Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bloomington council backs county council in opposing North Park jail site, urges in‑city solution
Summary
The council unanimously adopted a resolution supporting county council members who declined to fund the North Park purchase and urged the county and city to collaborate on an in‑city site or expedited permitting for an in‑city justice center, citing access for low‑income residents and concerns about cost and transit.
The Bloomington Common Council voted unanimously on April 22 to adopt Resolution 2026‑07, backing Monroe County Council colleagues who voted not to fund purchase of the so‑called North Park site for a new criminal‑justice center and urging the county to pursue a location within Bloomington that is close to social services and transit.
Sponsors said they fear a remote site would limit family visitation, complicate access to behavioral‑health and reentry services, and disproportionately burden low‑income residents who lack reliable transportation. Council members cited alternative county‑owned properties (including the Thompson site) as options that warrant renewed consideration. Several council members also urged greater investment in prevention and treatment — mental‑health services, addiction recovery and alternatives to incarceration — rather than building increased jail capacity that could be filled over time.
County officials, including County Commissioner Julie Thomas and County Council President Jennifer Crossley, told the council the county faces bond‑timing constraints and that North Park is “shovel ready”: with a purchase agreement and identified funding the county could start construction early next year and open a facility by 2030. County leaders warned that failure to select a site and meet bond council timelines could expose the county to litigation under an existing settlement agreement and carry substantial costs for all county taxpayers.
Council members and county leaders agreed on the urgency of finding a constitutionally compliant facility but differed on which sites were feasible within the county’s schedule and what tradeoffs were acceptable. The council’s resolution does not direct the county to a specific parcel; rather, it affirms the city’s preference for an in‑city location and offers to facilitate expedited city permitting and zoning if a suitable in‑city site is selected.
What happened: The council introduced the resolution, heard extensive public comment (including from county leaders and defense/community advocates), then adopted Resolution 2026‑07 by roll call. The vote was recorded as unanimous.
Next steps: The resolution asks the city and county to coordinate on an in‑city solution and for the city to work to expedite any required zoning or permitting for a site within city limits. County leaders stressed they will still need to identify funding, complete bond steps and resolve infrastructure tasks for any specific site.
