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.