[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.

Public Listening Session - Judicial Center and Jail - 12.12.23 AM

Transcript