A confidential memo circulated one business day before a key court filing lays out a blunt warning for Monroe County officials: Approve the purchase of the North Park property — or risk facing the ACLU in court, a scenario that has placed the county council in a dilemma over jail construction.
County commissioners argue that the memo bolsters their position and explains why they signed onto a court filing from April 13, which formalized the memo’s threat. Some council members, however, question the memo’s veracity and say they were surprised by how quickly the memo — sent Friday, April 10, 2026 — was followed by a court filing on Monday, April 13.
What the memo says — and what it threatens
The memo, which the county commissioners shared Monday with The Herald-Times, reads, in part, that Ken Falk, the ACLU’s legal director, said if North Park owner Steve Crider says the county can move only a jail on the property, but the county rejects the purchase, Falk “will not accept the delays caused by moving forward with (the former RCA) Thomson (site). This means he would not extend the Private Settlement and would move forward with litigation.”
The memo also outlined a timeline for next steps, stating that Falk would prepare a document for court, that commissioners would review a purchase agreement yet this month, and the county council would be expected to consider the purchase agreement at its May 12 meeting.
The memo also indicates that Falk believes Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his deputy would side with the ACLU if Falk filed a lawsuit. The memo reads that Falk would call the sheriff and his chief deputy to testify on behalf of the ACLU and against the county and that Falk believes that “once a judge hears their testimony, it will not be a long case at all.”
Commissioners and Falk had filed an agreement in court April 13 that lays out that if the county council does not approve the North Park purchase in a matter of weeks, Falk would renew a long-running lawsuit that alleges the Monroe County Jail is unconstitutionally unsafe. Some council members had objected to the agreement and said it caught them by surprise. Commissioners have said that none of them should have been surprised as they all received the memo that laid out the pressure put on the county by Falk.
County attorney Jeff Cockerill said the memo was sent on the evening of April 10 to all commissioners, all members of the county council as well as other officials, including Marté. Cockerill said the memo was written by him and the two other county attorneys who attended the meetings that week: Molly Turner-King and Justin Roddye.
Cockerill said that except for a minor concern raised by one recipient about a date, he received no objection to the memo, though he acknowledged that the situation involving the memo was “unusual” and there was no dedicated process by which people could object.
Cockerill said the memo served primarily to let county leaders know about the current state of affairs. He acknowledged the possibility that people had objections to the summary in the memo but kept those to themselves.
County officials had met with Crider and Falk earlier on April 10, and had done so at the direction of county council members and commissioners.
Council members push back
Council member Kate Wiltz, who attended only the April 8 meeting, said her understanding reflected discussions from that meeting — before talks on Friday and the memo, and that she did not view the memo as inaccurate so much as interpretive.
“People could come away from the meeting feeling differently about exactly what was meant,” she said. “And … I’m not really disagreeing with anyone on it. I see both sides of it, frankly.”
Council member David Henry, who did not attend the meetings, said while council members received the memo late Friday, they still felt blindsided because they didn’t expect the commissioners and Falk to file their agreement so quickly — on the next business day — or without the council’s knowledge.
In addition, he said via text, “There are objections to the memo. Recollections vary on the proceedings.”
Council President Jennifer Crossley disputed the idea that council members were explicitly warned litigation would follow a vote against North Park, saying concerns about cost estimates and long-term taxpayer exposure remained unresolved.
“At no point in any of those meetings did anyone say, ‘If the council doesn’t vote to approve North Park, further litigation will happen,’” she said via text message.
”Why are we moving to purchase something and we don’t even have the cost estimates of this project?” she asked. “This notion of ‘purchase now ask questions later’ is preposterous and quite frankly an overreach.”
North Park vs. Thomson — and what comes next
The ACLU in that 2008 lawsuit alleged the jail’s overcrowding violated state and federal constitutions. The parties in 2009 reached a settlement that, among other things, limited the jail’s capacity and prompted county officials to pursue construction of a new jail. The lawsuit’s dismissal has been repeatedly postponed, mostly on an annual basis, with the understanding that the county makes progress toward eliminating the unconstitutional conditions at the jail.
But Falk’s patience has run out. He said in an interview Monday that he agreed to an extension to the end of May only on the condition that the county shows progress.
While commissioners have long favored the North Park site, council members rejected a purchase of that property last fall over cost, scope and location concerns and have more recently returned their sights onto the former RCA/Thomson property on South Rogers Street. The county had previously eliminated the site because of its proximity to a large power generating station and residential neighborhoods.
County commissioners have argued that Falk has forced their hand and that the North Park site is the only one that remains viable if the county wants to avoid a lawsuit, which, commissioners say, the county is sure to lose.
However, some council members say the April 13 agreement has the effect — intentional or not — of narrowing their options to a site they don’t support, while benefiting commissioners, two of whom — Julie Thomas and Lee Jones — have long favored North Park.
The agreement essentially has maneuvered the council into a dilemma: They can pick a site they don’t like — or risk the county being sued.
Crossley said the county has not taken a close enough look at the Thomson site, but Monroe County Commissioner Jody Madeira said Falk has ruled out that site because of the involvement of the city of Bloomington.
The county owns the site, but it is in the city, which means a jail there would require city planning and possibly city council approval — procedural hurdles that Falk said add too much uncertainty.
“I’m not willing, at this point, given everything that’s happened, to wait for more contingencies to be met,” he said in an interview Monday.
Crossley, according to the memo, said Bloomington Mayor Kerry Thomson would publicly support making the Thomson site a priority. Falk, however, according to the memo, discounted assurances of mayoral support, saying it “doesn’t mean anything to him.”
The memo summarized Falk’s position on the Thomson site by saying “that he is aware of the strong opposition against a jail in Monroe County and that he is not confident that people who say they will be supportive of the project now will continue to be supportive when faced with such opposition.”
Boris Ladwig can be reached at bladwig@heraldt.com.
This article originally appeared on The Herald-Times: ACLU warning leaves Monroe County divided over jail site
Reporting by Boris Ladwig, The Herald-Times / The Herald-Times
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
