- So good evening. My name is Liz final. I'm the chair of this collaborative justice project
- working subcommittee. And I'd like to call this meeting to order on Thursday, July 9th at six oh five p.m.
- So with me tonight on the DS is count City Councilor Sydney's leak prosecutors office April Wilson and
- I always forget where you're from. Public Defender's Office, Karen Renbeck and our mayor of Bloomington,
- Carrie Thompson. So welcome and we shall begin. So let's adoption of the agenda. So do we have a motion
- to adopt or to amend or what are we going to do with the agenda? I move adoption of the agenda as presented.
- I actually have a move to amend. So I present.
- So in terms of moving to amend, I'd like to add two items for consideration. Where would that be? Could
- do it at the top of the agenda is what I would suggest. One, I wanted to talk about the possibility
- of extending the subcommittee by specifically, I'm not aware of a time in which the County Council has
- requested that we make a presentation. They have.
- We were due to have it all done by the 13th. Well, my understanding of the resolution is they set a
- month. I wasn't aware of being added to the county council's agenda for next Tuesday to make a presentation.
- Have we added to the agenda on the 14th? I have not seen the agenda. Do you know about the agenda for
- next Tuesday, include the presentation from this committee? It would come under like a department head. Okay.
- anything, but the resolution said on or before July 13th. In terms of a presentation date, Chair Fiddle,
- have you been made aware of a presentation date? I haven't. I don't think I have, have you? No. I believe,
- my understanding was that once a decision, you guys came up with a recommendation, then we were going
- to work on a date of a collaboration with the
- the city and the count account. So I understand. Yeah, I have the large group. Because you're going
- to present it to the large group. So even if we reach a decision on Monday, we won't be presenting it
- to the large group. We don't have a date for when we're presenting it to the large group. Is that correct?
- That is correct because I was instructed not to do that until Monday and then
- to set a group date after that? I'd like to help facilitate both of those things. One, we've received
- a lot of information. I did get some feedback that there's a feeling we need to make a decision quickly.
- I think time is really important and that we need to make a decision. So I thought a two-week additional
- time to review the information we received and follow up on any outstanding questions would really only
- add one meeting.
- So what I would propose is instead of meeting on Monday at noon, we meet on Thursday at noon and the
- next Thursday, essentially breaking that one meeting up into two meetings and then presenting our conclusions
- at the July 28th County Council meeting. But if it needs to be a different day, that's fine. I thought
- it'd give us time to review all of the things we have received. We would need to confirm that with the
- Council President
- with regards to. I don't feel like it's my purview or actually this committee's purview to change what
- it was we were charged to do. I don't know how we would do that. As a point of order, I think that we
- are discussing an amendment to the agenda, but we're really, we have moved on to discussing that item.
- I will just say no matter where we go with that point of order,
- Those following two Thursdays, I am unavailable. I also would agree. We agreed to lay out our work and
- complete it by Monday, at least with a recommendation. I would say even if that recommendation comes
- with stipulations for further work, I would like to fulfill that commitment. Yeah, that's when that
- should occur, I think, at that session. We could ask for it then, I think. That's right.
- And if I get voted down, I get voted down. I just wanted to move to amend to add it to the agenda. So
- and then the second item. You're making a motion. Yes, I am. And I have one more after that. The first
- one is to extend extend the subcommittee by two weeks, right? And the second part is let's vote on that.
- Sorry, let's vote on that one first. All right. Second. Who will second that motion? Anyone?
- Sorry to clarify. It's just a motion to amend the agenda.
- to add that, correct? Although the substantive discussion has largely occurred. It is a motion to amend
- the agenda. It needs a second and then a vote. If there's a second agenda item, it's just going to be
- more efficient to name that second agenda item to add both of them to the agenda at once, or you can
- do one at a time if you'd like. Well, my thinking, sorry, but my thinking was if they had the one,
- And not everybody wanted to do the first one and then they had the second one and you know that kind
- of break up. Yeah. So that was my thinking. Sorry. So the first motion again is what would somebody.
- So the motion is to amend the agenda to consider to talk about extension of the timeline amongst this
- group to add that to the agenda. That's the motion on the table. Is there a second for that motion.
- I would second.
- All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. And so do we need the second one then? It's a different motion
- to amend, so I'd like to be able to. Yes, okay. I'd like to move to amend the agenda that we include
- discussion of how the voting procedures will be conducted for our final vote. So if it sounds like it's
- on Monday, there's five of us currently here.
- Is it going to be a majority? What happens if we have a tie? What happens if we have what, I'm sorry?
- If we have a tie or if we have a split, I thought it might, I received some feedback about what that
- process would be. I don't know the answer to it and I think it's a good question. So I'd like to add
- it to the agenda to, about what that process looks like. We're voting on our decision, right? We're
- gonna do Monday, so. Second. There's a motion and you second it? You did? Sidney.
- All right, all those in favor to figure out the voting process and how that might break out for Monday's
- meeting, say aye. Aye. Opposed? We passed that one. Just to clarify, sorry, are we moving that to the
- top of the agenda as well? Is that what's said? I don't know. We can talk about where it's going to
- occur. I'm indifferent, but I'd like to talk about it.
- Since it deals with the next meeting, can we maybe do it at the end? Would that be all right? It seems
- like we could wrap up and then talk about what we're going to do next time. Does that work? Okay. So
- we're going to put it after 4A. So let's make that 4B maybe. Will that work? All right. All right. Now
- we can adopt the agenda. No? Is there a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
- All in favor of adopting the agenda as amended? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We now have an agenda, amended agenda.
- All right. So we're now down to the site evaluations and we all have materials up here that were presented
- for the latest version of everything. So we have five sites left as I remember and C.
- The renovations of the current building with Curry, the Tap Road North site, the Tap Road South site,
- the Thompson site, and Fullerton. So what is it that we need to discuss about these sites and further
- discussion that we need to discuss about any of them? I do have some questions if I could start. And
- looking at the five properties that were remaining,
- Mr. Allen, if you could help me with some of them. Looking specifically at the Tap Road North property,
- it lists is the property in a floodway and it says yes, partially. Could you tell me a little bit more
- about that? Yeah, there's a floodway that essentially runs along Weimar Road. This property's not very
- affected by that floodway, but it does cross the boundary line. That's why it's on there as partially.
- To the extent that the boundary line comes close to Weimar Road, there's just a
- a small low-lying area, and by small I mean under half an acre even. It's not even substantial enough
- to honestly evolve on the construction of any site. Thank you. Also under renovations of current building
- with Curry, same under B, site profile. Question three, total square footage is blank. I was wondering
- if we could get that number before we take the vote on
- So if you look in, there's a supplemental kind of summary sheet for properties that we have. There were
- three parcels that were considered under that is my understanding from the last time. That includes
- the current justice center, the
- Fiscus building and the Curry building. And we didn't do square footage on those buildings, so we can
- get that square footage number for you for sure. In terms of acreage, when considering those three parcels
- together, it's a .82 acre site.
- That does not include the parking garage, so that very explicitly excludes the county's parking garage,
- but that's how big that site is. So in terms of the apples to apples comparison for acreage and what
- we've been talking about, that's that apples to apples comparison, but we can certainly get you the
- square footage of the current buildings as they exist, understanding that any kind of expansion likely
- into the Curry and Fiscus building would require
- either partial or entire demolition and reconstruction that would significantly change the square footage.
- And for that Curry site, can you help me understand? So that's in downtown, right? How many floors can
- we build up on parcel? Yeah, let me, I'll get that. I'm very sorry. You had asked that earlier and I
- didn't provide that for you. So I'll check the zoning code right now and I'll get you a sense of what
- that footage height is for that zoning area.
- That's what is it currently in our code. That does not mean that a variance couldn't be passed to make
- a higher building. So I'll just put that out there. I think it's four stories. That's 100% correct.
- I just didn't know what the exact footage is for those four stories. We are already going through a
- rezone so that it all can be part of the same zoning package. That variance would be
- included in the rezone. And I think one of the reasons I was interested in square footage is because
- we have square footage from that August 29th of the whole justice system. So I was trying to figure
- out how many floors we could actually go up and will be needed if that is a property for contention.
- Square footage would be really helpful. I think if the question simply is, would it be possible to meet
- that square footage requirement using that site? I think it would be.
- There's no question that some variance would be needed, as the mayor just said, some variance with the
- rezone would be needed, but it is possible with that configuration of site to meet that square footage.
- It just would not be one floor, as was stated earlier. Under site profile, B, question six, renovations
- of current building with Curry. It says, will the site require purchase of additional property and someone
- put to be determined? I was just wondering if there was additional information there or just
- a lack of clarity.
- my county colleagues had filled in. I'm not sure exactly. I haven't had a conversation with them and
- what they were thinking. If there's other adjacent, that site is relatively contained within the block.
- So it does not appear that there would be needed any additional purchase of real estate. The issues
- with that site would likely come in. There are existing platted alleyways. So those are part of the
- right of way. Those would need to be vacated if they wanted to be made part of the site to make it a
- unified site. So there are some
- parts to it like that, but I'm not aware of any immediate adjacent property that was under consideration
- for purchase. Also, I was guessing that the TBD also relates to the ability to build a single story
- combined facility. I do think that those combined sites
- do not work in terms of square footage for a single story combined facility. So if we take that as a
- non-negotiable, that would eliminate this site. So I think the TBD likely has something to do with that.
- I do have some more, but I'm happy to let someone else ask questions if they. I have a question.
- Does the jail being a single story or multi-story have any impact on the constitutionality of care?
- I don't think it necessarily has to. I think it depends how you do it, of course. The understanding
- is the current configuration of the jail poses
- significant concerns on the ability to use the current building as it is. So likely you would
- need significant renovation. If you were to use that building, for instance, as a multi-story site,
- you would likely need almost a complete renovation of the interior to kind of update it for modern security
- standards. In terms of a constitutionality of care, that does have more to do with
- the quality of the building, the size, the number of beds that you're able to hold. Are you overcrowded?
- Are you putting people in different areas? So there were a litany of things, but I don't think it necessarily
- precludes meeting a constitutional level of care. Thank you. In that case, I don't think that something
- not being able to meet a single story requirement should be qualified, enough of a qualification to
- remove it from our consideration.
- I see April go again if nobody else has anything. Okay. On de-operational adequacy under renovations
- of current building with Curry, question three, adequate space to co-locate all justice departments.
- We just talked about this a little bit briefly, but the answer in here is maybe, and I wasn't sure if
- that's because
- We also have community corrections down the street. Or if we're worried about the square footage, because
- the square footage on that DLC presentation was actually for a single floor jail. And once you start
- doing multilevels, which this property would require, you also have to include elevators as well as
- redundancies in terms of medical areas, I would assume.
- know any more about the answer to that maybe that was filled in. I think it's very similar to as the
- mayor pointed out earlier because the height would likely require variance from the current standards
- and from any any proposed zoning standard. That's probably why there was some uncertainty inserted there
- by my colleagues because they couldn't guarantee that that variance would be granted since that goes
- through a public board process.
- We talk about a public board process. I know you spent some time today helping me work through zoning.
- Um, my understanding is if we were to do this property, um, surely we would end up in rezoning. Yes.
- In the process of that, um, it will end up going to county council for approval. Do you mean city council
- city council? Thank you. So I do mean that and I didn't say that. Thank you. It will end up going through
- city council for approval. Correct? Yes.
- Okay, so I guess with my city council president, and I know you can't hear everyone, but I just wanted
- to get a sense of once we make a recommendation, if that recommendation were to be considered and they
- were starting to invest on that process, if it got to the point in site design where it was presented
- the 400 beds or 448,
- It seems like the city council, I was trying to get a sense of whether or not at that point they would
- be willing to consider the property even if they didn't agree with that amount. I can't speak for my
- colleagues, but I will just say that process is going to be required for any property that's within
- city limits that will need to be zoned, so I don't know if
- That is a useful guiding question only because it will be the same, no matter what problem. Yes, where
- I was thinking is if all of the properties have to go through city rezoning and money's gonna be invested
- into environmental site design and that's all time as well, which I think we all agree is something
- on our minds and pretty critical from my perspective.
- I guess I was just trying to get a sense of whether or not able to move forward with that process, or
- if we're gonna hit a snag once we start talking about beds. I wouldn't anticipate that, but every time
- I have thought it would be okay to speak for my colleagues, it was not. So I am not going to comment on that.
- I just wanted to follow up with the renovations of the current building with Curry. And I think I just
- know more about it because I work in the justice building. So I had some questions under the construction
- feasibility section. We're talking about risk to those on site. I know that there's been, just to kind
- of share with the community, we've had, as you've been aware, that there were some mold issues and there's
- been a lot of
- fogging both I think preventative, prosecutor's office multiple times actually in the past probably
- a couple months. So in terms, it says unknown here when it comes down to renovations of current building
- with Curry. I just wanted to share with legal staff, especially since we have that meeting coming up
- on Monday, there is a county folder and I can't remember the order, but it's like mold, asbestos and
- radon. So I would like to kind of include some of that information
- as relevant to this particular column, if we could. And is that information publicly available so far?
- I mean, it's available to me as a county employee, so I don't know. But to the extent that it can be
- included in our assessment, I think the health and well-being of all people who are working in the justice
- building, acting with it is important. And I want to make sure we take that into consideration if it's
- relevant to this.
- I will check into that and see if I can get access to those documents as well. I really appreciate it.
- And I'm sorry, Mr. Allen, for all the questions. I know you're over there handling it by yourself. So
- I think that's all the ones I have for now. Thank you so much, Chair Feidl. Anyone else? Are we talking
- about any of the properties or just Curry for this point? Any, right? Any. I have one more. Sorry.
- My understanding is the discussion around Thompson has involved that there is a pile of debris of some
- variety and some utility poles and maybe a surge. One of the questions I had is, is it possible to start
- building on the Thompson property while those utility poles are being moved and still long-term be able
- to co-locate
- fire justice system. So that's something that if Attorney Cockerill was here, I think he could have
- a little bit more information about it. Is it possible? I would believe so. So the question, the threshold
- question there would be, is the movement of the utility poles preventing access to the site completely?
- And if they're not
- If they're not actually preventing access to the site, i.e. through a, you could create a service road,
- it is potential, it's possible rather that you could start not only your geotechnical work, but your grading.
- and site preparation work ahead of moving those poles. Obviously, this was seen as a barrier to construction,
- so it was significant enough in an area that was important enough that it would represent some barrier
- to completing, to potentially going ahead with full construction of the site. You can always do, again,
- meeting the threshold question that doesn't prevent access to the site. You could potentially do some
- grading and property work before the movement of those poles.
- And I apologize for my ignorance about where they're exactly located in the access. My understanding
- is you do have access to it, but these are largely involving the large transmission lines that flow
- from the substation that's very close by. Do you remember how long Thompson has been for discussion
- for the jail? As far as I'm aware, and this is just a very sliver of awareness, so just keep in mind
- my limitations,
- which I'm sure you do all the time. It's about four years, at least, since it's been in contention.
- So it says somewhere that it looks like it should have only taken two years to move the utility lines.
- Is that correct? I believe that was the estimate from Duke, yes. OK, so that's something that could
- have been accomplished if people were to think about it. If that estimate was correct based on their
- engineers and everything went well, yes, that should have been correct. Just checking.
- knows their own thing. Just checking. Thank you. The motioners mentioned in their meeting that at some
- point DLZ informed them they need 25 acres this morning in their meeting. I was wondering if you had
- access to that report or any of that information that DLZ
- used as guidance for what we need ultimately for the justice center. If they've updated the report,
- no. If it's based on what the North Park estimates, yes, we do have access to that. And again, that's
- premised on a one-story co-located justice center, is my understanding. We could just have access to
- whatever the basis is of that 25 acres. That would be helpful for the assessment on Monday, if we could.
- Thank you.
- I have an unrelated comment, perhaps. We had discussed last time at the end of last meeting how we would
- approach this discussion, and we talked about eliminating any properties that really were not viable.
- I just wanted to share that after going through this documentation, as long as we do not take
- some of the assumptions as foregone conclusions, such as it must be co-located and it has to be single
- story. I don't see anything that eliminates any of the five choices that we have remaining. I think
- they're all still viable. And I would suggest that we have a conversation about at least
- how we're going to prioritize them and lenses with which we're looking. I'm eager to hear public comment
- in 28 minutes. That will definitively influence how I think about this. But I already have some thoughts
- on ease of development and other things. So I don't know if
- somebody on the team has thought about how to prioritize or if we want to make individual comments about
- that. But I suggest if we've answered the questions, we move on to sort of at least overall impressions
- of challenges and opportunities at each of the sites. I agree. I think that it also might be helpful
- for all committee members to come with the properties ranked for Monday. I like that.
- based on the metrics that we identified. And I think that we'll talk a little bit more about voting
- procedures and how that works in the next 27 minutes. But I do think that us having the five properties
- ranked on an individual basis will make the discussion a lot easier in the next one day. I recognize
- that that is not a lot
- business days in between, so please let me know if that does not sound. I think it almost has to be
- feasible. There are tasks to do here. I planned to spend time on homework this weekend, and I've done
- a lot of reading in preparation for this meeting, so I'm on track to be able to do that. I'm missing
- some numbers, but if we're voting on Monday, I will be ready.
- I will tell you that I have reached out for some data that I have not received as of yet that I think
- is informative, so. Anyone else about that process? Are we okay? Do we need to decide if we're going
- to rank them? That might be a good thing to establish. Can we agree to rank them? Maybe we should discuss
- how the voting procedure works to see what the value will be of the ranking.
- So are we kind of done with the concerns about the properties at this point, that 4A section, and we
- can go to the voting thing that we decided we'd put there? All right. I was intending that we spend
- some time now talking about the challenges and opportunities that we see with each of these sites, because
- I would appreciate hearing from this team how they're thinking about
- each of these properties that will contribute to my thoughts over the weekend, and then we'll be able
- to hear from the public. And so I'll have lots of verbal input to consider. Want to go? Start with the
- first one, right? So the first column is renovations of the current building with Curry. Somebody want
- to give their pros and cons to that?
- little site or site there? Maybe we can all contribute to pros and then we make a list of cons together.
- So I'll say, you know, pros with this is that, you know, the jail and the justice system have the potential
- for obviously staying in the same location with renovation, that it's
- perhaps feasible to not disrupt the courts while we're doing, uh, the initial build out on the, um,
- on the additional building. Um, so that's all appealing, obviously access to resources, transportation,
- et cetera. All of that is already there. Um, and I think a benefit also, which is not in our matrix,
- but we have, uh, lots of,
- legal offices and other things that have been located close to this location. If it's not a
- legal requirement, the number of beds that we build out now, I see this as a feasible site for a potential
- phased build out. That would not necessarily mean that we build out
- 448 beds now, but could, in fact, essentially white box it or whatever the equivalent is for a justice
- facility and invest later should we need those additional beds. Those are my opportunities. All right.
- Can I ask a follow-up to that? Ask a follow-up? Yes. And I'm so glad you brought this up, because this
- is actually something I wanted to explore last meeting.
- about the Curry. Sorry. I want to look at people. When we were talking about Curry previously, one of
- the questions I had is what the proposed vision would be. And that sounds like you were talking about
- a build out. And you were sharing that you don't think there'd be any disruption of courts. So I heard
- your vision as using the Curry to build additional spaces that are relevant to the jail.
- and keeping everything the same in the justice building? Not what I'm proposing. I think it's very clear
- that the existing building needs either demolished and rebuilt or to have very significant renovations.
- I just think that there's possibilities for phasing this. This may be a
- a good time for me to bring up my assessment, which is that we really could use even a small amount
- of money to hire somebody with a lot of construction experience to look at whatever our prioritized
- sites are. I would recommend somebody who doesn't have a vested stake in building a portfolio project,
- but that can simply assess
- What are the creative construction solutions at perhaps our top two sites? And turn that around quickly,
- not expecting hard numbers, et cetera, just possibilities and opportunities and limitations that we,
- given our experience, don't see. So I'm not aware who would allocate such funding. I have no idea what
- it would cost, but I'm not thinking of
- a $50,000 investment. I'm thinking of a few thousand dollars to get some quick assessments made.
- All right. So did you want to go? I can add a couple things. I think that keeping the jail as close
- to downtown and with access to close proximity to all of our social services, but also just
- The town itself is very important. Obviously, as the District 6 downtown representative, I am always
- going to push to keep things downtown. But also, one of the things that stuck out to me was that all
- of the utilities are there, which will make certain things significantly less of a headache moving down
- the line. In terms of Ms. Wilson's question about
- potential plan. Just speaking as one city council member, I would be happy to vote for a variance for
- six stories. But for the rest of the body that I serve on. What would be your vision of how that would
- work? Would the jail be all in the justice building? Would the Curry become the administrative section
- in the courthouse?
- What would be your ideal under that? I do not feel qualified to speak on all of the different spaces.
- I don't feel that I could adequately speak on the spaces that all the different departments need. But
- I'm happy to have that conversation more at length. I think it's not within our purview to create
- a vision for how everything works. We receive square footages for various departments. I actually was
- surprised at how they and would not have put those square footages, but that speaks to my experience
- of knowing what's actually happening in detail with each of those spaces. So I think our job is to figure out
- the best recommendation in the city for a possible site. I appreciate that. I think the reason I'm following
- up on it is because, so the Curry-Fiscus building, right? Ms. Renbeck previously shared that the public
- defender's office is in the Fiscus building, and in the Curry building, you have multiple departments.
- I'm trying to understand how everything would fit in that space.
- and be able to be functional. By choosing the Curry property, we are automatically deciding it's going
- to be a multi-story jail. That is unequivocal. And I am worried in talking about things that we're worried
- about and sharing, I'm worried about access and safety. I think the two main buckets. And when I talk
- about access, for me that includes co-location and safety also includes co-location. But I'm also worried
- about the conditions within the jail and having enough space.
- Once you choose the Curry path, you are also going to disperse some of the people within that justice
- building in order for them to do their job. And so I think that is something it's important to me to
- take into consideration because it will cost money. It will have an impact. Time spent traveling for
- the prosecutor's office or public defender's office is time not spent on cases.
- I didn't hear that last part. I'm sorry. Yes, thank you. I apologize. Time spent traveling by prosecutors
- and public defenders is time not spent on cases, on defendants, on victims, on the work. So for me,
- it is a factor. But I understand we're all coming from different places. Yeah. Are all of those departments
- included in these square footage estimates that we received in our pattern or they're on the website?
- know if we received them in the part in the packet, the clerk probation, public defender, prosecutor,
- criminal prosecutor, child support, courts, training room, sheriff's office, jail admin in jail. I'm
- glad you brought that up. That's one of the emails that I sent out that I haven't had a response. Okay,
- so I wanted to understand the square footage. So I could use that as a guide to figure out how many
- stores, stories or floors we would have to go up to see if it fit on that space. So I'm hopeful I can
- get that by Monday.
- You're waiting for a response on what the square footage requirements are I follow up questions to those
- I figure out what they included. Okay, I I will just suggest that an architect or even a You know a
- good builder Could give you an assessment Based on these numbers and some penciling whether we can fit
- it on those sites
- And further down in the email, it says specifically that there are additional square footages that are
- not included in the square footages you're referring to. So that was actually one of my follow-up questions
- to help guide us. Yeah. I'm not sure what MEP is. You know what MEP is? It's one of the spaces listed.
- All the other spaces listed will depend on the
- on the actual building and whether it's one floor, two floors, et cetera, because it involves, these
- things involve how many elevator systems you need, where stairwells go, et cetera. And so part of the
- reason, I imagine the reason that they're not included here is because you actually have to be dealing
- with the actual building
- to estimate these things. MEP stands for Mechanical Electrical Plumbing. There we go. The public spaces,
- I noticed, are not on the list. Public toilets and lobbies and those in the courthouse is open to the
- public. Yeah, that's listed in that other square footage is needed.
- Out of respect for the public's time, and given that public comment is supposed to start in 15 minutes,
- I would suggest we move on to another property. So any other? We'll move on to Tap Road North. Rose
- and Conde there. Certainly has more space.
- but I feel much less confident about the process for securing utilities. I would say that both Tap Roads
- and Fullerton, I think we could, at least my comments will be fairly consistent, that they are, to our
- knowledge, greenfield sites that should be
- as straightforward to develop as one could expect given karst topography and other things that we know
- are in our community, significant infrastructure needs for each of those properties. And I would say
- the other thing is that there's
- also significant topographical changes, I believe, in each one of those properties, which could make
- building a single story not the most efficient use of your space. Also on Tap Road North, are we kind
- of ventured into both Tap Roads and Fullerton there?
- the same region, right? I think for these purposes, our review will be fairly similar. I'll just continue
- that, you know, one of the disadvantages obviously is distance to services. I am not experienced enough
- in this to know which services are coming into the jail and the justice building and what services need to be
- located close by. It's also not on transportation route yet. I think that could possibly change. I feel
- much more strongly the courts need to be, courts and probation need to be on public transit. The jail
- isn't actually taking visitors and so, you know,
- We have to solve for when we release somebody and how we get them to where they need to be. But in terms
- of everyday public transit, I'm not sure that jail is the highest need that we have at this point. Anything
- else about those three? On to the last one in the last few minutes here would be the Thompson property,
- right? We haven't talked about that, pros and cons.
- Thompson property, the utilities are going to be the biggest barrier or the, excuse me, the existing
- utility lines. Yeah, the power lines. Yes. That needs some movement, as I remember. I've seen movement.
- In terms of zoning on the Thompson property, while it will, we do anticipate needing a rezone there,
- it is already zoned for
- Something similar, right? I mean, you could have a jail there, you just couldn't have one as significant
- as what we want. So I don't know how that'll be viewed by the council or the plan commission, but it
- is an adjacent rezone, I would say. A zoning modification instead of a... Complete change. Yeah, it
- technically still is a rezone, but it's adjacent.
- essentially would follow the exact same process. So you go before the same board and everything, so.
- Yes, but in terms of your argument for granting it, if I write, you could do something similar. What
- else about Thompson? Anything? Any other comments about the remaining ones that we might?
- thought of more about at this point. Okay. So we'll move on to voting procedures, right? We're going
- to vote the next time we meet. We are. We are. We are going to vote. That's right. So anybody have any
- suggestions about that? I know April, you brought up the issue. Might you have some suggestions at this point?
- I guess there's, I mean, we're talking about the procedural aspect. There's five of us. There's five
- of us. So I guess the first question is, I'm assuming it's a majority, is what would the recommendation
- be? Should we go down the list here? Do we just want to go and say, okay, do we all agree on majority?
- Somebody make a motion for that? Or are we going to do everything altogether?
- I have an idea that may get our conversation started. It's not a perfect idea, and I just want to admit
- that upfront. If we are all coming with a rank, let's say our top choice got a five, our second choice
- got a four, et cetera, we could begin our conversation by
- some of those numbers for each site and then have a discussion about essentially why. So if it's clear
- that if one property, for instance, gets 25 points, we know everybody picked it as their top. But I
- do think before we vote, having something that we could use as a tool to facilitate conversation
- may be helpful. So I would suggest that we, in the absence of a more complex matrix, could begin our
- discussion. And then after discussion, we could take a vote. I know we need to pick a top property.
- My hesitation in stopping there is that if that top property gets eliminated, the commissioners or others,
- this subcommittee would perhaps necessarily have to get back together. And I think to complete our work,
- in my ideal world, we would send some ranking. Our top choice is this. Ranking would help with that,
- it seems, yes.
- So do we think that ranking will be a good way to come into this voting procedure? Yes. Any further
- comments on that? I was just thinking, I'm very interested in hearing everyone's first choice and their
- thoughts. I'm going to do a lot of reading and come in prepared but I'm also coming in prepared to listen.
- So I might not have a ranking that's solidified by then, but have a sense of what I want to do. I'm
- also going to ask Mr. Cockrell some questions on Monday. So happy to do a ranking if you would like.
- I'm looking forward to hearing from each of us individually. Yeah, as well as I. I think the rankings
- is just a starting point for our discussion. Yes.
- It's kind of a baseline. We can go from there. And maybe, I mean, I've sort of been in committees to
- know this, maybe you'll change your mind based on what you've heard from somebody else, right? That's
- always a possibility. So I think you'd be willing to come in with the ranking and be open-minded like
- Ms. Wilson was talking and the rest of us about listening and seeing if there's anything that you might
- not have thought of that somebody else did that could change your ranking system. So I think that's
- a really good, but at least it's a starting point.
- So ranking seems to be a preferred method from what I hear with the flexibility to amend that if necessary,
- right? No ranking will solidify anyone into a vote. That's right. It's just preliminary understanding
- our thoughts. It's a good discussion, way to begin the discussion. Okay. All right. What else do we
- need to do here? So let's talk about the voting procedures. Did we solidify?
- The majority? The ranking, if we do that, right? So I don't know if we need a majority, right? You brought
- up- You said the ranking isn't a vote though. Right. Perhaps we could take a final vote. And would that
- be a majority then? Are we solidified on that?
- So does somebody want to make a motion that will vote ultimately on whatever we deem rankable,
- so to speak, and then go from there? Can you speak a little? Yes. I move that this working committee,
- by a simple vote majority, will submit a list of recommendations, including rankings and explanations for
- property's ranking. Is there a second? I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. I didn't see everybody
- vote. I saw most of you. I didn't vote. All those opposed? I was trying to figure out what it meant
- exactly. We're doing a ranking. It starts our conversation. And then we're going to say which property,
- one of us will have to say what property we're voting for and then we vote for it by a majority, right?
- So then I agree, aye. So I think we have all five of us now. So we agree to do a majority vote with
- the ranking. What happens if we don't have a majority? Well, since there's five, there'll be a majority
- of some sort, I would think. Somebody could abstain. Could abstain, yes. Okay, fine. That's a good point.
- Okay. So what do we do if we don't have a majority? Typically under Robert's rules, it's going to fail.
- So any lack of majority or a tie is a failure in the motion.
- That's the baseline rules for voting. But at that point, someone could introduce a new motion to approve
- a different property. True. Correct. True. Do we get a majority? I think it'll flush out. I do think
- I've been through enough votes. I think it'll flush out. Yeah. OK. So what else here? Anything else? It might.
- taking the last three minutes to set up for public comment? Yeah, let's take the last three minutes.
- That's a good suggestion. Should we see maybe who wants to speak? Do we know from the people that are
- here how many will want to come and speak? At this point, our rules or our resolution has said we would
- allow three minutes each, so do we have people that are willing to speak three minutes each that are
- here in this evening? Sign up sheet. Somebody's already got their hand up online.
- Raise your hand. Okay. Can we just count them off here? One, two, three, four, five, six. I see six,
- right? Seven on the screen. One on the screen. So there's seven. Okay. Somebody else just raised their
- hand. Eight. Okay.
- I think we're gonna be able to manage this. It starts at seven, so we've got a couple minutes here.
- So we'll adjourn for now and reconvene at seven. Yeah, I think it's worth perhaps just reminding people
- what our public comment procedure is verbally. So whoever is in the room will come to the podium and
- state their name and they'll be given three minutes to present public comment about this issue, which is the
- subcommittee work and how we'll decide or whatever you want to talk about with this whole project here.
- And then we'll alternate, if we can, between the room and online. And then we'll close public comment
- out when people are done here and online.
- We're down to one minute. After the minutes of them being able to do their comment, if we had a follow-up
- question, can we ask them a follow-up question? The resolution said you get one time. So typically,
- yeah, you just have the one time to speak. The way we set up the baseline rules, which can be suspended
- by this body, just to be really clear.
- public comment. The baseline rules were that you get a three minute period to speak. That's just a comment
- to you all. There is no back and forth typically. Now, of course, if that prompts questions. From the
- subcommittee. Have we adjourned the meeting yet? I think we're going to keep the meeting going through
- public comment. So you all could ask staff that question. We haven't really provided a mechanism for
- asking again. No back and forth with the public, but there's
- Now we don't need to adjourn. We don't need to adjourn. I'll just in terms of framing for public comment
- before we get started, I'll just speaking for myself, I really rely on public comment to help think
- creatively about how to solve problems. So some of you may be here to convince us
- don't do this or do do this. I'm also really interested in the solutions that you all have in mind.
- And so if you're open to including some of those in your public comments, I will be taking notes and
- thinking through those carefully. As will I. Thank you. All right. So we'll have the first person in
- the room here who wants to come forward and state their name and come to the podium and speak.
- Thank you. Good evening. Thank you guys for doing this and evaluating all the sites in a fair and equal
- basis. I'm Randy Cassidy. I'm here tonight as a citizen and I'd like to address the basis of what we're
- looking at from an economic and a health basis and constitutionality of what we need in order to make
- the community safe
- and economically viable. Keeping the jail in a downtown area where the services are already there, existing
- transportation should be the forefront of what we're looking for. When we look at these five particular
- sites, two of these sites that are outside in the area, I happen to be a neighbor too. We have no bus
- line. The transportation to the tap road sites is not
- not what it should be and the transportation costs to keep our courts downtown so that we have that
- ability to keep people together and through the process is Panama. Today I went through and I looked
- at where the services are located at based on probation, based on Centerstone, based on Shalom Community
- Kitchen and where those services located and the individual nonprofits and profits that assist in
- the individuals there. It's all co-located downtown. The Fullerton site is far. It has no bus line.
- Both TAP road sites have no bus lines. They would both continually need infrastructure improvements
- on all of them. The Thompson property, as we look at it, if you look at the Beacon and GIS from a standpoint,
- it's next to one of our
- largest employers, and it has a land value per the assessor of $34 million at the present moment. So
- that particular site was originally built, bought for a youth services bureau. It's since been, has
- the ability to be a jail, but is that the right place as we try to look at what we have to do to house
- our community and keep things close? When we look at the existing jail,
- and justice center, co-location in near downtown area tends to keep the vibrancy and it also keeps the
- health and safety of the population of the jail as they're being released. They have services, they
- have places to go. When I look at it through the fiscal basis of what it is, I compare the Thompson,
- which has a baseline land cost of 34 million and is already owned by the county.
- could be utilized for a multitude of things from either economic basis or housing. When I look at what
- the combination of the Curry building, the Fiscus building and the new the parking garage that the county
- built, that total land value is $7,973,700. That owned by the county. When we address the potential
- of how many stories we have to go up and what we have to do. When I look at the existing
- justice center in jail, and I'm going to go out on a limb here in a zoning standpoint, I would think
- that is already grandfathered as a jail and a justice center. And I could be wrong. I think counselor
- Zulig here has graciously started the time. Time is up. Yes, it's also appeared on the screen. So I
- don't know where you were at. Maybe you could send us emails. Would that work? I can do that. Just to
- address the health issue, the biggest problem the justice center's had is having water and
- water above where the courts are. So the colocation would work. It's a matter of the will of the individuals.
- Thank you. Thank you. Right. So we go online, maybe to the next one. Can somebody figure out how to
- do that? I don't have anything to work with here. One person online. And how do I how do we make that
- happen? Text services has to they have elevated them, so they should be able to unmute now. It's a phone number.
- So is it 8123? I can't see the whole phone number. It's the full number, but it's 812345. I can't see
- the rest. If you have your hand raised on Zoom and you're calling in, please unmute yourself and give
- your three-minute public comment. Can we go to the next one, please?
- or L has their hand raised. Can we go to the next one, please? Lee, you should be able to unmute yourself.
- You'll have three minutes. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes, thank you. My name is Lee, I'm a resident
- of Monroe County. Thank you for your in-depth discussion tonight on the site.
- One of the things that I would like to mention is that RQAW did a feasibility study for the county in
- which they priced out and talked about renovation of the current facility, giving all kinds of numbers,
- millions of dollars in numbers, including relocation costs for the rebuild. I think that might be very
- helpful when looking at the Curry Plus renovation option.
- That has been a study that's been played for recently. I appreciate everyone's time and energy that
- you're putting on in this, and that was my only comment. Thank you. All right, we'll go back to in-person.
- This person, please state your name and... Yeah, hi there. I'm Zach Emmerman. You all know me, but hi.
- Met with all of you. So I'm actually agnostic on the final site a little bit. What I'm not agnostic
- on is the characteristics of the final site. I think the subcommittee, or whatever you're calling yourself,
- has maybe eliminated a couple of sites a little willy nilly because you're going too fast a little bit.
- So I would recommend maybe going a little bit slower because you could be a little bit more methodical.
- I know you're on a time crunch that's not of your own making, but you could ask for more time.
- That being said, of the five sites that you have that are remaining, I think there's one clear standout
- to me, and I think you all know which one I'm talking about, that's the Curry Building, plus renovation.
- The four other sites, to me, have all of the same problems as North Park. They are just North Park with
- a different name. They allow for sprawling suburban jumbo jail complexes that we know that the commissioners
- are going to build if you give them that space.
- They are far from services. They are nowhere near downtown. They are disconnected from transit. They
- have all of the exact same problems that the North Park site had and will be opposed by many of us for
- the exact same reason the North Park site was. I'm not necessarily 100% thinking it has to be Curry
- or nothing else. I think there were potentially other sites where you could have built.
- But of the sites that are remaining, I think Curry is the clear winner because it doesn't have the problems
- of being a sprawling Greenfield site that contributes to suburban sprawl, turns us into Carmel, allows
- for a jumbo jail to be built, et cetera, as far from services. So those are the things I don't want.
- Curry doesn't have those problems. So to me, that is the obvious answer. So thank you. Thank you. Go
- back to online. Who would be next there?
- Mr. Spoonmore might be next. Can we have Mr. Spoonmore give his comments? Is he able to do that at this
- point? Yeah. Eric, can you unmute and offer your comments? He unmuted. Hi, everybody. Can you hear me
- okay? Yes, thank you. Good. Sorry I couldn't be there in person tonight. I just wanted to first
- Thank each and every one of you for being there to participate in this productive, constructive,
- collaborative conversation. I'd be remiss if I didn't say that I regret that there are some important
- people that should be there at that table working alongside of you. Regardless of that, I do appreciate
- some of the comments from Mayor Thompson earlier.
- about the requirements that are involved with this project. And I think it's important to remind everybody
- that a location, a single story jail, a prescribed timeline are not requirements of anything that the
- ACLU has stipulated. We've heard from our commissioners and it's
- frankly bizarre to me that they would put this narrative out there that we have to co-locate, that we
- have to have a single story facility, that we have a prescribed timeline. We do not have any of that.
- And so, to answer the mayor's question earlier about solutions, all I can say is that I know what one
- solution is not, and it's not North Park. We have to move beyond that.
- But there are other good options that you all are considering. And I think these conversations have
- all been very valuable, productive. And at the end of the day, if a judge has to figure this out, I
- think they'll look at the record and they'll see what is required and what is not. And I think your
- recommendation is gonna be very important to that decision. So thank you for your work, continue doing
- it. And I look forward to following it going forward.
- much all right back in the room if we could have the next person and then maybe the next person after
- that queuing up so we we can this is the time well here how was your name when you're ready
- Hello, my name is Seth Mutchler, resident of Monroe County. I'm gonna try to keep this short. I say
- that and I always go to time. I have had the privilege of meeting with many of you, so I'm not gonna
- rehash things that I have already sent. I often do better in written words where I can sort of take
- some time, so I will just let you lean on those words that folks at Cairnock Cages have sent. So, sorry,
- long day. I'm gonna start
- By saying that I would ask you all to vote in favor of renovation of the existing Zitlal building with
- the possible addition of the Curry and Fiscus building. I personally feel that is the best choice of
- the options available.
- Right. This is a very complicated issue. There are a lot of things. So that's where I will say, I will
- ask you to look at the things that have already been sent. But especially as you are going to be working
- over the weekend, as you said, we at Careknot Cages humbly are very proud of the many years of research
- and scholarship that collectively we have done on this topic. And we would love to be a resource for
- you all. We would also love to be a resource for the public. So if anybody
- has questions and would like to say, hey, Care.cages has read way too many white papers about this.
- Our email is care.cages.monroecounty at gmail.com. We'll be checking the email over the weekend. So
- if any of you are like, hey, what about this? Any of the members of the public? If you're like,
- single story, multi story, what's up with that? We have answers to that that take longer to answer than
- three minutes, but are relatively short. So thank you all for your time. Appreciate you. Thank you so
- much. All right, back to online.
- Who would be next there? The same eight, one, two, three, four, five. Do you wanna give it another shot?
- They should be able to unmute. Otherwise we're gonna assume that maybe your hand is raised mistakenly.
- Okay, we'll go back to the room.
- next person please come up and give us your name and your three minutes if you have them. Hello my name
- is Sam Holderman. To make it very brief I would like you to consider renovation first and foremost with
- possible inclusion of the Curry building. To me it is a complicated matter but you the purview of this
- specific subcommittee is location and
- far and away the Curry building slash current
- jail is the best location because it is located downtown, is already located close to services, and
- we've heard for years and years now, going back to the CJRC and before, how important access to services
- and being centrally located is. So just on that basis alone, I think if we're just looking at sites,
- locations, where should it be, to my mind, that is the first choice. Thank you.
- The next in the room, please. Hi, my name is Kathleen Paquette, a longtime Monroe County resident. Thank
- you for having us and listening to us. Most of you all know me. I've met with many of you. So again,
- I don't want to rehash things we've already spoken about, but
- because I have the public mic here and everyone, including folks I haven't talked to. I do want to really
- quick address a lot of misinformation, I feel, is going around, around single story versus multi story.
- I want to be very clear that single story is a recommendation, not a requirement. And from all of the
- research and reading I've done and my comrades have done,
- As far as we can tell, the only reason for it even being a recommendation is based on staffing and sight
- lines. But all of that said, most cities and municipalities of our size build multi-story jails. So
- the idea that single-story is somehow a requirement is just not accurate. And I really wish people would
- just stop talking about it like it is. It's very frustrating.
- And yeah, I just want to kind of second the just sort of zooming out on the properties and thinking
- about which properties are kind of just North Park 2.0. To me, any property that is outside of town
- on a sprawling greenfield site is just going to contribute to sprawl. It's far away from services. It
- hollows out the core of our downtown. There are just so many reasons to not go down that route, especially if you
- back up and just think about what kind of community you want to see Bloomington be in 10 or 20 years.
- Are we going to continue to just sprawl out and accommodate people who only have cars, or are we going
- to try to keep a walkable, vibrant downtown that cares about serving all of our citizens? So yeah, you
- all have been really in the weeds on some very, very specific things about square footage and property
- small details with utilities and stuff, but I just ask that you zoom out and consider what kind of community
- you see for the future of Bloomington and Monroe County. Yeah, I think that's all I have for you today.
- Thank you so much for listening, and I appreciate y'all's work on this. Thank you so much.
- Right in the room, anyone else?
- Hello, my name is Seaforth Breeze. I'm a resident here in Bloomington. I wanted to come here today to
- reiterate to a small degree, one of the points I made at an earlier meeting, the notion that services
- and transit connections, things like that, they are a make or break for people getting out of the jail.
- They can have huge impact. Many folks, when they get out, they don't have access to transit or, you know,
- They don't have people in town that they can reach out to for whatever reason. And so I had mentioned
- last time that I work at a bike co-op. And we've had two people, just in the short time I've been working
- there, who needed that resource. And they would not have been able to access that in an effective or
- timely manner if it was located on the edges of town. I also want to circle around to a point that I
- didn't make last time, though.
- which is the notion that it's not just that the services matter, it matters that they are outside of
- the jail. I think services inside of the jail and trying to have sites that can accommodate that, that
- is wonderful and that is great. But if you're prioritizing that and the choices around the jail around
- that, rather than what hopefully many of these folks, they'll
- finish their time at the jail, be released, and then the whole life beyond that, right? If we're choosing
- sites, trying to make sure that certain services are available or certain requirements are being met,
- and it is at the detriment of when that person is released and they don't have those social connections,
- they don't have those resources, they can't fend for themselves effectively because they're released
- on the edge of car sprawl, then I think that we've got it
- There's been a fundamental mistake on our priorities. So I think of the locations, the Curry and Zetlo
- location, I think that that stands out to me. And it seems like it's a great one. I would be open to
- other sites though, as somebody else brought up, if they were still in the pool of available options.
- But it seems like we've come to a point where we're rushing into having
- one of those options that prioritizes transit and services and things like that. And then a bunch of
- other ones that we have to hope that future development will catch up to that. We have to hope that
- future county and city will have the funding to create those service connections. And those are not
- guarantees. There are many decade-long cycles that cities go through where there's an economic downturn,
- like with the 2008 financial crash. And so I think it's
- better to move discreetly, slowly, and to prioritize the fiscal well-being in that way, too. Anyways,
- thank you for your time. I want to just say thank you so much for being here. The fact that some other
- parties are not speaks volumes. Thank you for speaking. All right. Anyone else in the public audience
- here this evening would like to speak? OK, please.
- My name is Dr. Jody Madeira, and I'm a Monroe County resident. I'm here as a member of the public and
- as a professor and social scientist. So I want to speak briefly about jail design, not as an abstract
- architectural issue or as a matter of efficiency or cost, but in terms of the safety and well-being
- of the people who will live and work there and the long-term public responsibility and values of this
- community. So the dynamic of one story versus multi-story is too often reduced to a question of efficiency
- and cost. I think the central question is whether the design chosen promotes the safety and well-being
- of our staff and inmates. So jail layout shapes everything inside it. Whether officers can see and respond
- quickly, whether staff are positioned to interact directly with the people they supervise,
- whether incarcerated people experience constant noise, isolation, crowding, and stress. And it shapes
- whether the facility encourages order through human contact or relies on barriers, blind spots, and
- crisis response.
- I'm a social scientist, so I love peer-reviewed research. That research is clear that older traditional
- GL designs, especially multilevel linear cell blocks with long quarters, poor sight lines, and remote
- surveillance, create serious problems. They separate staff from the people they supervise. They force
- officers to monitor by walking hallways and peering into cells, rather than by maintaining regular direct
- contact. They create blind spots, acoustic isolation, and delayed response times. Those conditions are
- inefficient and loud, and they can be dangerous. Modern direct supervision and podular designs are built
- around visibility, communication,
- living units. Officers are placed in or near housing units where they can build knowledge, identify
- problems earlier, and intervene before situations escalate. This is often called dynamic security, which
- is based not only on locks and walls, but on staff presence, communication, and trust. This matters
- for officer and inmate safety, for mental health, and it matters for whether a jail can function humanely
- and constitutionally over time. Single-level or low-rise modular designs are especially important where
- feasible because they make this model easier to implement. They allow housing, medical, booking, visitation,
- programming, reaction,
- services to be organized horizontally rather than stacked vertically. That can improve sight lines,
- reduce complicated movement between floors, and make it easier for staff to supervise, communicate,
- and respond. But again, the most important point is not simply efficiency. It's that design affects risk.
- This isn't about creating comfort for comfort's sake. It's about reducing harm. Research shows that
- environmental stressors, constant noise, heat, poor ventilation, lack of privacy, lack of movement,
- and lack of control over one's immediate environment can increase anxiety, irritability, conflict, illness,
- and even suicide risk. The same is true for green space and perimeter design. Even passive exposure
- to vegetation within secure perimeters has been associated with reductions in self-harm, violence, and
- staff sick leave. That should matter to anyone concerned about human dignity, workplace safety,
- and public responsibility. Jail design is a decades-long decision. If we build a facility around outdated
- assumptions, poor visibility, excessive hardening, stacked housing, and inefficient circulation, well,
- we're going to live with those consequences for generations. But if we build around evidence-based
- principles, direct supervision, modular housing, safer sightlines, acoustic normalization, accessibility,
- and humane environmental conditions,
- We can create a facility that's safer for staff, safer for incarcerated people, and more responsible
- for the public. And we're in luck. What's best is also what is cheapest and quickest to build. Multi-level
- facilities are expensive to build, to staff, and to maintain. So the question isn't simply where to
- build or how cheaply it can be built or how quickly square footage can be stacked. It's what kind of
- gel we're willing to build. Monroe County can't afford to reproduce the failures of the past.
- Thank you. Thank you.
- anyone else online? I don't see anybody there. Anyone else still in the room here that would like to?
- Committee members, thanks for your time, John Zodi, member of the public. I guess just listening to
- the public comment tonight made me raise a question with some of the things you've been deliberating
- with respect to Commissioner Madera's comments and some of the others that spoke before her is sort of
- maybe challenging ourself to see what height the Curry site could tolerate. If it's not six stories,
- that seems pretty high, like on my gut, just as a former Board of Zoning Appeals member and a former
- city employee that dealt with first responders having to respond to things in high buildings and when
- there are problems facing those that might be
- dealing with substance use, the importance of first responders getting in there and maintaining safety
- is important. So I just wonder, it popped into my head as I was sitting here, how low could a facility
- be at Curry? Do we have to have six stories or could it be, I heard some talk about maybe a two story
- with a mezzanine or something people were talking about where the sight lines, there's a way to do it
- where it's not multiple stories, but I just wonder how low it could be at Curry.
- And if that's a solution, we should kind of work back from when we're talking about square footage and
- things like that. So for whatever that's worth, maybe it's a question to think about. Because the other
- sites seem to have a lot of ground, right? And so Curry does not. But how low could we make it at Curry?
- And what could that site tolerate? So I'll leave that with you for possible consideration. Thanks for
- your time. Speaking. Anyone else in the public still here? Or online? Anybody new online? I don't see
- anything there.
- public comment. And when we're here right now, so should we close out public comment? This is last call.
- I think we're done with public comment, so I think this part of the session is over, and I thank you
- all for being here. Thank you all for participating, the ones that did, and we appreciate your comments,
- and we'll take them under consideration as we proceed with our deliberations to come up with a recommendation
- in our process. We meet Monday, so hopefully we'll have, pardon me, at noon, yes, thank you.
- And so we will proceed with our process and report back as we are obligated to do under this charter
- we've been given. So thank you very much and I'll call this session adjourned.