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.