[0:01] This conference will now be recorded. You're you're
[0:09] just changing them as you go. Oh, that
[0:12] way. I can reach that one. Okay. Let's
[0:41] start before something else breaks. Okay. Got it.
[0:44] Sure. Good morning, everyone, and welcome. We will
[0:48] start the work session at 09:34AM. Please stand
[0:51] for the This is a public informational meeting
[1:15] of the Waseca County Judicial Center and jail
[1:18] planning. Make sure you silence your cell phone.
[1:23] Sign in at the back. We will have
[1:26] a public comment, question, and answer after the
[1:29] presentation where you will come up to the
[1:32] podium. Please respect everyone's time and try and
[1:36] limit it to three minutes. Thank you. Michael?
[1:42] Thanks, mister chair, and thank you individuals for
[1:45] taking some time out of your day. I'm
[1:47] just going to take a few moments to
[1:49] walk through kind of the historical narrative of
[1:53] why the board is even having this conversation.
[1:56] And a lot of that is predicated on
[1:58] the ongoing inspection schedule by the Department of
[2:01] Corrections going back to 2022. There were, I
[2:06] don't know, 40 or so copies of that
[2:08] 2022 inspection report on that table over there
[2:10] by the sign in sheet. If you haven't
[2:13] had a chance to grab one of those,
[2:14] feel free to do so. But for a
[2:16] couple of minutes, I just wanna chat through
[2:18] some of the historical narrative. I'm not going
[2:20] to read all of this verbatim. And again,
[2:22] these first several slides are already present within
[2:26] the handouts as well too. So it's just
[2:28] a a high level summary of what you
[2:32] are already holding in your hands or have
[2:34] available to you. But the Waseca County Jail
[2:37] is on a biennial inspection report. Most recently,
[2:40] the informal report as you see was May
[2:44] '20 '20 '2. Jen Pfeifer was able to
[2:47] join the county board this May as well
[2:50] too as kind of a midterm update to
[2:53] give some better clarification, idea of where the
[2:57] DOC is in their perspective in general with
[3:00] how they are reviewing some of these facilities.
[3:03] And then specifically, of course, with Sika County's
[3:06] facility as well. We had a very high
[3:09] compliance rating within that document overall, within that
[3:12] process overall. There were two issues predominantly that
[3:16] drew concern. The first one, as mentioned, was
[3:19] much more procedural in nature. Staff were able
[3:22] to adjust and make that change relatively easy.
[3:25] The second, not so much as it pertained
[3:27] to the physical space, the infrastructure itself, which
[3:31] is not easily remedied and is a very
[3:34] much holistic solution and approach to a facility.
[3:38] Thus the, again, conversation of what a new
[3:41] jail would have to look like. This is
[3:44] just some of the regulation, Minnesota regulation. Again,
[3:48] not going to read it all verbatim, but
[3:50] this is what is specifically being referenced within
[3:53] that DOC inspection report as well too. The
[3:57] crux of the issue being the recreational and
[3:59] program space, or I should say the lack
[4:01] thereof in the current facility. How we, as
[4:06] seen recently, are forced to house specific individuals
[4:09] should they come into our midst. So looking
[4:13] at, again, some of the specifics of what
[4:17] was mentioned in that report pertaining to activities
[4:20] and programs. Can see per facility, class of
[4:24] facility, should say, there are requirements for what
[4:28] programs, for what actual activities you have to
[4:33] be able to offer. Currently, Waseca County is
[4:36] a class three facility. So you can see
[4:40] for yourself on the screen what some of
[4:41] those things should be that we are able
[4:45] to offer given our designation as a class
[4:48] three facility. Definitionally, this again just comes right
[4:51] out of Minnesota rule, Minnesota law of a
[4:54] class one versus a class three facility. Class
[4:58] three being known as a jail facility, which
[5:00] we are. The recommendation we saw on the,
[5:04] Department of Correction inspection report of May of
[5:06] twenty twenty two ultimately was that we are
[5:08] recommended, DOC is recommending that our facility be
[5:11] moved to a class two facility, would be
[5:13] a ninety day facility. Some of the comments,
[5:18] this would be the last page, of that
[5:21] inspection report that you have. This is just,
[5:24] Ms. Pfeiffer essentially encapsulating all of what she
[5:28] went through from a rules and regulation standpoints
[5:30] and then coming to a high level summary
[5:32] of and recommendation for the physical space itself
[5:36] as well. So though it's been updated as
[5:39] best it can, she's clear that it no
[5:42] longer is meeting the needs of the inmate
[5:44] population. The physical plant itself is substandard, of
[5:48] course, as we already went through to meet
[5:50] current detention standards, especially those of a class
[5:53] three facility. This is sports of pace as
[5:57] well as was called out specifically is lacking
[6:01] and in most cases non existent. There were
[6:04] some concerns with the route itself being taken
[6:07] to court as the only solution that our
[6:10] staff have currently is to take the inmates
[6:13] outside and up the sidewalk and through the
[6:16] courthouse hallways to try to get them up
[6:18] to the courtroom as best that they can
[6:21] and as safely as they can. She does
[6:24] mention that these have been ongoing issues and
[6:26] that's that's somewhat relevant in terms of this
[6:29] was first discussed, roughly in 2016. And, you
[6:36] know, in in reviewing even some of the
[6:37] prior biannual inspection reports yesterday, this isn't necessarily
[6:41] new information. It's just the approach from the
[6:45] Department of Corrections is is changing, and they
[6:48] are a little bit more adamant that solutions
[6:50] are put into place in immediacy moving forward.
[6:55] Ultimately, as you see in that last paragraph
[6:57] on the inspection report, that recommendation, as I
[7:00] already mentioned, for moving Waseca County Jail down
[7:03] to a ninety day facility. So where are
[7:06] we at in timing? Biennial biennial inspection schedule,
[7:10] as I mentioned. So May 2024, assumedly, would
[7:15] be the next time we will have that
[7:17] biennial inspection. So what is the last several
[7:21] months look like for the county board? We
[7:23] got this report in May of twenty twenty
[7:25] two. We became, you know, pretty creative quickly
[7:31] in terms of reaching out to individuals that
[7:33] may be able to give us a rendering,
[7:36] site design and concept for what a new
[7:39] jail could look like, a new justice center
[7:42] facility. The conversations began, it became abundantly clear
[7:47] from the stakeholders involved that a standalone judicial
[7:50] building would be the most sensible approach and
[7:53] not have two different buildings that public service
[7:59] deliveries and functions were being delivered between meaning
[8:02] that someone would have to go back and
[8:03] forth between the courthouse and a judicial building.
[8:06] As you recall seeing within the notes a
[8:09] couple of minutes ago, part of the crux
[8:11] of the issue was the inability to safely
[8:13] transport an inmate from jail cell to district
[8:16] courtroom. So sensibly, any solution that would be
[8:20] implemented would need to solve both of those
[8:23] issues as well, both the substandardization of the
[8:25] facility itself and the ability to safely transport
[8:29] inmate population from their cell securely to the
[8:33] actual courtroom as well. So that was the
[8:36] approach that the board set forth in trying
[8:38] to solve. By June, we were contacting companies.
[8:42] By July, the board had signed a preliminary
[8:45] agreement just to get a site design and
[8:47] concept moving forward. August, BKV Group was in
[8:52] the building, in the courthouse meeting with all
[8:54] the department heads, all the stakeholders, to get
[8:57] an idea of what the space and program
[8:59] needs would be. How much space do you
[9:02] currently have in your office? Does that meet
[9:04] industry standards? And effectively, how big should that
[9:07] space be? So what's the the current plan,
[9:10] the five, ten, fifteen, twenty year growth models
[9:13] that should be expected and getting, the staff
[9:16] and leadership input into that process. These are
[9:19] all of the instances or program deliveries, I
[9:22] should say, that was requested of BKB to
[9:25] factor into that new space, roughly encapsulating 75,000
[9:30] to 77,000 square feet. So that culminated in
[9:35] a presentation in November of twenty twenty two
[9:37] to the board. Just in a setting just
[9:40] like this, BKB held its work session, presented
[9:43] a preliminary site design and concept. Here's essentially
[9:46] what it could look like. Here's the blocking
[9:49] and stacking of how some of these departments
[9:51] and functions could fit on top of each
[9:53] other. And then ultimately, the biggest difference between
[9:57] this first model and future models, which we'll
[9:59] look at in a moment, is this used
[10:01] all existing infrastructure. So it was attaching new
[10:05] building to fifty and sixty year old building,
[10:07] which we knew already had issues and literally
[10:11] millions of dollars of implication, as you see
[10:13] the footnote on the bottom, to maintain and
[10:15] to keep. If you have ever seen a
[10:19] plumbing nightmare, you will be very familiar with
[10:22] what is happening in the jail currently. There
[10:25] are several unknowns within that space itself as
[10:29] well. So after the board had this presentation,
[10:32] they then backed up and said, does it
[10:34] really make sense to try to build a
[10:37] fifty year solution, which is what they're looking
[10:40] for into the future, a new model, attached
[10:43] to the existing infrastructure itself. So the next
[10:46] request to Bay KAV was to go back,
[10:49] take all of those same programs and service
[10:51] deliveries, but remove all of the existing infrastructure,
[10:54] give us something new that is sustainable and
[10:57] efficient, that can be that proverbial fifty year
[11:01] solution. So that is what they did. It
[11:04] was an excellent looking model, but relatively high
[11:08] price tag, obviously, as you can see, that's
[11:10] the point of the conversation. So the total
[11:13] estimate given there being $43,800,000. So after that
[11:17] presentation, the board further inquired in the cost
[11:19] of the existing jail operation, meaning what does
[11:22] it cost us right now to deliver the
[11:24] services that our corrections team does. So in
[11:29] May of twenty twenty three, they began to
[11:32] capture some data and determine what those average
[11:36] daily populations were going back to 2017. And
[11:41] 2017 to 2022 averages at about 10.3 inmates
[11:46] per day per year, ranging anywhere from zero
[11:49] to 20 inmates at any point in time
[11:51] throughout that span. So obviously you can see
[11:54] there's a large fluctuation potential in there. And
[11:57] from 2019 to present, it's been a little
[11:59] bit more than nine per day per year
[12:02] as well. So again, data gathering, figuring out
[12:06] what is the cost of the current operation.
[12:08] High level summary, roughly $1,300,000 which looks at
[12:11] the major program service deliveries. It does not
[12:13] factor in many of the other things, which
[12:16] would be building and grounds, any kind of
[12:20] maintenance, the supplies themselves, the the the toiletries,
[12:24] the units themselves, cleaning supplies, uniforms. There are
[12:28] a lot more fringe costs that go into
[12:30] this, but the major program deliveries, major expenses
[12:33] in this model to look at totaling approximately
[12:36] $1,300,000 with the items you see on those
[12:39] screen, which come right out of our 2023
[12:41] budget. So doing some simple math. Okay. County
[12:46] board, here's what it costs us to run
[12:48] this county operation right now. As it stands,
[12:51] looking at the 2019 data going forward, again,
[12:54] average daily population of nine, roughly $144,000 per
[12:58] inmate per year to operate our existing jail
[13:01] facility. So in October of twenty twenty three,
[13:06] BKV brought back another site design concept. Key
[13:08] difference here being that they had removed the
[13:10] jail from that rendering because the board asked
[13:13] the question, okay, we know how much we're
[13:15] paying for the existing jail operation itself. We
[13:18] know in theory how much it would be
[13:21] to build this holistic facility. What are the
[13:25] implied savings in theory or what is the
[13:27] difference between removing the jail facility structure itself?
[13:32] So the difference in leaving all of the
[13:33] other program and service deliveries and removing simply
[13:36] the jail portion is $25,400,000 So we went
[13:40] from 43.8 to 25.4 in that model. The
[13:45] difference being that obviously removing the entirety of
[13:50] the jail structure does not alleviate the county
[13:52] from some level of corrections responsibility. There are
[13:55] still three holding cells in this model in
[13:58] this scenario. There's still intake. There's still booking.
[14:00] There's still processing. Again, it's a model, but
[14:05] it essentially was the catalyst for this conversation
[14:08] here this morning to try to garner some
[14:10] additional input into the process. So to first
[14:13] address the question itself as to whether this
[14:16] should be considered critical infrastructure, we had to
[14:19] first answer the question is, one, is there
[14:21] an alternative? Meaning, can it be done elsewhere?
[14:23] Can it be done for a lower cost?
[14:25] And thus far, the answer to that question
[14:27] to us has been yes. And that is
[14:30] simply predicated on the fact that there have
[14:32] been three counties, Steele, Blue Earth, and LeSour,
[14:35] as you see on the screen, that have
[14:37] expressed willingness to work with us to house
[14:39] inmates. Now, clearly, this does not at all
[14:43] speak to the effectiveness of those alternative solutions.
[14:47] This simply says, there is potentially an alternative
[14:51] solution. It doesn't say it will work well.
[14:54] It doesn't say it will be good at
[14:55] all. It simply says there is an alternative
[14:58] there. In late twenty twenty, Steele County had
[15:01] approached Waseca Dodge and Rice Counties to inquire
[15:03] if they'd be interested in buying into their
[15:05] current detention center facility. It had been expressed
[15:08] by their commissioners that it was a significant
[15:10] burden to the levy. It was, in their
[15:14] words, significantly overbuilt at the time, and they
[15:18] have been running at less than a fifth
[15:20] of capacity for quite a while. So they
[15:23] were looking for additional ways to make it
[15:25] solvent. This was, of course, before Rice County
[15:28] voted in May of twenty twenty one to
[15:30] move forward and build their own jail facility
[15:32] for about $50,000,000 So they were lobbying essentially
[15:36] the three adjacent counties to them to buy
[15:40] in and make it a little bit revenue
[15:43] solvent, financially solvent. As you are likely aware,
[15:47] Rice County did move forward on a three-two
[15:50] vote in May of twenty twenty one to
[15:52] entertain a jail facility at about $50,000,000 There
[15:58] was, you're welcome to look up that news
[16:01] article of course, as you have time to
[16:04] do. Some interesting dialogue and commentary in it.
[16:08] There was some discomfort that has been cited
[16:11] by these commissioners here as well too as
[16:14] far as it's a lot of money. Does
[16:16] this make sense for the community long term?
[16:18] Why or why not? And that's ultimately the
[16:20] same questions that are being posed here this
[16:23] morning. Dodge County didn't didn't bite at the
[16:25] offer. They were, in a relationship with Steele
[16:28] County for a number of years. They chose
[16:30] to take their inmates recently to Olmsted County.
[16:35] You know, we have some information as far
[16:37] as what that looks like. But at the
[16:39] time Waseke County said, thank you, but no,
[16:42] thank you. We're not interested into buying into
[16:43] that facility and trying to solve your problem
[16:47] for you effectively for a rather large price
[16:49] tick. So after that presentation, again, the board
[16:53] rekindled in the June presentation, I should say.
[16:57] So that was the $43,800,000 price tag. The
[17:00] board went back to Steele County and said,
[17:02] we really don't want to buy into your
[17:04] facility, but is there an alternative here that
[17:06] we haven't talked about yet? And that was
[17:08] something that they were interested in entertaining. What
[17:12] resulted in that conversation ultimately was a draft
[17:15] of a contract. And I've made this caveat
[17:19] many, many times in conversations, but I'll make
[17:21] it again one more time. There has been
[17:24] absolutely nothing that has been agreed upon, whether
[17:26] it be a site designer concept, whether it
[17:28] be a contract with another adjacent county. The
[17:31] only thing that the board has seen to
[17:33] date is educational and informational items to allow
[17:35] them to make an informed decision. Anything else
[17:40] other than that has not happened. There's nothing
[17:43] signed. So again, they are information gathering and
[17:46] what we have is good information to say
[17:48] here's again potentially the alternative solution. Whether it's
[17:52] effective, not the conversation I'm having or not
[17:56] what I'm exclaiming at all, just that here's
[17:59] a piece of paper that spells out exactly
[18:01] how this could work. You see some of
[18:03] the details for what that would mean. Effectively,
[18:07] we looked at the average daily population and
[18:09] said, we know we need at least this
[18:11] many beds, cause that's what the data tells
[18:13] us we need over the last several years.
[18:15] So let's structure an agreement based upon this
[18:18] data. And that's what occurred. So what does
[18:22] that mean? In future operations, say there is
[18:25] no jail, I have no idea. And I
[18:28] say that because we just started to get
[18:30] to the point to say, what is the
[18:32] staff implication of this? And I just told
[18:34] you a few moments ago that because there
[18:36] is not a formal jail structure or facility,
[18:39] that does not remove the responsibility of some
[18:42] administrative corrective function for the county. Things still
[18:46] have to happen here regardless. That question hasn't
[18:50] been answered. So there's some hypothetical narrative spelled
[18:53] in here that said, well, in theory, if
[18:55] we had to transport inmates from A to
[18:59] B, that may be a burden on current
[19:01] deputy staff. That may take away deputy staff
[19:05] from current scheduled shifts. We can't necessarily place
[19:08] that burden on the local PDs. So the
[19:11] board had the desire at the time and
[19:13] has expressed throughout that while we don't want
[19:16] the scope and function really to change for
[19:18] the municipal police departments in this model. So
[19:21] we're making this a county problem and keeping
[19:23] it as a county problem. Thus, there has
[19:25] to be a county solution. And that county
[19:28] solution in theory could be an additional two
[19:31] to three deputies. And I say anywhere from
[19:34] one to three because that's that's not my
[19:38] house and I don't know exactly how that's
[19:40] going to work and how that needs to
[19:41] work in terms of the schedules and the
[19:44] shift differentials and things of that nature. So
[19:49] additional staffing needs, as I said, are just
[19:51] being analyzed. And we've I've I've come to
[19:53] discover this was an educational piece for me
[19:55] that no, you do not have to be
[19:56] a licensed deputy to transport individuals from point
[20:00] a to point b. So again, continuing to
[20:03] learn things throughout this process. Still a multitude
[20:06] of administrative functions that need to continue on.
[20:10] So we've heard a lot about this this
[20:12] $20,000,000 threshold. So taking a moment to just
[20:15] explain the difference here. Since May of twenty
[20:18] twenty two, when this inspection report was devised
[20:21] or handed to the county board, it was
[20:24] it became evident that, okay, something is happening.
[20:26] One way or the other, something's going to
[20:28] be happening. Because the the DOC is telling
[20:30] us that in the not too distant future,
[20:33] we're going to change your operation, whether you
[20:36] want us to or not. And that is
[20:38] currently where the County Board is sitting. And
[20:41] since that point in time, have been trying
[20:43] to isolate current levy, current programs and service
[20:49] deliveries, isolating and capturing cost savings, knowing that
[20:53] the reality of a large scale project, a
[20:57] large scale capital infrastructure project building is going
[21:00] to be happening in the not too distant
[21:02] future. And that could have an implication of
[21:05] bonded debt, general obligation bonded debt. The county
[21:09] has an extremely favorable bond rating and an
[21:12] extremely low debt to levy ratio. That means
[21:16] that the county owes very, very little money
[21:18] to anyone compared to its normal operation. That's
[21:22] a good thing. We like both of those
[21:24] things in that middle point. So an additional
[21:27] $20,000,000 of bonded debt equates to approximately $1,500,000
[21:31] of levy burden per year. And what I
[21:33] mean when I say additional is if we
[21:35] looked at that $43,800,000 price tag, effectively we
[21:39] could say the first twenty million dollars is
[21:43] covered under the existing levy program. Anything over
[21:46] and above that is going to have a
[21:48] levy implication. So then the next question, again
[21:51] informing ourselves, what are those levy implications and
[21:54] how do we understand them? That $1,500,000, if
[21:58] you look at at bonded debt and you
[22:00] look at borrowing debt as a public entity,
[22:03] some simple math to reference is roughly every
[22:06] $10,000,000 that you bond, every $10,000,000 that you
[22:10] borrow, it has about a $750,000 annual implication
[22:15] to the levy. So if you think back
[22:18] to previous referendums and you look at that
[22:20] referendum and say, here's the cost of the
[22:23] project, Here's the potential impact to your property
[22:26] taxes. It follows the same methodology. So every
[22:28] $10,000,000 you try to borrow, about a $750,000
[22:33] impact to your levy. So the board says
[22:35] we can shuffle these things out over the
[22:37] next decade and figure out how to how
[22:40] to absorb two instances of that $750,000. So
[22:45] $20,000,000 of bonded debt. Once it exceeds that,
[22:49] the picture gets different. You can obviously only
[22:53] cut so much of existing program, absorb so
[22:55] much before it becomes an extended tax burden
[22:59] or an impact to the levy itself. Just
[23:03] talk through all of that. Looking at the
[23:05] specific property tax implications, that may be a
[23:07] little small for you, but hopefully, you have
[23:08] a variety of screens you can peek at.
[23:12] And actually, let me just do this. I
[23:14] can zoom in a little bit at a
[23:15] time. So if I'm a 2024 and and
[23:19] granted this is I only have 2024 information.
[23:22] I don't have that proverbial crystal ball to
[23:24] see how this actually plays out twenty years
[23:26] into the future, but what I can tell
[23:27] you is is sound as far as the
[23:30] 2024 implication. So all this really is, is
[23:33] showing you what the estimated tax capacity tax
[23:36] impact to you and owner would be based
[23:39] upon a $1,500,000 increase to the existing levy.
[23:45] So if you look at your proposed notice
[23:48] that you got recently and said, okay, we're
[23:51] gonna, the county is gonna add $1,500,000 on
[23:53] top of that existing levy. This is in
[23:56] theory how it would impact you. So this
[23:58] first set of five up here is residential
[24:00] homesteads. That next set of five is residential
[24:04] non homestead. That next grouping is your commercial
[24:08] properties at those various market value price points.
[24:12] And then down at the bottom, I think
[24:14] you can see that, is a per acre
[24:17] calculation. So that 10,700 is the median per
[24:20] acre tillable price for 2024 for owner operator.
[24:25] If you are a farmer, this applies to
[24:27] you, of course. But the $2.04 versus the
[24:31] $4.11 why the difference? It's how the state
[24:35] law works. There are tier value limits, and
[24:37] you'll be familiar with that if you're a
[24:38] farmer as well too. But once you exceed
[24:40] a certain estimated market value for your ag
[24:43] land, you go to a 1% tier instead
[24:47] of the half a percent tier you're on.
[24:49] So let's get a little bit more specific.
[24:52] How does this spell out since that's a
[24:53] lot of information? Over the life of the
[24:55] loan, if you're a residential owner of $250,000
[24:58] home, you'd expect to pay approximately $17.90 dollars
[25:01] using 2024 data. Same thing if you're a
[25:05] $350,000 business. And mind you, this is simply
[25:09] the county portion. The county implication of the
[25:12] tax. This has nothing to do with city,
[25:13] school district, state. This is solely county data.
[25:17] If you're an ag owner that farms three
[25:19] fifty acres, you would approximately pay $14,280 using
[25:22] 24 data. If you're an owner operator of
[25:26] 1,500 acres, you'd pay approximately $108,000 using twenty
[25:29] twenty four data. And that specifically is where
[25:32] that tier limit kicks in. And I used
[25:34] three fifty as an example, because on average,
[25:38] at about three fifty acres is where you're
[25:41] gonna stop paying on tier one and you're
[25:43] gonna go to tier two. So that's that
[25:45] difference between the $2.04 or the $4.11 per
[25:48] acre. So I I did that with intent
[25:50] and purpose, of course. But every year we
[25:53] know values change, every years every year the
[25:55] law changes. So again, we're not looking at
[25:58] a crystal ball here, we're looking at the
[26:00] information we have today and projecting as best
[26:03] we can for what can happen. Just as
[26:06] before looking at the ADPs from '29 going
[26:09] forward, if we add that $1,500,000 of jail
[26:12] operation, specific to jail operation, as I said,
[26:16] that, average daily population calculation per inmate per
[26:20] year escalates as you can see on the
[26:23] screen. If you use the 2017 data, which
[26:25] again is about 10.3 inmates per year, drops
[26:28] a little bit, but still, the numbers as
[26:30] you can see. I've had several opportunities to
[26:34] meet with individuals, whether public, kind of the
[26:38] unbiased third parties, if you will, as well
[26:40] too, and staff that have given me some
[26:42] good feedback and comments. So what I what
[26:45] I try to do is encapsulate some of
[26:47] what I was hearing on on, let's say,
[26:49] the pro and con side of things for
[26:51] lack of a better term, but express concerns
[26:54] of not building a jail. If we don't
[26:55] build a jail, what about this? This may
[26:57] happen. So these are this is some of
[27:00] what I'm hearing. The inability to find consistent
[27:02] housing for inmates. Unsafe road conditions while transporting
[27:05] inmates to another facility. Taking deputies off patrol
[27:08] to transport an inmate. We've talked about some
[27:10] of these already. Not being in control of
[27:12] the situation or not taking care of our
[27:14] own, you know, being in a sense beholden
[27:17] to another organization for how they're housing our
[27:20] inmates and what that expressly looks like. Part
[27:24] of that has been tied to the work
[27:26] release conversation. What if another county that we're
[27:30] working with doesn't honor that, isn't willing to,
[27:35] you know, allow somebody to be transported for
[27:38] their job where otherwise we may have allowed
[27:41] them to do We'll be stuck with inmates
[27:44] with no place to go. You know, we've
[27:45] experienced this even today within the last month
[27:48] or so where staff were calling not just
[27:52] adjacent counties but adjacent states to see if
[27:55] there was a bed for an individual that
[27:57] we had in our facility. So also an
[27:59] existing issue we're running into. Will the community
[28:03] feel unsafe in some way? Is there in
[28:06] that institutional loss, if you will, of not
[28:08] having a jail that has been there forever.
[28:11] Is there a a change in our perspective
[28:14] that in some way makes us feel less
[28:16] safe than we currently are? A potential loss
[28:18] of jobs and I I hesitate with that
[28:20] one because as I said, this is a
[28:23] conversation that's just started. We know that there
[28:26] is still much work to be done regardless
[28:29] of any of the models we have seen
[28:31] from BKV to date. But again, something cited
[28:34] to me, I wanted to reflect it. Potential
[28:37] increased liability. Some of that goes back to
[28:39] the transportation side of things, the inability to
[28:44] house an inmate effectively, etcetera. That could fit
[28:48] under many things, I'm sure. One quote I
[28:52] heard a couple of time contracts are really
[28:53] good is the people that agree to them.
[28:55] Meaning if we entered into a contract with
[28:59] a Steele, a Blue Earth or a LeSour
[29:01] County, the counties that have talked to us
[29:03] thus far, you know, what happens when this
[29:06] board goes away? What happens when that board
[29:08] goes away? What happens when our sheriff or
[29:10] their sheriff goes away? You know, you're working
[29:12] in a two year to four year timeline
[29:15] essentially with elected officials is how that was
[29:18] being explained to me. So relevant. You'll have
[29:21] to pay for the cost of a contract
[29:22] forever, but the $20,000,000 months. I heard that
[29:25] a couple of times. You know, a contract
[29:28] a contractual solution you're committing to for a
[29:30] lifetime is how that was being expressed. Whereas
[29:33] you could build a jail right now for
[29:35] that $20,000,000 price tag and and eventually that
[29:39] ends. That bond matures. You stop paying for
[29:42] it. So on the other side of the
[29:44] coin, expressed concerns with building a jail from
[29:47] what I've heard. Inability to adequately address mental
[29:51] health needs of inmates and the associated liabilities.
[29:53] This ties into the second point as well
[29:55] too in terms of some of the unfunded
[29:56] mandates that the state continues to impose upon
[29:59] our correctional officers and our jailers which they
[30:01] are simply not trained to do. So there
[30:05] needs to be a much better holistic solution
[30:08] for mental health in the jail system. This
[30:10] isn't by any means unique to Waseke County.
[30:13] This is a state and or national issue,
[30:15] but it's been a problem that's been aggrandized,
[30:18] I would say, over the last several years
[30:21] at all facets of government, and there has
[30:23] not been a cogent solution that's been put
[30:25] into place as of yet. There still needs
[30:28] to be one. But it should not be
[30:31] up to the jailer to figure out what
[30:34] that solution is. DOC standard of a life
[30:37] for a new jail is twenty to twenty
[30:38] five years. Why is that relevant? Because the
[30:41] next point, the length of the payback period
[30:43] of the bond is twenty years. So the
[30:44] DOC comes in and tells us that, well,
[30:46] on average, we'd say a facility that has
[30:48] a useful life of twenty years. Steele County
[30:51] went through this recently as well. Their facility
[30:53] was built in 2023. They have spent millions
[30:56] of dollars maintaining it and updating it and
[30:59] are now committing to moving their sheriff administration
[31:02] and patrol out there as well to an
[31:05] additional multimillion dollar reinvestment. They cost a lot
[31:08] of money to build, they cost a lot
[31:10] of money to maintain was the impetus there.
[31:13] That's fair as well. Significant fiscal impact of
[31:17] the jail and the impact of property taxes,
[31:20] something that was a recurring theme, has been
[31:23] the recently built jails are nowhere near capacity.
[31:26] So, what's happening around us versus the capacity
[31:30] that they have to house? How many beds
[31:32] do they have versus how many, what is
[31:35] their population? So I updated this as of
[31:37] yesterday based upon the various county websites for
[31:41] who is currently being housed there compared to
[31:43] their capacity and when they were built. The
[31:45] only exception there is Freeborn County. I could
[31:47] not find anywhere and nobody could tell me
[31:49] specifically when that facility was built or remodeled.
[31:53] So just want to give that caveat there
[31:55] that I could not get a firm date
[31:56] on there, I didn't put one on there.
[32:01] There's a little nuance here as I was
[32:02] going through some of those reports. You see
[32:04] a lot of the same names twice, meaning
[32:06] that some counties are hosting, I guess I
[32:10] should say, could say inmates for another county.
[32:15] That was specifically happening in LeSour and Rice
[32:17] County. There were seven names that were repeated
[32:19] between both jail rosters that are actually Rice
[32:21] County inmates. So just to give the clarification,
[32:24] if you were to go out and look
[32:26] at it, you would say, hey, LeSour County
[32:27] says a population of 28 today. True. Seven
[32:30] of them are Rice County inmates. So I
[32:32] left them in the Rice County line and
[32:34] not the LeSour County line. So grand total,
[32:37] there's five fifty empty beds in adjacent counties
[32:39] as of yesterday. That does not mean that
[32:42] they have the staff to fulfill them and
[32:44] I assure you they do not. So there
[32:46] again, it has to be a caveat there
[32:48] that it's easy to say, well, they have
[32:50] 515 empty beds. There's plenty of room. It
[32:53] doesn't mean they can take 515 inmates. So
[32:57] have to take that with a grain of
[32:58] salt as well too. So where the board
[33:01] is at today is what I would devise
[33:04] as a pre May and a post May
[33:06] solution. We know that there is some change
[33:10] coming in May. We know that the Department
[33:12] of Corrections will be on their biannual schedule
[33:14] and be in our facility in May and
[33:17] come up with a solution. And the best
[33:18] case solution for Waseca County Jail is a
[33:22] ninety day temporary holding facility because that is
[33:25] what they have told us. And that is
[33:27] what has recently happened in in Rice County
[33:30] that I'm sure you're familiar with too. And
[33:32] and Rice County, frankly, is a heck of
[33:36] a lot further down the road than we
[33:37] are with building a facility. And regardless, the
[33:42] DOC still came in and said, yeah, but
[33:44] we told you this and now you're in
[33:45] ninety day facility. So they're a ninety day
[33:47] facility. Planning on opening a fall of twenty
[33:49] twenty four. Again, that's that news article you
[33:53] can reference from earlier and and take a
[33:55] look at yourself, as as time allows. But
[33:59] the best case scenario for us in May
[34:01] of twenty twenty four is a ninety day
[34:03] holding facility. Will that change our operation? Naive
[34:09] of me to fully answer that question. Will
[34:10] it change the operation to an extent? Yes.
[34:12] What that is? I don't know. I don't
[34:15] know. So we have to have a May
[34:17] 1, so to speak, or really a June
[34:19] 1 solution, and a then post May, post
[34:23] June solution for what does the the fifty
[34:26] year ish solution look like for Waseca County.
[34:31] Mister chair, I think I can probably wrap
[34:33] up there and turn it back to you
[34:35] for anything else. Thank you, Michael, much. Mhmm.
[34:40] For what you've done for this. We are
[34:43] going there's a couple things I wanna say.
[34:47] There has this is a work session. There
[34:49] is no decision made, and there will not
[34:51] be a decision made today. We're going to
[34:55] open this up for public comment and questions
[34:58] and answers. If you're going to speak, come
[35:02] up to the podium, state your name and
[35:04] address, speak what you have to say. We
[35:09] we are here to listen to everyone today.
[35:12] I mean, that's that's what it's about. It's
[35:15] a public meeting. If someone prior to you
[35:19] takes your thunder, let's keep the redundancy to
[35:23] a minimum with the time constraint in mind.
[35:30] So with that being said, the podium is
[35:33] open. Good morning, commissioners, county administrator, community, and
[35:44] law enforcement. For those that don't know, I'm
[35:49] Jane Lewis, Waseke County sheriff. And I wanna
[35:54] stand before you to let you know that
[35:56] I'm in support of a new Waseke County
[35:59] Jail. I'm here to support our sheriff's office,
[36:03] staff, and the stakeholders that we work with
[36:06] that hold criminals accountable and work to keep
[36:09] our communities safe. The staff that we have
[36:11] are dependable and professional. Many of them that
[36:15] are here today, and I wanna thank you
[36:17] all for that. We do have the oldest
[36:20] jail operating in the state of Minnesota. As
[36:24] mentioned, the DOC has addressed several deficiencies in
[36:27] our current facility, and upcoming inspection is planned
[36:30] for 2024. We need a new Waseca County
[36:35] Jail and have needed a new jail for
[36:38] years. Our inmate population is becoming more dangerous,
[36:43] and mental illness of some degree is associated
[36:46] with most of those inmates that walk in
[36:48] our jail doors. We've had inmates in our
[36:51] jail facility that no one will take too
[36:54] dangerous or too mentally ill. No other jails
[36:58] or hospitals will take them. As mentioned, recently,
[37:03] staff has called all over the state of
[37:04] Minnesota and even surrounding states for for someone
[37:08] to take a female that was recently in
[37:10] our jail that was too dangerous and too
[37:12] mentally ill. Again, no one would take her.
[37:18] This has been common in recent months where
[37:20] we've had several inmates, male and female, no
[37:23] jail to take. It's becoming the new norm.
[37:27] When outside agencies have agreed to take an
[37:29] inmate, they call us back to have the
[37:33] inmate returned to them or returned to us.
[37:37] And if we refuse, they bring them back.
[37:41] If we don't have a jail, where will
[37:43] those inmates go? Remember, as previously stated, other
[37:47] jails and hospitals have refused to accept or
[37:50] return those inmates. There appears to be a
[37:53] cost savings for not running a jail. Is
[37:57] there truly a cost savings? Waseca County has
[38:02] never been without a jail. And what are
[38:04] the costs of not having a jail? There
[38:09] are many people here today that I am
[38:11] sure want to speak. So I will end
[38:15] with this. I encourage all of you to
[38:19] meet with our stakeholders, law enforcement, the county
[38:22] attorney, office, probation, courts, all of our other
[38:27] stakeholders to discuss what additional costs in a
[38:31] complex will rise from not having a jail.
[38:36] I thank you all for listening. I thank
[38:38] you all for being here. I want to
[38:41] end with that I believe we need a
[38:44] new jail and I support a new jail.
[38:47] Thank you for listening. Multiple people we have
[39:06] in custody and we have them at the
[39:09] same time. We have them on very serious
[39:12] matters and they need to be secured quickly.
[39:16] So they need to be kept separate from
[39:17] each other because we need to investigate, we
[39:21] need to do interviews, we need that not
[39:24] only for legal reasons but to protect not
[39:27] only suspects but victims and to protect the
[39:30] integrity of the crime scene. In the last
[39:33] year, just the last year, and I'm talking
[39:36] about historical, in the last year we've had
[39:38] a drive by shooting, which was also an
[39:40] attempted murder. We've had another shooting here in
[39:44] Waseca, which was another attempted murder. We've had
[39:47] another attempted murder by stabbing and an armed
[39:51] robbery amongst many other serious drug crimes, burglaries,
[39:57] more cases than I can even begin to
[39:59] talk about, all have multiple officers involved. We
[40:04] need all hands on deck when things like
[40:06] this happen. It is very important that we
[40:11] have a jail local that we can place
[40:15] these people so we can continue to do
[40:17] our investigation. When you're collecting evidence, it's important
[40:22] to do a lot of work on scene
[40:25] and you can't do that if officers are
[40:28] being drawn away from the scene for forty
[40:30] five plus minutes to take someone to a
[40:33] jail in another county it's just not feasible.
[40:38] We do have an issue where we have
[40:41] had a lot of issues with women in
[40:43] the jail recently. As Sheriff Ula stated, we
[40:47] had one particular case where we had to
[40:49] hold her. We had no one else who
[40:51] would take her. Finally, thankfully another jail has
[40:55] taken her, but we had a jail who
[40:58] has historically had very good mental health facilities
[41:01] even reject her. They had her for a
[41:03] while and they said you cannot have her,
[41:06] we can't have her anymore. And she was
[41:09] someone who was very homicidal, very assaultive, she
[41:15] had assaulted multiple people and so we had
[41:18] to take her. We didn't have any other
[41:20] option but to bring her back and that
[41:22] was to protect public safety. We can't just
[41:24] release her to the streets, it was a
[41:27] really really important deal. Now I want to
[41:30] talk about mental health. Michael mentioned that, you
[41:36] know, it's not the role of the jailer
[41:38] to handle this. However, we don't have a
[41:41] choice in these, they're called gap cases. You
[41:44] can Google gap cases and you'll find out
[41:48] that Minnesota has a big problem with cases
[41:51] where people are found incompetent but they need
[41:53] to be held somewhere because they are in
[41:57] the case of many mentally ill and dangerous.
[41:59] We can't just simply release them to the
[42:01] street and say, well, know, try to make
[42:03] yourself competent, come back in six months and
[42:05] we'll see how it goes. So that's not
[42:08] protecting public safety. We need to have a
[42:09] place to hold them and unfortunately with many
[42:12] of our mentally ill male and female, both
[42:15] of them, we have had rejected from our
[42:17] jails that we have tried to place in
[42:19] neighboring jails. When we are short office servers
[42:27] to help while others are transporting Just remember
[42:30] that then you're not only are you short
[42:33] staffed for helping at the scene of a
[42:35] crime but also what happens when new calls
[42:37] come in? What are victims going to do
[42:39] when they need law enforcement, they need help
[42:41] and people have been pulled away and they
[42:43] aren't in town? Janesville, New Richland, they generally
[42:48] have one person working at a time. They
[42:50] don't have the manpower to help with transportation
[42:53] and you know, again to what I said
[42:56] before, who is left to cover that city
[42:58] when an officer is gone for over an
[43:00] hour. Law enforcement is in a shortage. We
[43:03] have a crisis right now for trying to
[43:06] find law enforcement and for that matter, I
[43:10] know that there was discussion about transportation officers
[43:13] to some extent we have a workforce shortage
[43:15] as well, so trying to find people to
[43:17] fill those positions would be very concerning and
[43:23] I hate to rely on hiring of that
[43:26] staff when we have staff who are willing
[43:29] to stay, want to stay in our jail
[43:31] and are doing a great job in our
[43:32] jail. Court matters: we need defendants to be
[43:37] accessible to our public defenders and their attorneys.
[43:40] Our jail has always been very good about
[43:42] allowing attorneys time and space to meet. How
[43:44] will that work for other counties? Where are
[43:47] inmates going to sit when they're waiting for
[43:49] our court hearings? Do you know how hard
[43:52] it is to work on a case and
[43:54] work on resolution when you simply don't have
[43:56] a defendant there? We often have forms, documents
[43:59] we need to go over with them, their
[44:01] attorneys need to talk to them in person.
[44:04] Yes, we do a lot by Zoom but
[44:06] we're also do a lot in person some
[44:08] things have to be done in person. Sometimes
[44:10] attorneys need that Many times attorneys need a
[44:23] one on one contact with their client in
[44:25] order for them to have face to face
[44:27] contact to have them understand like the severity
[44:30] of their charges and to discuss resolution. Some
[44:33] know they don't want to talk over serious
[44:36] matters on a telephone call or a zoom,
[44:38] they want to talk to their attorney. They
[44:39] want to have that relationship with their attorney.
[44:46] When multiple people are in custody for court
[44:49] at the same time, where are we going
[44:51] to house multiple people while waiting for court?
[44:53] Are the deputies expected to bring them back
[44:55] one at a time? It's going to be
[44:57] a scheduling nightmare and logistically is not feasible.
[45:00] There are also any safety concerns including concerns
[45:02] for victims. And where is that secure place
[45:06] going to be? Again, you know, the purpose
[45:08] of a jail would be a new jail
[45:12] would be to address some of the issues
[45:15] that we have with transferring inmates down the
[45:18] public sidewalk through the public buildings. Where are
[45:22] those people going to be out and about?
[45:26] So we will be transferring all of our
[45:28] inmates now and to me that just brings
[45:30] even more liability issues, more concerns. At minimum,
[45:36] we need a jail with a detention courtroom
[45:38] and even if you didn't do a judicial
[45:43] center at minimum we need a jail with
[45:45] a detention courtroom. Where are we going to
[45:48] house juveniles who are in need of custody
[45:50] if we don't have a jail? Sometimes we're
[45:52] looking for a place for them. We don't
[45:54] take everyone to ANOCA for placement and they
[45:57] might not be appropriate for ANOCA for placement.
[46:00] Legally, we can have a juvenile stay in
[46:02] our jail for up to twenty four hours
[46:03] if we have to. It's a waste of
[46:05] resources to bring them to ANOVA overnight when
[46:08] they might just be released the next morning
[46:10] by the court and we have to go
[46:11] back up and get them. We are required
[46:14] under our legal standards to use the least
[46:17] restrictive alternative. So having them housed in our
[46:22] local jail for a period of a few
[46:25] hours is often the least restrictive while we're
[46:27] trying to find another placement for them. Some
[46:30] other type of juvenile alternative facility, it might
[46:32] be a family, you know, placement, but we
[46:36] need a place that we can put them.
[46:38] Will our insurance premiums increase in travel and
[46:41] protection protection of the inmates going out of
[46:44] county? When you get insurance they ask you
[46:49] where do you work versus where is your
[46:51] home and you know they assign more costs
[46:53] and your premiums based on your risk going
[46:55] up and the more that you're out driving.
[46:57] So what's our liability going to be and
[46:59] what's our daily transport of inmates, especially during
[47:03] inclement weather. And then on the weather note,
[47:06] you know, timing for transportation is going to
[47:08] be an issue. Court doesn't just stop because
[47:10] we have bad weather. While we do have
[47:13] some hearings by Zoom, you know, we have
[47:16] jury trials where you're supposed to do when
[47:17] we're in jury trial and there's a snowstorm.
[47:19] We still have court, we still have jury
[47:21] trials. And then with regards to the contracts,
[47:27] I know that the language was that they
[47:30] would be guaranteed beds for up to 10
[47:32] inmates, but like we said before, we're constantly
[47:37] called to go pick up people that we
[47:39] thought we had secured in a facility that
[47:41] can meet their needs. Finally, I want to
[47:44] wrap up with I am constantly talked to
[47:48] by judges from other counties, by public defenders,
[47:52] private attorneys, other business partners, how well we
[47:56] work together in Waseeva County. While our jail
[47:59] is broke per se, it needs to be
[48:01] fixed. Our partnership and our relationships are working
[48:05] well and they are not broken and the
[48:07] criminal justice system will be directly impacted which
[48:10] affects public safety and I have a very
[48:13] steep concern that if we don't have a
[48:16] jail it is going to dramatically impact and
[48:20] potentially break our good system that we have
[48:23] in Waseca. Thank you. I'll take one minute
[48:31] if I may Commissioner Zede. I don't want
[48:33] to repeat what the other Justice Partners had
[48:38] said. I'm John Sherrill, probation director. County. Just
[48:41] real quickly, and it's a very difficult decision,
[48:44] I fully understand that. Just to point out,
[48:47] there are a lot of times that our
[48:49] agents in our office are over in jail.
[48:52] They go there daily to go meet with
[48:53] clients. We have bail studies we have to
[48:55] do in the morning that is very time
[48:57] sensitive that we may have to go over
[48:59] there. We have regular jail visits. If somebody
[49:02] is just in custody, there's an inappropriate violation,
[49:05] we have to go meet with them on
[49:06] a time sensitive matter. So with that, if
[49:09] we are housing inmates out of the county,
[49:12] there will be an increased cost with some
[49:15] transportation with our agents going to a different
[49:17] county as well. So we do support a
[49:19] local jail, but we understand that this is
[49:21] a very difficult decision for the commissioners. Thank
[49:23] you. Thanks. Thank you. Randy Peterson, Francisco. I
[49:29] got a couple of quick questions. Will this
[49:32] JV approved? The jail would have been male
[49:34] and female? I mean, it's kind of that
[49:39] old that old sexes. That that would be
[49:43] staffing, which we already are unable to staff
[49:48] for the male inmates. Try and staff it
[49:53] with females for female inmates. In the middle
[49:57] of Blue Earth, in the middle of Steele
[49:58] County, with a tax capacity that's significantly less
[50:04] than both neighboring counties, I don't even see
[50:09] how we could hire help. I'd say it
[50:12] for me. Fine. And you said 43 and
[50:17] a half million dollars or something like that.
[50:19] And I don't know if Mr. Johnson, you
[50:22] were talking about Rice County, Blue Earth County.
[50:24] I read the Mankato paper. When Blue Earth
[50:27] County was building their new jail, it was
[50:29] just million after million after million overruns. You're
[50:33] not gonna do this for 43 and a
[50:35] half million dollars. I would figure 25% on
[50:38] top of that. And I'll bet you're gonna
[50:41] be in the ballpark. So you're gonna figure
[50:43] $5,055,000,000. That would be my guess. I know
[50:47] nothing, but, and you know, how deep is
[50:52] our tax? Well, you know, everybody what you
[50:54] did to us this year. How deep can
[50:57] you dig that well if the dirt not
[50:58] falling back in on you? That's all I
[51:01] got to say. I'm not for it or
[51:03] against it, but that's good. Thank you. Thanks,
[51:06] Randy. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Alex
[51:16] Blank. I'm with the Minnesota Public Employees Association.
[51:19] I'm one of their attorneys. We represent a
[51:21] lot of public employees across the state of
[51:23] Minnesota. Here in Raseko, we represent your highway
[51:26] department, your courthouse or your general unit, and
[51:29] then in particular today, I'm here on behalf
[51:31] of our representation for the jail, their staff
[51:35] including dispatch along with the deputy guardian unit.
[51:38] I want to start by saying I don't
[51:40] envy the position that you're in. Know it's
[51:41] a difficult one. You got a lot of
[51:43] hard decisions to make. And I also want
[51:45] to respect the fact that I do not
[51:46] want to be redundant, so appreciate the points
[51:49] that have been made by the county attorney
[51:50] and the sheriff as well. What I will
[51:53] leave you with is hopefully a objective perspective
[51:56] of what's going on in other jurisdictions that
[51:58] are not just neutral to this area but
[52:00] across the state and the fact that I
[52:03] respect the idea that it might be a
[52:05] viable option to hire more deputies to assist
[52:08] with transports and things of that nature. What
[52:10] I don't foresee being a plausible solution, however,
[52:13] is how you're gonna hire them. It's been
[52:16] brought up that the hiring issue is massive.
[52:19] Right now, I believe on the Minnesota Post
[52:21] Board, there are over 200 postings, many of
[52:23] which are offering for multiple positions. The city
[52:26] of Minneapolis alone is well over a couple
[52:29] hundred. So that right there tells us that
[52:31] there could be anywhere from three to 500
[52:33] vacancies of Peace Officers in the state Minnesota.
[52:36] Now if you have the well of applicants
[52:38] available, I'm sure you'll have 86 other counties
[52:41] and hundreds of municipalities calling to get that
[52:43] answer from you, but I don't foresee a
[52:45] way in which you're going be able to
[52:46] hire the staffing in order to do it.
[52:49] Like I said, I didn't want to be
[52:50] redundant. I'll leave you all with this. I
[52:53] think with a new jail, you have a
[52:55] known quantity and a known solution that you
[52:58] can address these concerns. Moving forward without one,
[53:00] you do not have that guarantee and I
[53:02] think that would be a great disservice not
[53:04] only the employees that have dedicated their careers
[53:07] to that jail and to the law enforcement
[53:09] here in Waseke County but also the public
[53:12] in which they serve. Thank thank you for
[53:13] your time. Good morning. My name is Rick
[53:28] Schultz. I live in rural New Richland. Again,
[53:33] applaud people for having this meeting and giving
[53:36] the opportunity to weigh out pros and cons
[53:38] of the what's before you in the decision
[53:41] making. I want to start off with, we've
[53:43] always been proud of our law enforcement in
[53:46] the county, whether it's the city police department
[53:50] or the county. We've always been secured by
[53:53] them and we applaud the job they're doing.
[53:57] However, brick and mortar doesn't make our forces
[54:04] better or worse, it's the people that you
[54:06] employ. So think we have to be cautious
[54:10] on this. This isn't an easy decision like
[54:12] everyone said. Some things that jump out at
[54:15] me is examples of inmates that we can't
[54:18] handle. Again, I go back to does brick
[54:20] and mortar solve that? It sounds to me
[54:23] like we have a staffing concern in whether
[54:28] that building is 1970 or 2025. I don't
[54:33] know that that changes the ability to handle
[54:36] some of the people you're dealing with. Something
[54:40] that jumped out at me is these neighboring
[54:42] facilities at 20% capacity, I do think that's
[54:47] a viable option. Again, we wouldn't accept that
[54:51] in our own business to be at 20%
[54:54] capacity. So I don't think we can step
[54:58] aside and say that that isn't a viable
[55:00] option. I look at it, there are inconveniences.
[55:05] Does it matter if this potential inmate gets
[55:10] in a squad car for ten minutes or
[55:13] thirty minutes? I questioned some of that, so
[55:16] I think we do need to look at
[55:18] that. But those are all things that we've
[55:22] elected you to decide and to weigh out,
[55:25] so I think we need to respect where
[55:27] you go in the research and again, all
[55:30] viable options. Some of the questions that I
[55:34] come up with through this, and I just
[55:37] like some clarity, we said that we levied
[55:40] 10,000,000 here two years ago with anticipation of
[55:44] needing. Is that a correct figure or 20,000,000?
[55:47] No, we've budgeted the ability to bomb Tim.
[55:53] So could you explain that just a little
[55:55] bit of how that did that affect our
[55:57] taxes when you did that? We're paying for
[56:00] that currency then. Right. So the best way
[56:03] to explain that is right now, the levy
[56:08] is what it is for 2023 roughly $17,700,000
[56:13] So what the board had started to do
[56:16] over the last year and a half essentially
[56:18] is figure out within that existing levy framework
[56:22] where can we pull money back, where can
[56:25] we isolate dollars to pay for that first
[56:28] twenty million dollars bill. So that's why I
[56:31] was how I was trying to explain that
[56:34] If we had a $20,000,000 building, that effectively
[56:38] would not touch or impact your taxes at
[56:42] all. But it would it would services. Something's
[56:47] giving up to get that done. To an
[56:49] extent. Okay. Yes. That is correct. Because I
[56:52] think I would agree or these commissioners would
[56:56] agree that there are no I hope you're
[56:59] more efficient than that. Guess is what I'm
[57:01] trying to say is that there isn't anything
[57:03] sitting out there that we're wasting. No. So
[57:07] that model that the commissioners looked at was
[57:10] over a decade of time. So it was
[57:13] how do we create levy sustainability over a
[57:16] ten year period? So there aren't you're not
[57:19] experiencing that roller coaster ride of, well great
[57:22] we're at a 1% potential increase, but next
[57:25] year it's going to be 10. That was
[57:27] wanting to be avoided. So you know you
[57:29] look at the last four years the levy
[57:32] increases have been 1.92%, one point nine five
[57:35] %, two %. The preliminary for next year
[57:37] is 1.5%, could be lower than that. So
[57:41] that's ideal to be stable and predictable and
[57:44] at best even at that we're under inflation
[57:47] in all of those years by a wide
[57:49] margin. So each year they're finding ways to
[57:52] save dollars and cut dollars out. This is
[57:54] just a much larger expanded effort of that
[57:56] same ideology over a ten year period to
[57:59] say, we know what the bill will be.
[58:02] How do we pay for it in a
[58:03] way that creates sustainability and predictability from the
[58:08] constituency standpoint? So you don't see those 10%
[58:11] numbers from a levy. I'd just like to
[58:13] jump in here too. Part of that ten
[58:15] year model has to do with some bonds
[58:18] that we currently are paying on that are
[58:19] coming off. Correct. And so you know how
[58:22] that works. Absolutely. And Ian, that's how you
[58:24] show how you avoid a big increase in
[58:30] a project like this. It's still tax dollars
[58:34] we would experience a tax reduction if this
[58:38] project were not to go through and those
[58:39] bonds came off. So that's a little bit
[58:44] skewed in presenting this as not a tax
[58:47] increase because we could have a tax savings
[58:50] if those bonds fell off. I understand you're
[58:53] approaching it, that's most palatable for the consumer
[58:58] and the taxpayer. So I applaud you for
[59:01] looking at those options. Again, the respect I
[59:06] am here. My question, know, hearing bits and
[59:09] pieces coming into this, it's a large project
[59:12] and quite possibly a needed project. It's a
[59:18] big figure, so it gets our attention as
[59:20] taxpayers, and then I would just leave you
[59:22] with, if we commit to this project, it
[59:27] obviously will jeopardize some other projects in the
[59:30] county, and I'm sure you people have a
[59:33] long list of places money could be spent
[59:36] in. And I just ask myself, is this
[59:39] our biggest priority in the county at the
[59:41] current time? And that's what your elected piece
[59:43] says. So thank you for your time. We
[59:45] appreciate it. Hello my name is Dawn Johnson
[59:54] I'm an assistant public defender my case was
[59:58] predominantly in Waseca County I also handle some
[1:00:01] cases in Rice the third district public defender
[1:00:06] system is not located in each county we
[1:00:08] have main offices in Owatonna, Rochester and Winona
[1:00:13] so our attorneys travel all over Southern Minnesota
[1:00:17] to go to court. Bluebird County is a
[1:00:19] different judicial district the public defender office over
[1:00:23] there does not handle receipt of cases. It
[1:00:26] would be very time consuming to have to
[1:00:28] travel to LISOOR or Blue Earth County to
[1:00:31] talk to and review audio and video discovery
[1:00:35] with clients because that takes time away from
[1:00:39] public defenders being available in court and that
[1:00:42] cases would move more slowly through the judicial
[1:00:45] system as stated by Ms. Cornelius it gets
[1:00:48] cases resolved faster when I can quickly meet
[1:00:51] with clients in custody face to face and
[1:00:55] usually the quicker cases resolve the sooner the
[1:00:58] client is released from custody which saves the
[1:01:01] cost of housing. Good morning, folks. Thank you
[1:01:14] for allowing us to do make our public
[1:01:16] statements here this morning. Thank you for doing
[1:01:20] the job that you do. You've got a
[1:01:21] big big load and and I think all
[1:01:24] of us understand our implication here. I'd like
[1:01:28] to take a stance for law enforcement this
[1:01:32] morning specifically and what impact will be against
[1:01:37] the law enforcement, what they'll have to put
[1:01:39] up with if we do not have a
[1:01:42] jail. First of all, our county becomes completely
[1:01:46] dependent on surrounding jurisdictions to house violators. We
[1:01:49] all, that's kind of redundant. We already talked
[1:01:52] about that, which means the following could happen
[1:01:54] for an officer. The arresting officer will have
[1:01:57] to coordinate with supervisors as to where that
[1:02:00] violator should be taken. In the meantime, the
[1:02:04] person is sitting in the squad. This means
[1:02:06] everything is on hold. The officer is no
[1:02:08] longer available to respond to other calls. They're
[1:02:11] his or her supervisor to find a bit
[1:02:13] with the violator and arrangements are made to
[1:02:15] transfer that violator to wherever it goes. The
[1:02:18] officer is now spending time taking care of
[1:02:21] the violator rather than investigating this crime. The
[1:02:26] arresting officer then must transport the violator to
[1:02:29] that location, check the violator in. How far
[1:02:32] is that gonna be? We don't know that
[1:02:34] yet. Return to his or or her duty
[1:02:39] status, of course, will double that time. Each
[1:02:42] incident will entail a different length of time
[1:02:44] to complete all of this, meaning that officer
[1:02:46] could be out of service for a length
[1:02:48] of time, which cannot be estimated at this
[1:02:50] point. During which our city or county could
[1:02:56] be short an available officer to respond to
[1:02:58] any another emergencies that might crop up while
[1:03:03] he or she is taking care of that
[1:03:05] call. In addition to this, consideration must be
[1:03:08] taken for the possible exposure to endangerment to
[1:03:11] the arresting officer. If the violator is in
[1:03:15] any way violent, threatening, or under influence of
[1:03:18] either drugs or alcohol, if any of these
[1:03:21] are suspected, there must be additional trained personnel,
[1:03:25] come across that this morning too, but to
[1:03:27] accompany that transfer beginning to end to ensure
[1:03:31] the safety of the officer. Let me remind
[1:03:35] you here that Minnesota has seen fit to
[1:03:36] legalize marijuana in our state for recreational use
[1:03:41] as well as medicinal purposes. And as of
[1:03:44] now, there is no way to legally field
[1:03:46] test for it. I can't imagine what my
[1:03:50] son or daughter would be doing in the
[1:03:51] field trying to figure out that alone. Try
[1:03:57] to imagine that. I must also point out
[1:04:01] here that there are no contracts as what
[1:04:03] was pointed out. Am I correct, mister Johnson?
[1:04:06] Correct. There are no contracts or arrangements to
[1:04:08] accept any of our violators anywhere at this
[1:04:12] point. It also must be pointed out that
[1:04:17] the contract, you know, with another jurisdiction in
[1:04:20] the future, there could be no guarantee that
[1:04:22] that contract will stand. After any election cycle,
[1:04:26] that contract could go away. Considering the scenario
[1:04:34] outlined here, Waseca County could have violators housed
[1:04:38] in several surrounding counties at the same time,
[1:04:42] creating a nightmare. Each of these outside agencies
[1:04:45] could, at any time, for any reason, require
[1:04:48] Waseca County to find a different bet. We're
[1:04:52] setting Waseca County up for failure. On several
[1:04:56] levels. If Waseca County has no jail. We
[1:05:00] are the Waseca County seat. That isn't going
[1:05:04] to change. There is where this is where
[1:05:06] the Waseca County Courthouse is. This is where
[1:05:09] the Waseca County Attorney has offices. And is
[1:05:12] required to manage the the lawbreakers from all
[1:05:17] of the agencies in Waseca County. How about
[1:05:19] an officer in Janesville? What does he or
[1:05:22] she do? When he finds a violator or
[1:05:26] has a violator or there are multiple violations
[1:05:30] and has to deal with two people at
[1:05:31] the same time. They're working alone. How do
[1:05:34] they do that? The same goes with the
[1:05:37] New Richland or any other jurisdiction on Waseca
[1:05:39] County. Without a county jail, we'll be creating
[1:05:43] a list of problems for our law enforcement
[1:05:45] community that will affect every citizen in our
[1:05:47] county. One way or another, sooner or later.
[1:05:53] What do we do with multiple people being
[1:05:55] taken into custody? If there are serious matters,
[1:06:01] we need involved officers sitting on the scene
[1:06:03] for evidence collection, investigation. We don't need officers
[1:06:08] being Uber drivers for our courts. Our county
[1:06:13] agencies are short staffed the way they are
[1:06:15] now. You heard the possibilities of hiring right
[1:06:18] now. They're not good. What if what happens
[1:06:23] if one officer is transporting and he or
[1:06:26] she is the only officer on duty? Consider
[1:06:30] trying to hire officers for those retiring or
[1:06:34] taking other positions in other jurisdictions. Hiring law
[1:06:37] enforcement folks in Minnesota is difficult enough right
[1:06:40] now with the culture that's being that we're
[1:06:43] seeing. Without creating environment, that does not support
[1:06:49] them. And that's what we would be doing
[1:06:51] if we do not have a county jail.
[1:06:57] I just like taking that info at all
[1:06:59] with present law enforcement officers. Please stand up
[1:07:03] in the audience. Please stand up. Take a
[1:07:08] look, and gentlemen. These people protect us day
[1:07:12] and night, twenty four hours a day, seven
[1:07:16] days a week. Let's give them a hand.
[1:07:24] We need the county jail. What do we
[1:07:29] need, however, you may legitimately ask. I understand
[1:07:33] that too. A recent discussion I had with
[1:07:36] sheriff Dula showed me that we do not
[1:07:38] need a tall. Others refer to it as
[1:07:44] a justice center. Where there would be not
[1:07:47] only a jail but also meeting rooms, courtrooms,
[1:07:50] judges and attorneys offices, holding cells, as well
[1:07:53] as the requirements for general public that are
[1:07:56] going to be demanded. What we need in
[1:07:59] my opinion is a whole different facility than
[1:08:02] what some seem to want. Again, it's my
[1:08:06] opinion. Common sense needs to prevail here. Waseca
[1:08:13] has lost several large employers over the last
[1:08:15] eight to ten years, and is scheduled to
[1:08:18] lose more, and along with them, the families
[1:08:20] that were employed. They are now forced to
[1:08:24] go to work elsewhere, or they're commuting. There's
[1:08:30] talk of needing a new school. Is our
[1:08:35] population exploding? Not that I heard last. I
[1:08:39] don't think so. I certainly do not claim
[1:08:41] to have knowledge, of course, of what we
[1:08:43] can afford for the next twenty or thirty
[1:08:46] years, but I have a strong common sense
[1:08:48] approach as to what I see happening. And
[1:08:52] when it comes to expenditures versus income in
[1:08:54] our future, we do not need a justice
[1:08:57] center. We need a county court. A county
[1:09:02] jail. Excuse me. If we lose our ability
[1:09:06] in Waseca County to control our inmate population
[1:09:09] housing, it will create a vacuum for the
[1:09:10] beginning of just another step, with no going
[1:09:14] back to the creation of a culture where
[1:09:16] some point in Waseca will become totally dependent
[1:09:21] on another jurisdiction for our law enforcement, just
[1:09:24] as we do now for many of our
[1:09:27] shopping needs. We will have become a hollow
[1:09:31] shell with no control, no hiring advantages to
[1:09:35] maintain the level of enforcement we now enjoy,
[1:09:38] which is keeping our communities, our businesses, and
[1:09:43] our families safe. Thank you for your time,
[1:09:47] ladies and gentlemen. I, of course, given you
[1:09:49] this map. I've called each of these counties
[1:09:53] the information that follows on the next page
[1:09:56] following that. You can certainly refer to. I
[1:09:59] agree with mister Johnson. There has been indications
[1:10:03] made that we have very lot of lot
[1:10:06] of beds around our area that are not
[1:10:08] occupied. That as mister Johnson has pointed out
[1:10:13] and try not to be redundant here but
[1:10:15] I guess I am. That staffing is a
[1:10:19] problem. I talked to I talked to LeSour
[1:10:24] County very very regularly. I visit the inmates
[1:10:27] up there on regular basis. I visit the
[1:10:30] jails. They all know me. So what would
[1:10:33] you do with a contract? And so we
[1:10:35] don't we don't do contracts. I said, never?
[1:10:38] Well, never is a bad word. No. We'd
[1:10:41] probably would entertain it. But we don't have
[1:10:44] staffing. How about females? Oh, yeah. We have
[1:10:48] staffing for females. Okay. So my question to
[1:10:54] you folks is, what would we do with
[1:10:56] females? Are we going to build for females?
[1:11:03] You heard the county attorney and a lot
[1:11:06] of problems I've seen in the most recent
[1:11:08] past and it's not going to get any
[1:11:10] better. Are we gonna shut it off just
[1:11:13] because we think we can't hire somebody? I
[1:11:17] think we better leave that on the table.
[1:11:19] I'll leave it there. Thank you so much
[1:11:21] for your attention and I appreciate your your
[1:11:24] your thought and your diligence with this. Good
[1:11:33] morning. Steve Johnson, James O'Bleet Chief. Just a
[1:11:37] couple of things that I wanted to point
[1:11:39] out. One of the whole reasons for this
[1:11:43] conversation was for the jail. It seems like
[1:11:47] that cost has created a discussion of what
[1:11:51] about not a jail, echoing the sentiments of
[1:11:55] the former party that was up here. We
[1:12:00] need the jail and the courthouse court admin.
[1:12:03] The rest of that is not required at
[1:12:06] this point. That is not why we entered
[1:12:07] into this discussion. One of the things that
[1:12:10] you had pointed out was that the cost
[1:12:15] for a $200,000 house would be a $68
[1:12:19] a year increase in the tax levy for
[1:12:22] that party. I understand that it goes out
[1:12:24] for the farm land and stuff like that,
[1:12:28] but that's $68 a year. That number is
[1:12:34] on the 20,000,000 plus whatever's required above and
[1:12:38] beyond that. So you're talking about a $43,000,000
[1:12:41] building that's for a justice center. Okay? Has
[1:12:44] the discussion come up about having just the
[1:12:46] jail and the court, the court admin? That
[1:12:52] is not gonna be another $45,000,000 or $45,000,000
[1:12:57] project. So that's one option and that is
[1:13:02] a that is a $20,000,000 bond and today's
[1:13:07] $20,000,000. You had said that 439 to 639
[1:13:16] k a year for hiring transport debtors. That
[1:13:21] number doesn't stay the same. Okay, 20,000,000 does.
[1:13:25] $4.39 to 6 30 9 is gonna go
[1:13:27] up every year. The contract with another county
[1:13:31] is good today. What happens the next time
[1:13:34] that contract comes due because I guarantee the
[1:13:36] county is not gonna guarantee a contract for
[1:13:39] the next twenty, thirty years. That's gonna go
[1:13:42] up. There's no promises. There's no crystal ball.
[1:13:44] Okay? Except that the bond today is for
[1:13:49] 20,000,000. A building today granted there's overruns and
[1:13:53] stuff like that that stuff's gonna go up
[1:13:56] but that's today's that's not ten fifteen twenty
[1:13:59] years down the line that's a promise that
[1:14:01] we don't have Okay? And it does impact
[1:14:04] my budget and impacts every budget in this
[1:14:07] this column. So just those things I wanted
[1:14:10] to point out. Thanks for your time. I'm
[1:14:34] Jennifer Johnson, rural New Richland and I just
[1:14:37] want to make two quick comments or statements.
[1:14:41] In my EMS career one thing I learned
[1:14:43] is you don't need you don't think about
[1:14:45] EMS until you need them and if we
[1:14:48] don't have them that's when you really think
[1:14:51] about it and to that a really serious
[1:14:56] comment to think about if we lose our
[1:14:58] jail I guess I can't say a %
[1:15:03] but I can probably say 99% we will
[1:15:05] never get it back that's one thing that's
[1:15:09] something that really needs to be thinking about
[1:15:11] is if we lose it we're not going
[1:15:13] to get it back So if something doesn't
[1:15:16] go right in the other plans, we're going
[1:15:19] have nothing. I think the big scope of
[1:16:10] things here is what's the realization of what's
[1:16:13] happening. The state of Minnesota just indumbly increased
[1:16:17] their budget 40%. One year. That has a
[1:16:22] tremendous impact, not only on individuals, but it
[1:16:25] has a tremendous impact on municipalities and government
[1:16:28] entities that wanna pass bond fees to facilitate
[1:16:32] the things that are needed. But that money
[1:16:34] is gobbled up by this continuation of government
[1:16:39] to spend money that we don't have. I
[1:16:41] mean, we're spending about almost 3 quarters of
[1:16:43] a billion dollars so the politicians in Saint
[1:16:47] Paul can have what they did as an
[1:16:49] adequate facility in which to want to. And
[1:16:52] yet we deal with these tragedies or not
[1:16:54] crackings but situations throughout the state of Minnesota
[1:16:59] that need funding but that's all taken away
[1:17:01] because of those things. So would it be
[1:17:05] nice to be able to build a new
[1:17:06] jail? Sure. Would it be nice to build
[1:17:10] a new school? Sure. But we just don't
[1:17:13] have the money and revenue in which to
[1:17:15] do that. I mean we don't know what
[1:17:16] the true impact of it is that last
[1:17:19] year's budgetary process in Saint Paul caused, they're
[1:17:23] biting at the bit now to spend it
[1:17:26] $2,500,000,000 that currently they have the extra spend.
[1:17:31] And it's never a discussion about giving any
[1:17:33] of this money back. Granted, I'm going off
[1:17:36] point here, but really I'm not because all
[1:17:39] of this has an impact on each and
[1:17:40] every one of us. And so we have
[1:17:43] to not only look at what we can
[1:17:44] do here in Pasadena County, we need to
[1:17:47] look at what the ramifications of these of
[1:17:50] these other government entities are having upon us
[1:17:53] and the realization to what causes. Because they're
[1:17:57] the ones that drove us to have this
[1:17:59] problem in the first place, and they're continuing
[1:18:01] to drive. If you don't think I speak
[1:18:03] to two, go speak to the cops in
[1:18:05] Minneapolis for a tickle the nose of the
[1:18:07] flag. So it's unfortunate, but I guess one
[1:18:12] avenue that I would see as a solution
[1:18:16] is as a school district they used to
[1:18:18] have to pass resolutions for spending through the
[1:18:21] boards. This is a thing that the county
[1:18:24] needs to look at. What does the county
[1:18:26] people or residents really think? And give them
[1:18:29] the opportunity to speak I am a sergeant
[1:19:00] for the Chief County Sheriff's Office. Standing up
[1:19:03] here in front of you today speaking on
[1:19:04] my own behalf, no one else. Foremost, I
[1:19:07] want to thank everyone that has come and
[1:19:09] recognize the value of this important and take
[1:19:11] the time to express your feelings. This truly
[1:19:13] is a pivotal piece of our county's judicial
[1:19:16] infrastructure. I understand that their party is concerned
[1:19:19] about the remodel or replacement of this facility.
[1:19:21] There may be people that think we don't
[1:19:23] need this right now. Speaking to those people,
[1:19:25] I would say you're right. You're absolutely right.
[1:19:28] We don't need it right now. We needed
[1:19:31] it twenty years ago. This is not the
[1:19:36] board's fault. It's not the county administrator's fault.
[1:19:38] It's not Sheriff Duos' fault. Given hindsight, I
[1:19:43] believe previous administration would have completed this project
[1:19:46] many years ago. It's up to this administration
[1:19:49] and this community to rectify our predecessor's shortcomings.
[1:19:53] This facility is going to come at a
[1:19:55] cost, no questions. As a local taxpayer, I
[1:19:58] thank you for taking a hard look at
[1:20:00] this. I understand that Val was concerned with
[1:20:02] spending millions of taxpayer dollars. Having said that,
[1:20:07] I also recognize that this is a critical
[1:20:08] piece of our public safety infrastructure. We need
[1:20:12] a local facility capable of holding our inmates.
[1:20:16] The inherent building costs associated with building a
[1:20:18] security facility such as the dealer undoubtedly higher
[1:20:21] than than that of a single family home,
[1:20:24] a school, a library, or a typical commercial
[1:20:26] building. Nothing in our business is difficult, but
[1:20:31] this community's safety is difficult and is not
[1:20:34] negotiable. I firmly believe that this group can
[1:20:38] put together a safe, appropriately scaled, and functional
[1:20:42] facility without being fiscally irresponsible. It's my opinion
[1:20:48] that the misbelief that housing and traveling out
[1:20:51] of our community to house these individuals is
[1:20:53] not a daunting task. It's no big deal.
[1:20:56] Fired another cop. Buy another swag yard. Hiring
[1:21:00] these staff members is not easy. They've been
[1:21:02] talking about it all morning. Retaining them is
[1:21:04] even harder. The fact is we will be
[1:21:08] forced to do more with less, and the
[1:21:10] cost will come at the expense of public
[1:21:12] safety. Adding additional pressure to an already depleted
[1:21:16] and struggling career field is not a viable
[1:21:18] solution. That is a problem that is not
[1:21:22] to be solved in this room, but it's
[1:21:23] the fact that we cannot afford to overlook
[1:21:25] nonetheless. Fiscally, at face value, there appears to
[1:21:30] be a significant discrepancy here, and on paper
[1:21:32] it may be. However, this is not a
[1:21:36] business. The criminal justice system is not a
[1:21:39] business. I am not willing to put a
[1:21:43] price tag on our staff and our community's
[1:21:45] safety, and I would challenge this administration to
[1:21:48] do the same. The thought of abstaining from
[1:21:52] moving forward with with the new jail while
[1:21:55] pushing forward with a new stand alone justice
[1:21:57] center is inappropriate. This is a local network.
[1:22:01] These teams are individuals with roles with the
[1:22:05] overall goal of countywide public safety. The entire
[1:22:08] scope of this project was to upgrade the
[1:22:10] jail and brigade services altogether, not to transplant
[1:22:13] the primary participants to an out of county
[1:22:16] location. Personally, I would forego my new office
[1:22:19] in a new stand alone justice center in
[1:22:21] lieu of the primary need for that being
[1:22:23] the jail. In a fiscal effort, it appears
[1:22:26] we would be willing to put an already
[1:22:28] depleted group of law enforcement officers out on
[1:22:30] the road, day and night, three sixty five
[1:22:33] days a year, twenty four hours a day,
[1:22:36] on Minnesota roads, with an inmate or two
[1:22:40] alone. Speaking from experience, I can tell you
[1:22:43] it is an eerie feeling being alone in
[1:22:46] the middle of nowhere and having an out
[1:22:48] of control inmate in your back seat, trying
[1:22:51] anything they can do to get out. They
[1:22:53] don't want to go to jail. No one
[1:22:56] wants to go to jail. And someone can't
[1:22:58] do anything to stop that from happening. Sending
[1:23:02] officers on constant, around the clock transports to
[1:23:06] and from outside agencies is not our solution.
[1:23:09] These officers would be traveling to and from
[1:23:11] wherever the latest low bid contract is on
[1:23:13] inmate housing, as we can rest assured any
[1:23:16] quoted pricing will not remain stagnant indefinitely. Once
[1:23:20] our facility is gone, we will have no
[1:23:23] choice but to pay a premium asking price
[1:23:24] moving forward. Some of these inmates are nice
[1:23:29] and corporate individuals. Some of made an unfortunate
[1:23:31] mistake, however many of them are not. Many
[1:23:35] of these inmates pose a significant threat to
[1:23:37] law enforcement and public safety throughout the community.
[1:23:40] To put it modestly, we have and are
[1:23:42] housing extremely difficult people. These are people that
[1:23:45] nobody else wants to hold. As recently as
[1:23:47] last week, we transferred an inmate to an
[1:23:50] out of county jail last week. Mind you,
[1:23:54] this is one of the facilities that were
[1:23:56] revaluing a very possible contract. After a short
[1:24:00] stay, that particular jail refused to continue holding
[1:24:04] the inmate based on the inmate's behavior. Waseke
[1:24:07] County was told to come pick the inmate
[1:24:09] up. That inmate is now back in our
[1:24:11] facility. We are dealing with the inmate because
[1:24:14] they are our responsibility. They are this county's
[1:24:18] responsibility. The out of county jail made the
[1:24:21] untimely business decision to not hold that individual
[1:24:24] anymore. We, as a responsible agency, did not
[1:24:28] have that luxury. We do not get to
[1:24:32] choose how cooperative or violent our inmates are,
[1:24:35] and who we are or are not willing
[1:24:38] to hold. Prior to incarceration, this inmate continued
[1:24:41] to repeatedly, repeatedly terrorize members of this community,
[1:24:47] taxpayers of the Liseka help. I bet if
[1:24:51] the board were to call the victim, they
[1:24:53] would be willing to pay a little extra
[1:24:54] towards the levy to assure the inmate remains
[1:24:56] incarcerated. I would. This is just one example.
[1:25:01] There are many more. They've been talking about
[1:25:02] them. This is not a new or isolated
[1:25:04] incident. These other facilities have their own issues
[1:25:08] and their own adjective bad apples. I can
[1:25:10] assure you they do not want ours. They
[1:25:13] want our money. And in forgoing our jail,
[1:25:16] we are writing a blank check for the
[1:25:18] future. Violent crime in our area is certainly
[1:25:21] on the rise and not tending in the
[1:25:23] right direction. Personally, I've been involved in four
[1:25:27] shootings in three years. The justice system is
[1:25:31] not a business. We are not here to
[1:25:34] make money. We are here to keep the
[1:25:36] peace. The jail belongs to the community. This
[1:25:40] is about our community's stance on crime and
[1:25:43] our long term safety. Waseca County needs to
[1:25:46] maintain control of its violent offenders. Hello everybody.
[1:26:15] My name is Chris Diaper. I'm with Seeker
[1:26:17] County IT. I work with you guys. I
[1:26:21] work with everybody else here in the county.
[1:26:23] I've seen the personal process. Our robbery in
[1:26:27] my house, followed the process of how that
[1:26:30] person was dealt with with their court system
[1:26:33] and everything else. And working with the jailer,
[1:26:36] I think the rest of our staff, I
[1:26:39] I don't see how we deal with other
[1:26:41] jail here. Cost of everything later if we
[1:26:44] have to do this, it's just gonna go
[1:26:46] up. It's gonna be even more snowy for
[1:26:47] me, I believe. I haven't touched on the
[1:26:50] aspect of how current other beds that are
[1:26:54] open. Are those facilities properly staffed, are they
[1:26:57] struggling like we are? I didn't see any
[1:27:00] of that closely. I'd rather pay for this
[1:27:04] now while I can pay for my tax
[1:27:06] and have my children have to pay for
[1:27:07] it later than I have to pay two,
[1:27:09] three, or four times as much as as
[1:27:11] well. We go without a jail. I can
[1:27:14] only see this community being less safe just
[1:27:17] because our staff is already being strengthened as
[1:27:20] it is. With everything that they currently have
[1:27:23] approved, that we need a new jail. However,
[1:28:25] I also believe that we don't need to
[1:28:29] spend a fantastic amount of money to have
[1:28:32] a real flashy facility. It's obvious from the
[1:28:38] previous speakers that there are many good reasons
[1:28:41] for maintaining a good decent jail that was.
[1:28:49] There's a I'm gonna try to be brief
[1:28:51] here. It was a number of decades ago
[1:28:55] that the idea was proposed of having a
[1:29:01] unified law enforcement idea in Wasikah County instead
[1:29:09] of having four different law enforcement agencies. And
[1:29:15] I was thinking about that, that maybe there's
[1:29:19] some financial advantages to that. And so maybe
[1:29:24] that is one way to take a look
[1:29:28] at the financial part of this and see
[1:29:31] if there's an advantage to that idea. Now
[1:29:35] I know that involves a lot of thinking
[1:29:37] outside the box, but I think it's time.
[1:29:41] Thank you. Thank you. I'm Brad Nobreath, I
[1:30:16] wanna commend this board moving forward with this
[1:30:19] step. Since February, VLC has. With a hundred
[1:30:25] six different spend. This is the first one
[1:30:28] that's gotten me. So I appreciate looking at
[1:30:33] this. I believe that the Michael, do you
[1:31:13] have anything to add at this time? No,
[1:31:16] sir. I was just checking online to make
[1:31:18] sure there weren't any individuals trying to chime
[1:31:20] in, but nothing else. Yeah. I guess I'd
[1:31:25] like to make a comment on where the
[1:31:28] rest of the board. I don't want to
[1:31:30] speak to the rest of the board, but
[1:31:31] you can make final comments also. We obviously
[1:31:38] are looking for the best way out of
[1:31:40] a tough situation with situation with the least
[1:31:42] amount of burden to our constituents. We have
[1:31:49] a smaller tax base. We're trying to improve
[1:31:51] our tax rate to attract businesses back into
[1:31:57] the county. Everybody knows that we've commercial business
[1:32:02] in the county. And we've worked really hard
[1:32:05] as a board to try to bring our
[1:32:09] tax burden down and right size our taxes
[1:32:12] for this comp in order to attract commercial
[1:32:18] business back in to spur growth within the
[1:32:22] county. So it's difficult for me to look
[1:32:32] at spending this kind of money when there
[1:32:35] is another option. Simply contracting out the inmates
[1:32:45] versus what it's costing us today is a
[1:32:48] huge benefit to our budgets. That's where my
[1:32:51] mind goes. We've heard from a lot of
[1:32:54] staff here today on why we should have
[1:32:57] a jail. And I understand that. And we
[1:33:03] wouldn't have even brought this forward if there
[1:33:05] wasn't for a county two doors down from
[1:33:07] us that are doing this and doing it
[1:33:09] successfully. Granted, they've never had a jail or
[1:33:13] not in recent history. Have had a jail,
[1:33:18] but they do it and they do it
[1:33:19] successfully. We wouldn't have never brought this in
[1:33:23] front of us if it wasn't for Dodge
[1:33:25] County doing it and doing it successfully. I've
[1:33:30] talked to their commissioners on multiple occasions and
[1:33:33] they and they enjoyed not having a jail.
[1:33:37] I understand that it's difficult for staff to
[1:33:42] make a change. It's difficult for a community
[1:33:44] to make a change. And I'm not saying
[1:33:48] that that's the change that's going to happen,
[1:33:50] but we knew that we would have some
[1:33:54] resistance because change is difficult. But we do
[1:33:58] think it's a viable option that can benefit
[1:34:03] the county along with reducing the tax burden.
[1:34:10] But that's why we brought this forward. We
[1:34:13] wanted to hear from the tax payers. We
[1:34:16] want to hear from the constituents on how
[1:34:18] they feel. Again, we would have never brought
[1:34:21] this forward, but we know that there's a
[1:34:23] county that does it and enjoys the fact
[1:34:26] that they don't have a panel. But it's
[1:34:30] change, it's huge change. Thank you. I would
[1:34:42] just say I want to thank everybody who's
[1:34:45] come today to listen and to learn and
[1:34:47] also to comment. We set these meetings up
[1:34:51] because we want to hear from you. And
[1:34:57] we're going to hear again tonight, and I
[1:35:00] look forward to that time with more citizens
[1:35:03] to hear even greater perspective. I do want
[1:35:09] to steer us back to the bigger picture
[1:35:14] just a little bit here. This isn't just
[1:35:19] an issue of whether we build a jail
[1:35:23] or don't build a jail, or build a
[1:35:25] justice center or don't build a justice center.
[1:35:29] Right now, we have a jail that is
[1:35:32] demonstratively inadequate, and the Department of Corrections is
[1:35:36] going to make sure we know that in
[1:35:38] a real substantive way come May. And we
[1:35:42] also have and I know we hate to
[1:35:45] hear this about our historic courthouse, but we
[1:35:47] also have a huge liability in our courthouse
[1:35:51] the way we give prisoners to and from
[1:35:55] our courthouse in an old, old building. And
[1:35:59] that is another problem. And I appreciate the
[1:36:05] idea that just build a jail and don't
[1:36:07] worry about a justice center. That doesn't fix
[1:36:11] our security issue with our courts. And we
[1:36:15] lots of juggling things. We care first and
[1:36:21] foremost about the safety and the working conditions
[1:36:24] of our employees. We are statutorily obligated to
[1:36:29] take care of our prisoners and to do
[1:36:31] that in a humane and thoughtful way. We
[1:36:35] have not talked at all, really, today about
[1:36:39] security in our courthouse and the potential dangers
[1:36:43] we have there. I've been in the building,
[1:36:47] and I'm not in the courthouse all that
[1:36:49] often because I usually work from home, but
[1:36:51] I've been in the courthouse when something has
[1:36:53] gone sideways upstairs, and all of a sudden
[1:36:55] there's a lot of yelling, and I wonder
[1:36:57] whether somebody's going to come over that railing.
[1:37:03] And so we got a lot of things
[1:37:04] that we're juggling here. And I have appreciated
[1:37:10] hearing a lot of different contexts, but I
[1:37:13] hope that everybody is patient as we continue
[1:37:16] to look at the facts that come forward
[1:37:18] with this. You all have provided some context
[1:37:20] today. But I know for my part, I'm
[1:37:24] looking at that big picture thing and saying,
[1:37:26] I want to solve these problems for a
[1:37:33] longer term rather than a shorter term. But
[1:37:37] I know that there's also going to be
[1:37:38] bumps in the shorter term just with the
[1:37:40] DOC inspection. So thank you again for coming.
[1:37:47] We continue to be open to feedback, and
[1:37:51] we will be. We've got a lot of
[1:37:54] work to do, and I appreciate all our
[1:37:56] partners that help us do that. Thanks. One
[1:38:02] point, maybe two. We know how much the
[1:38:06] brick and mortar is. We know that that's
[1:38:08] a number. That's a figure that it's imprint.
[1:38:12] We don't know what it looks like to
[1:38:16] contract out inmates, if you will. We know
[1:38:21] how much inmates cost here. We know how
[1:38:23] much they would cost with a new jail.
[1:38:26] As everyone stated earlier, we have staffing issues.
[1:38:31] The city has staffing issues. Everyone has staffing
[1:38:34] issues. We are in the county seat of
[1:38:38] Waseca. That has a federal bureau of prisons.
[1:38:44] Female institution in it. You tell me how
[1:38:48] we're going to fill the staffing issue in
[1:38:50] this county when they're going to offer way
[1:38:53] more money at the federal level. And I'd
[1:38:58] already stated earlier, we have Blue Earth on
[1:39:02] the West and Steele on the East that
[1:39:06] can offer more money than we can for
[1:39:08] staff. So if you put up a building,
[1:39:13] you know what that monetary amount is. Now
[1:39:16] you try and staff it, and I'm not
[1:39:19] even talking about housing females there, that's a
[1:39:22] whole other outlook. You tell me how this
[1:39:28] would happen in this company. Okay. I wanna
[1:39:39] thank everybody for coming. The other meeting will
[1:39:43] be at 06:30 tonight. Yep. Yep. Alright. Thanks
[1:39:48] again. And we are going to adjourn at
[1:39:51] 11:13.