The Campaign For A Safe And Adequate Criminal Justice Center

1. Solving Our Local Public Safety Crisis: Criminal Justice Facilities Are Part Of The Problem – And Part Of The SolutionCriminal Justice Planning Council - November 2005 The Campaign For A Safe And Adequate Criminal Justice Center Indianapolis Bar Association/Marion County Bar Association Justice Center Task Force John Kautzman & John Maley

2. Today’s Goals • Outline How Marion County’s Current Criminal Justice Facility Is Unsafe, Inadequate, & How It Contributes To The Current Public Safety Crisis • Review Possible Criminal Justice Center Solutions • Highlight Multiple Financing Options For A Safe & Adequate Criminal Justice Center • Propose A Resolution For This Criminal Justice Planning Council To Pass, Recommending That City-County Council Proceed In Accordance With Statutory Mandate And Begin Location, Design, & Financing Planning For A Safe & Adequate Criminal Justice Center

3. Our Perspective • We represent nearly 5,000 local legal professionals, including attorneys, paralegals, prosecutors, defenders, and judiciary • IBA & MCBA are non-partisan, & have longstanding commitment to promoting safety in local courts • IBA Security Task Force created in 1998 • IBA & IBF implemented pilot security program in 2001 • Launched Justice Center Task Force in 2002 • IBA volunteer attorneys have committed thousands of hours and nearly $100,000 in IBF funds to local criminal justice issues in recent years

4. We’ve Been Listening • We’ve Reached Out To The Public • To Elected Leaders • To Community Leaders • To Business Leaders • To Media • And As A Result We’ve Refined & Narrowed Our Focus To Criminal Justice Center Needs

5. The Current Crisis • Two Primary Risks • Release Of Violent Criminals Due In Part to Insufficient Number Of Courts • 70,000 Criminals Circulating In The Building Annually With Victims, Jurors, Witnesses, Litigants, Taxpayers, Voters, Prosecutors, Defenders, Judges, & Children

6. How Did We Get Here ?? Justice Center Video

7. This Impacts More Than 500,000 Residents • The Building Authority tracked non‑employees entering the building at peak time. • Over 1,300 non-employees entered the building at the 9am peak hour, while over 1,200 entered the building in the hour surrounding the 1:00 peak hour. • Over half a million people come and go in the building annually, for marriage licenses, tax payments, government business, jury service, court matters, etc.

8. Resultant Early Release Problem • Inadequate Space, Judges, & Resources, Coupled With Jail Cap, Means Release Of Dangerous Felons • 5 Murders So Far From Early Releases • Personal & Property Crime Rates On The Rise • This Impacts Housing Choices (Indy or Surrounding Counties) • Attracting & Retaining Business In Indy • And, Thus, Our Tax Base

10. Long-Term Solutions Have Been Studied Extensively • Examples: • 1977 Space Acquired for Separate Building • 1991 Marion County Governmental Space Study • 1994 Indiana Supreme Court/Court Security Guidelines • 1997 Indiana Supreme Court Caseload Study • 1998 CourtWorks Space Study • 1999 Court Needs Assessment • 2002 Justice Center Task Force Study • 2003 Indiana Courthouse Security Minimum Standards • 2004 Crim. Justice Planning Strategic Plan

11. All Taxpayer-Funded & Private Studies Over 15 Years Agree On The Only Feasible Long-Term Solution:Separate Criminal Justice Center Facilities Are Necessary For This Unique, Dangerous, But Vital Public Safety Function

12. What Are The Standards For Safe & Adequate Court Facilities? • No reasonable person disputes that Marion County must have safe criminal court facilities • But we do not have safe and adequate courts today, and have not for far too long • Indiana’s Courthouse Security Minimum Standards dictate that interior circulation system of the public, employees, and prisoners should be separate • This is impossible in the City-County Building

13. State Law Requires the City- County Council To Act • I.C. 33-33-49-17(b): The city-council shall provide suitable courtrooms, suitable and convenient jury rooms, and offices for the judges other court officers and personnel, and other facilities as may be necessary. • Yet suitable space has not existed for decades, to the risk of the public

14. Safe & Adequate Criminal Justice Center Solutions Exist • Our Location & Facilities Subcommittee Has Studied Available Options • Downtown • E.g., New Criminal Justice Center Adjacent To Existing Jail – Land Purchased In 1977 • Could Also Include Arrest/Processing And/Or Additional Jail Space • Or New Justice Center, With New Jail, In SE Quadrant Of Downtown • Or Offsite Criminal Justice Campus

15. Examples Of Recent Facilities

16. How To Finance This Necessary Investment In Public Safety • Safe and adequate criminal justice facility would likely cost $5 - $13 million in annual debt service as a capital project (est. $79 mil – $195 mil facility) • Depends On What All Is Included: • Criminal Courts • Criminal Justice Agencies • Arrest & Processing • Pre-Trial Detention • Jail Or Additional Jail Beds

17. Financing Options • Rental Savings (moving agencies back into vacated space in City-County Building) (est. $.5 - $1 mil) • Efficiency Savings (reduced transportation costs from 70,000 prisoners in chain gangs, reduced case delays, shorter jail stays) (est. $1 - $2 mil) • User Fee/Filing Fee Enhancements ($.75 - $1 mil) • EDIT, TIF, Sale-Leaseback, & Other Financing Tools • COIT Funds • Increasing COIT Cap If Necessary • $16.53 Property Tax Enhancement

18. Costs Of Not Moving Forward • Public Safety Jeopardized – In The Building & On The Streets • Continued Inefficiencies At Taxpayer Expense • Limited Law Enforcement Resources Unnecessarily Drained On Chain Gangs Rather Than In Our Neighborhoods • Ongoing Payment Of Unnecessary & Increasing Outside Rent To Private Landlords • Competitive Disadvantage In Attracting & Retaining Business = Resultant Loss In Property Tax Base

19. Conclusion • As the Mayor said in his State of the City, “No local elected official can be missing in action! No more excuses! It's time to end the crisis of early release of criminals!” • As Sheriff Anderson recently said, “Public Safety Expenses Are An Investment, Not A Burden.” • The Question Is Not What This Costs To Do • But What Will It Cost This Community Not To Make This Necessary Investment In Public Safety?

20. So What Can This Body Do? • Criminal Planning Council Has Shown It’s Ability To Positively Impact Public Safety & Criminal Justice In Our Community • Council Has Appropriately Taken Short-Term Steps • But Long-Term Issues Need Planning Now Also • We Propose That The Criminal Justice Planning Council Endorse Our Proposed Resolution • And Recommend To City-County Council That A Professional Location, Design, & Financing Analysis Be Undertaken In 2006

21. What We’ll Do • We Continue To Bring The Clout Of More Than 5,000 Attorneys – Leaders In Their Neighborhoods, Civic Groups, Churches, Parishes, Synagogues • The Task Force Will Continue To Support This & Other Public Safety Initiatives • We’ll Share Our Work Product With The Council • We’ll Continue Our Public Outreach • We Won’t Rest Until Long-Term Solutions Are In Place • The Public Understands Public Safety Costs Money

22. For More Information www.indyjusticecenter.org