I don't
- I don't know. I also talked to one of the current RDC members
- last night after or Monday night after the meeting and he he didn't recall that either. But I but he
- might be new to it right. So it might have been before his time. Right. I was before my time too but
- I'm happy to take responsibility for that. Come back. And if the answer from whomever RDC or administration
- is just no we just need to know it so we can move on. No judgment here at all on that. I don't know
- their decisions. I will just put it out there that the
- earlier today so if it's not true please don't cite me. I believe the RDC has canceled their July 6th
- meeting which would be the only opportunity we would have to hear feedback from them prior to the conclusion
- of this committee. So I'm neutral but I just want to put that information out there. Is it possible
- that when we come back to the next meeting there could be a map that just helps explain what Hopewell
- South is versus Hopewell Western. That way we just
- When we address it, we're all talking about the same thing. Yes. Thank you. I'm sure that exists. Sorry,
- Mr. Allen. I apologize. Thank you. You're giving him a lot of tasks, April. I know. Okay. Okay. Willing
- to sell. Okay. So hope well. Unsure. Yeah.
- double check, the last I understood is that the school corporation was in negotiation with a potential
- purchaser, but I don't know where that would, where that's at. That's MCC. MCC owns that, or did, okay.
- And next is North Park, no? North? Yeah, I mean, whether it's on the right side or not, the answer
- I'm just gonna keep it on this list. South of the post office, right? South of the post office. South
- Walnut Street. That's first. Pardon me? Yeah, okay, I was just trying to picture it. I think I was thinking
- of a different section over there.
- Okay, so the post office on South College, the one that's all fenced off, that's where we're at, so
- it would be... South of the pawn shop. Yeah. Gotcha. So the question is, is the owner willing to sell
- that property? Do we know that answer? You know who owns it? Is that not private property? I think it's
- several owners. Yeah, it's owned in private hands for the most part, and that's, again, something that
- we can put together and potentially
- That's private. All right. Then are we moving on to the Tap Road, Wabahani Road, and Weimer Road? I
- do not know if that one is for sale or not. The north of Tap Road? Yeah. The north of Tap Road is also
- in private hands. I'm not aware of it being for sale, but we can try to get more information about that
- again. OK. Our apologies. That's OK.
- And Tap Road South is for sale. Or I've spoken with the owner and he's willing to work with us and he
- would sell us the property. It would be available. It's available. Yes. Okay. As is Fullerton. Yes.
- Oh, Fullerton. Yes. Okay. All right. Then back to Tap Road South. The 69 in West Tap Road area. Yes,
- that is. Oh, yeah. He said yes. That's for sale.
- He said they're willing to. Yes. They've reached out to us and have expressed a willingness to work.
- All right. So then we talked about Fullerton. That was available. So I think we've done that question
- all the way across if I'm recording correctly, right? Yes. All right. So now to will the property meet
- constitutional care with the inserted question, right?
- That's one of those questions that as we talk through the property might be able to answer better. So
- fill it in as we go, is that what you're suggesting? Yeah. Okay. All right. That's one of the other
- questions that get more information collected. Okay. All right. So then we go down to defensible to
- court, which is the earliest groundbreaking date, right? You can answer that right now.
- Anybody have any idea of any of those properties would be able to be. Ground earliest on or is there
- any timeline on any of them that anyone knows about. I think the only one that I could say with certainty
- is I think for the North Park we could probably break ground in a year. So just generally besides naming
- specific properties and I apologize for the general
- generalization but any green field development is going to be much faster obviously. So green field
- development where there are no particular immediately obvious environmental obstacles is going to be
- the fastest development. Anything that requires demolition or has been a historic site is going to take
- just a bit of lead time and certainly much longer potentially adds up anywhere from I would say six
- to twelve months to your construction time on depending on the complications.
- And then do we know of properties, I guess, besides North Park that would be Greenfield? Some of the
- Tap Road suggestions are Greenfield. They are not Brownfield development. Maybe the south of Tap Road
- might be Brownfield. But those are the ones that come to mind. Just also as a word of information,
- Anything that's going to be in downtown Bloomington is going to require significant environmental study,
- just period, just from the historic uses. And it's likely that cleanup would also be required on some
- of those sites. It's just a reality of developing in the downtown. So can we mark the chart somewhere
- for that? The ones that are downtown? I don't know. Because I'm not sure exactly how far downtown reaches
- for that purpose.
- What you have on here is you have environmental considerations. And so what we'll try to do is highlight that.
- Where we think and some of that would be taking some information I think is it's probably a
- useful conversation as you narrow down this list and you get it down to the key properties we can probably
- address that by looking at analogous neighboring properties. There are a few known features in the city
- such as you know high arsenic levels is a common thing. Obviously we have we have a high background
- arsenic naturally occurring arsenic levels. There is.
- Shockingly number of historic gas stations that existed in downtown Bloomington that come up periodically
- and then also of course Karst areas and if you you have any kind of water intrusion into the site so
- So following up with this run back what she was suggesting I was wondering if we could add to under
- B site profile under question to within city limits add another question say considered downtown
- And then you can tell us which one of these properties would be considered in the region that you're
- talking about. Sure. Yeah, we can do that. Would we do that? And I don't know what Greenfield and Brownfield
- is. I could pretend, but if you could help me understand what that is. The shortest form of that is
- did it have something on it before?
- So if it had something on it before, it was already developed into something else, and this is reused,
- that's typically brownfield development. It's already been something else, and it's changing into something
- else. Greenfield typically means that it's a completely open, first-time, developable space. You can
- turn some brownfield into greenfield, but typically all prior used properties are going to be brownfield.
- Non-used properties, greenfield. Thank you. I appreciate that. Question? Sure.
- The vast majority of the rest of these metrics will require more information. Given that it is seven,
- I would suggest that we adjourn shortly and give our legal teams the adequate time to review for the
- rest of the information. I just don't know that it's going to be an efficient use of our time to stop
- this group. We need more information. Well, let's hear from legal. What does legal say about this?
- Council Zulek recommended here. That's generally what I would also recommend. And I apologize that we're
- putting you in this position. We appreciate your patience with us. We're trying to do this as quickly
- as we can. But I think that information will be helpful just to make this a much more productive conversation
- to have those basic facts for these properties. So is there anything breezing through the rest of the
- questions? Do we have anything that we might be able to do yet? Does anybody see anything?
- additional legal input. And how you look at the list, you see it the same way? Okay. All right. So that
- brings us to the adjournment, I guess, right? Is there anything else from any of the committee or our
- table over here?
- legal and other experts that would like to weigh in before we adjourn for this evening. I would just
- say I appreciate Commissioner Madeira wanting to know where the information is coming from. I don't
- want to make this chart like full of footnotes or links or something that is not user friendly, but
- I'm hoping, you know, when you guys are putting information on the chart that if possible, if we could
- mark who added it or where the information came from, you know, that's
- be adding a lot, but at least to know if city legalists who put this in or county legalists who put
- this in or something. That way we can kind of go back to the source if we have questions about, or if
- anyone has questions about where this information came from. Possible? I don't know. Anything's possible.
- Okay. If you would be willing just to give us a
- If we could confer with that before your next meeting and kind of try to figure out, because it might
- make sense just to be able to, if we have source documents, we can just link them. So it's not a matter
- of who's entering it, but they have access to it. But we can certainly try to work that out. So make
- it readable and usable still. Links would be great. That would be awesome. Can I out in your emails
- for something from me? I'm going to do my best to identify the history of Hopewell in relationship to the jail.
- So a lot of it will probably be just chit chat. What you learn, yes. I will do my best to get us all
- the information we can get. Thanks. Chair, final to that. So I think I would like to. I'm sorry, yes.
- Oh, I was just piggybacking off the comment by Ms. Rembeck. The stuff that we've already been presented
- today and that we've previously presented, if we could also include copies of that or links.
- Mr. Cockrell was kind enough to give us this Menorah County Sheriff's Office and Jail and Justice Center.
- Like in Venice? Well, for the subcommittee, we have our own website. Oh, on the website. I was wondering
- if you could include a link or a copy just so the public can follow along as well. As I receive things,
- I've been putting it on the website. Thank you. Yes, I will put a copy of what Mr. Cockrell gave us
- tonight. Thank you. Thank you.
- And then Miss April, if you're updating the matrix information, then when you forward that to me, I
- will update that onto the website as well. I believe Attorney Allen agreed to update the metrics. I
- think maybe we're not correct. I wanted to check. So you guys are going to handle updating the matrix,
- sorry, both legal departments, so that we're not violating the open door by trying to do it all ourselves?
- Correct. OK. Correct.
- Turner King has already been making some of the updates for the suggested add additions for the additional
- properties, you know, we'll add those as well so that everything's on one site. Although understanding
- that non-city properties will go on a cover sheet that lists all the properties, so we'll try to also
- develop the cover sheet. And then can we have, at some point, a link to, like, is it similar to, like,
- a read-only situation, what you were thinking, where we can look at it, like, live? Yeah, so... You
- mentioned that for the...
- For the public comment, do you mean as you score it through the matrix, like as it gets filled in? We'll
- just fill an entire matrix kind of as it's updated. Yeah, so it'll be available. It should come out
- through the packet, and it'll be published again online so that it will be available to you all. And
- it should get emailed out as part of the agenda. Awesome. Thank you. I will make no changes to any matrix.
- You're not waiting on anything from me. We'll just come back to you. When they're doing the first thing.
- Are we all on the same page here? I'm sorry about all this. A quick timeline, I know. You're in trouble.
- Did you have something to add, anyone there? We're going to have to work out logistics because I'm on
- vacation starting 4 o'clock tomorrow. Always taking off time starting next week. So we were just sympathizing
- with Larry.
- They're very concerned that I'll be the only one here for you. So we'll fill in what we can. We understand
- it may not be completely done in a week. All right. Thank you. Meeting meetings. I think I'd just like
- to summarize when the remaining meetings are. Yes July 6th at 6 p.m. Monday. We're going to continue
- these site evaluations with an updated metric sheet and then
- We've agreed to do an executive session to look at properties at 5 15 on Thursday. Regular meeting at
- six on Thursday and then on the ninth we're going to have a meeting at seven. I'm sorry it's also on
- the same day. Thank you. That willing the public meeting will be on this at seven on the ninth and then
- Thursday and then on the 13th we will.
- have another meeting Monday, and then make a recommendation. The meeting at 6 p.m. on Thursday will
- also be public. It just will not be open to public comment. And at 7 p.m. that is the time that public
- comment will start. That's right. For the Thursday meeting. That's right. Is it noon? That's right.
- Yes. That's right. Yes. Thank you for that reminder. Thank you. Anything else?
- We're going to call it adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here and thank you for everything
- that we've done so far.