From staff reports

A discussion forum hosted by the Tribune on a new judicial center took place at a conference room at the Tribune building Thursday afternoon.

Monday, March 25, 2002

A discussion forum hosted by the Tribune on a new judicial center took place at a conference room at the Tribune building Thursday afternoon. Managing Editor Dylan Belden served as the moderator. The following are some of the highlights from the discussion More highlights will be in Monday’s paper.

Tribune forum participants: Anthony R. Trow is a member of Destination: Albert Lea. He is a co-owner of the Soap Deli, a business in Glenville; Karen B. Smed is a former member and co-chairwoman of the Courthouse Facilities Committee and a member of Destination: Albert Lea; Dave Mullenbach is the chairman of the Freeborn County Commissioners. He was first elected in November 1998; and Ron Gabrielsen has been the Freeborn County Administrator since September 2001.

Necessity

Mullenbach: In a former courthouse plan, the advisory board tried to address 16 points. They consisted of goals, objectives and planning. All of these needs are addressed in the new plan.

The people working on the current plan have the same architect as the former plan, so they implemented the same tools. The points are all addressed probably better in the new plan because of the confinement of the building.

Gabrielsen: Since I arrived here in last September. I was told that courthouse security is the prime issue.

The second issue that became quite obvious was congestion in the current courthouse facility. Over the course of years, the Recorder’s office has expanded, Environmental Service has expanded, Public Health has expanded. We literally have offices created in closets. We have subdivided a hallway for offices, which altered airflow.

And then, a kind of dark horse coming out of the blue was the jail issue.

A lot of crimes stem from drugs today. Many of them are by youth, which is a situation I hadn’t seen when I was kid. We have come to the point that we need to ask for delay of sentencing, or alternate sentencing because of the congestion.

If you do a crime, and if you are supposed to serve time, what good is it for public justice if you don’t serve the time?

Mullenbach: We also have a health issue. We don’t have a handicapped accessibility in the jail facility right now. If a man with a wheelchair comes, we have to send him to someplace else.

Gabrielsen: Also, this is my opinion, but women are more likely to be part of criminal society today. We have a facility that can detain only four women.

They are all in the same cellblock, and we cannot segregate women. We are trying to put hardcore felons in one area, and DWI offenders in another area. So it is not like a shark eating a fish. We cannot do it with women.

Monday and Tuesday this week, we had five women in a four-bed cell. We had to put a mattress on the floor.

We did not have those problems when the LEC was built in the ’70s.

Smed: Through my past commitment to the Courthouse Facilities Committee, I don’t think there is any question that security in the courthouse is very much compromised.

At the time we were dealing with plans without the jail. But now this issue has changed to a judicial center. I don’t want the work we did with other departments to become just a footnote, with the focus only on the jail.

My question is why the jail size must be doubled and needs 117 beds. I would really like to see the result of the National Institute of Correction study.

The projected numbers are finite, but there are personal things that are happening in our county, such as the future of Farmland and the changes in sentencing standards by judges.

The NIC study is imperative, just to have commissioners take a look at it and say that the 117-bed plan makes sense. A jail is very expensive to build. We already have land for expansion. So, do we initially have to build a 117-bed facility? If not, then we know that in the future we have a chance to expand.

Gabrielsen: I don’t think our two judges are changing sentencing standards at their discretion. I think they are being forced to change the style.

The courts in Minnesota are trying to establish consistency. I think the judges are getting a lot of pressure from the district, and the district has pressure from higher courts and the legislature. People are tired of crime. We cannot afford to deviate.

Smed: In this plan, I understand, that bringing the Human Service Department back home is not addressed. Human services go together hand-in-hand with public health.

Besides the HSD, the county would end up renting properties elsewhere. I do not want to see it. If we do build a facility, I am in favor of having all departments there.

Gabrielsen: I am not a big proponent of putting the Human Service Department in a courthouse.

In an ideal world, the Public Health and Human Service Department should be together. But in reality, in many counties they are separated because there are two different funding streams.

Confidentiality is another reason that the two departments are not together in an administrative facility. Should unemployed people be forced to go to the courthouse to get economic assistance under public eyes? There is prudence in separating those who are less fortunate from others. Public Health does not have a confidentiality problem as significant as Human Service.

Another concern that came up to me, similar to the Western Grocery Building, is how many concerned citizens are saying we want to buy the HSD building. If we walk out of there, what are the options?

Smed: Put Huber there. Huber [inmates who sleep in jail at night but leave each day to go to work] could be separated from the jail because those people are hardly criminals. It will need just a couple of officers to oversee. In Judge Butler’s time, the Huber was done at home.

Gabrielsen: Today, we do the Huber and Home Electronic Monitoring. Those are two separate issues.

Smed: Well, the thing with Huber is they have to come back after the work and stay in the jail at night.

Gabrielsen: Exactly. That is a judicial decree.

One officer to 64 Huber inmates is a minimum staffing requirement. But we have to assume there are female inmates. So, now we need two in every shift. Considering sick leaves and vacations, we will end up hiring 10 staff to maintain a three-shift workplace.

The new judicial center has a centralized control room, and can use a jailer to multiple capacities.

Smed: Okay. But why is there only one assessment to make a determination for the 117 beds?

Mullenbach: We also had a study by the [state] Department of Corrections.

Gabrielsen: For example, last Monday night we had 39 inmates and 47 are on a waiting list. And the 47 waiting for serving does not count 15 that are court checking and 12 that are PBT. Why do we do the court checking and PBT? Because we don’t want to extend the waiting list any longer.

As for the NIC study, after 9-11, the priority of the agency has changed dramatically. And we do not know when the study will be completed. But my understanding is that the NIC study is just a recommendation, not obligated by any law, and is not inclusive and it’s not final. An ultimate power with regard to any type of construction within a county boundary rests with the five commissioners we have.

Trow: We said that we were not moving forward without the NIC study that was supposed to be done by the end of December. Are you on the record to say we dropped the ball?

Gabrielsen: I would like to have everything come together. But there is absolutely no way that I can have all the stuff immediately. I need to have a realistic time line.

Mullenbach: What we have now is a concept plan. The only thing we talked with the architect about is color. Every detail will be up to future dialogues with them.

Trow: Let me go back to the jail needs. There was a commitment we were going to have with the NIC study, and we dropped the ball. Do you think we got enough information to move forward?

Now we jump into the 117 beds. Counties all around us are building jails that are too big. And we got a pig out here that has to run through a snake.

Gabrielsen: Which county built a jail too big?

Trow: Well, I think one in Owatonna is probably too big.

Gabrielsen: They built a 150-bed jail and figure it is going to be full within two years.

Trow: All I wanted to put on the table is if we think we are going to build a jail too big, and then sell space to somebody else, we don’t need it.

Gabrielsen: No, this is non-sell space.

Mullenbach: All what we are looking at are the needs in Freeborn county. I am not building this for other counties.

Smed: It would be foolish to spend our county’s money on the hopes that somebody outside might be using it.

Gabrielsen: Right now we probably have 60 to 70 [prisoners] to fill it up. I don’t think the number is going down in next five years.

Smed: You could argue, though, about situations like Farmland and some other things.

Gabrielsen: Do you see that Farmland will be the user of the jail?

Smed: I think anytime you have a large number of employees receiving a minimum wage, there would be some impact.

Gabrielsen: It is impossible for me to think that somebody comes into the community to commit a crime where you work.

Smed: I don’t want to make an assumption, but it’s something that has to be taken into account in the number crunching.

Gabrielsen: Talking about the population, what have you seen?

Smed: We have not seen any growth.

Gabrielsen: But I see demographic changes. Aging and growing divorce rates are distinct trends. We have more single spouses having double jobs and kids are free at home. What we are seeing is the growth of crimes by younger people against old people.

So, even though the population has not changed, the character of crimes has also changed.

Smed: If you want public support, a first step you have to do is to prove that the 117 beds are for county needs.

I have never been against the jail. I just have a concern that we are over-evaluating our needs, and we are going to build this enormous thing and try to justify filling it up.

We want you to do this plan right the first time.