1. 1) January 17, 2012 – 7:30 pm @ Knox Middle School Cafeteria 2) January 18, 2012 – 6:00 pm @ North Judson High School 3) January 19, 2012 – 6:00 pm @ Oregon Davis Jr./Sr. High School Cafeteria STARKE COUNTY JAIL COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETINGS

2. Welcome/Introductions  Purpose of the Meeting  Provide community w/ latest update on the Starke County Jail.  Inform Community of CEDIT legislation being authored by State Representative Gutwein  Introductions  Jail Committee Members  Kathy Norem - Commissioner  Kim Hall - Judge  Dave Pearman – Councilman  Marty Lucas – Attorney  Ted Hayes – WKVI  Ron Henningsmith – CASA Director  Carol Johnson  Katherine Chaffins – Auditor  Oscar Cowen –Sheriff  Bill Dulin – Chief Deputy  Greg Hewitt – Jail Commander  Financial Consultant:  Todd Samuelson - Umbaugh, Associates

3. Starke County Jail History  Constructed in 1976  No major renovations or improvements  2 nd oldest jail in the State of Indiana  Built to house 46 inmates  Currently a 62 bed facility  Shifting inmate demographics

4. Current Problems and Issues  Long standing building issues per jail inspection reports  ADA (American Disabilities Act)  Mechanical/Electrical  Operational difficulties posing risk to Staff  Long standing overcrowding per jail inspection reports  Public Safety  Sentencing Reform ( ?)  Class Action Lawsuit  (Attorney Martin Lucas)

5. SOLUTIONS  Starke County Jail Committee Formed  Conduct Needs Assessment  Explore all Building and Financial Options  What provides the best option for Public Safety/Community/Tax Payers

6. OPTION A Do Nothing  Could be forced by Federal Courts to act (on their recommendations)  Cost high (due to potential litigation)  Public Safety negatively impacted  Equity impact is obviously lower  Functionality is obviously not improved  Future expansion

7. OPTION B Develop Existing Site  Remodeling may or may not satisfy requirements  Cost is potentially higher to remodel/add on  Public Safety could possibly be improved  Equity impact is slightly improved, but in essence this is a Band-Aid  Functionality is only slightly impacted because of site (linear v. pod designs)  Future expansion

8. OPTION C New Construction on Current County Property  New construction would satisfy requirements  Cost is not typically as high as remodeling  Public Safety would be substantially impacted  Equity impact is substantially higher (state- of-the-art facility)  Functionality optimum  Future expansion

9. OPTION D New Construction on a New Site  New construction would satisfy requirements  Cost slightly higher due to site acquisition  Public Safety would be substantially impacted  Equity impact is substantially higher (state-of-the-art facility)  Functionality optimum  Future expansion

10. OPTION E Lease a New Facility from a Private Entity  Leasing would satisfy requirements (because the board would demand this)  Cost is unknown, and likely hard to control  Public Safety would be substantially impacted  Equity impact is non-existent  Functionality is unknown because we would be at the mercy of the leasor  Future expansion

11. OPTIONS – Final Note: ALL OPTIONS BESIDES “DOING NOTHING” WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OPERATIONAL COSTS AND SUSTENANCE.

12. Financial Options  The ultimate solution determined by Starke County to address the County Jail will most likely involve a significant capital outlay  Over the last couple years, the County has gone through a extensive process to identify/prioritize capital needs throughout the County and available resources to address them  It is clear that the County currently does not have current resources to fund a significant capital outlay to address the County Jail and, as most counties do, would need to issue bonds to secure funding  Bonds for a County Jail project are typically secured by property taxes, income taxes, or some combination thereof

13. Financial Options  Although the County has not yet determined the ultimate solution for the County Jail, for preliminary basis of evaluating options, we utilized information available to estimate options/impact of a new facility and a bond issue of approximately $13.6 million

14. Summary of Options Property TaxIncome Tax Supported Supportedwith Property Tax Back Up Estimated Bond Issue$13,580,000$13,605,000 Assumed Interest Rate5.50%5.60% Assumed Maturity20 Years Assumed Annual Payment1,210,0001,220,000 Assumed Tax Rate$0.12 Per0.65% $100 of Net Assessedof Adjusted Gross ValueIncome The above information is based on an assumed maximum project cost for a replacement jail facility 14

15. 15 ILLUSTRATIVE ANNUAL IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAX BILLS Residential (1) $50,000 home$11.99 $96,500 home (2)$36.54 $150,000 home$78.23 $200,000 home$117.20 Commercial / Industrial (3) $100,000 assessment$119.90 $500,000 assessment$599.50 $1,000,000 assessment$1,199.00 Agricultural Land One acre (4)$1.80 (1) Includes standard deduction at the lesser of $45,000 or 60% of home value, the 35% supplemental homestead deduction and the $3,000 mortgage deduction. (2) Median home value for Starke County per the US Census Bureau 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (3) Assumes no exemptions or deductions. (4) Agricultural land is assessed at $1,500 per acre for 2011 payable 2012 per the Department of Local Government Finance.

16. 16 ILLUSTRATIVE ANNUAL IMPACT ON INCOME TAX BILLS Assumed Maximum Income Tax Rate0.65% State taxable income $20,000$130 $40,000$260 $60,000$390 $80,000$520 $100,000$650

17. Financial Options Other Considerations: Property Tax Supported Bonds  Circuit breaker (tax caps) impact  Would cause further revenue loss to other County funds as well as to the cities, towns, schools, libraries in the county  Would not address additional funds that may be necessary for additional operating costs  Less progressive- based on property owned Income Tax Supported Bonds  Requires legislation at State level to create option for County Council to implement  Need higher revenue stream than assumed debt service due to potential for fluctuation (coverage)  May use coverage for operating expenses  More progressive – based on income earned

18. QUESTIONS For additional information and to follow the Jail Committee’s progress, please access our website at the following link: http://co.starke.in.us/jail-info