CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cuyahoga County needs to build a new jail, some of the steering committee officials finally resolved this week, after hearing the results of a second assessment — just not at the contaminated Transport Road site.
The six Justice Center Executive Steering Committee members, who on Tuesday voted against building a jail at 2700 Transport Road in Cleveland, sent project consultant Jeff Appelbaum a letter seeking to restart the site search, perhaps using different parameters that they believe might increase the county’s options this time around.
“Based on the information your team has provided, and the independent analysis of the jail, it is clear to each of us that a new facility is needed and we agree that new construction is the appropriate step moving forward,” the letter, dated Wednesday, said. “We are confident that with your continued assistance, an acceptable site for new construction will be determined.”
The letter was signed by Common Pleas Administrative Judge Brendan Sheehan, Prosecutor Michael O’Malley, Public Defender Cullen Sweeney, Domestic Relations Administrative Judge Leslie Celebrezze, Cleveland Municipal Court Administrative Judge Michelle Earley, and Cleveland Clerk of Courts Earle Turner — all of the dissenters in Tuesday’s 6-5 vote, with Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb abstaining.
Sheehan and O’Malley said the independent renovation report put to rest questions about whether the existing jail can be renovated to fully meet the county’s needs.
“I think we needed that confirmation,” Sheehan said, defending that the $150,000 study was not a waste of money. “I needed that confirmation.”
O’Malley agreed, specifically keying in on the consultant’s opinion that Jail I —the older and more problematic building in the set — could not be torn down and rebuilt in place because it houses all the core services the jail needs to function.
He remained open to the possibility of reusing the Jail II tower or renovating space in the Justice Center for some other type of holding facility at the courthouse, but that split-use plan would still require a separate building offsite. “I’m open to anything,” O’Malley said.
But he said the goal of the letter is to move the process forward and work cooperatively with the county and its hired experts to find a parcel they can all agree on. Transport Road is not an appropriate site for a jail, O’Malley said, pointing to the steering committee’s vote as evidence, “that should send the message, ‘ok, let’s get back to work and find a resolution.’”
They’ve asked Appelbaum to schedule another steering committee meeting to include more Cleveland officials, along with city and county land bank representatives.
“We believe they can play a crucial role in assisting us in our mutual goal of finding an acceptable location for construction,” the letter says. “Let us continue our efforts to find the best site possible for a new jail facility and let us do so as quickly as possible.”
Appelbaum said he assured Sheehan that he is available to help in any way he can, but that he wanted to wait and see where county council and Executive Armond Budish stand on the Transport Road site, first.
ALL EYES ON COUNTY COUNCIL
Council has the final say over where the county builds and how much it spends.
It is scheduled to discuss legislation to buy the Transport Road site for $20 million and extend the quarter-percent sales tax to pay off the debt on a potential $750 million facility at its Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday. It’s expected to have a final vote by the end of the month.
The county prefers Transport Road.
In an emailed statement following the steering committee’s vote this week, Council President Pernel Jones, Jr., said he was “disappointed” that the group rejected what he considered “the most feasible path to building a safer, more humane jail.”
But he did not commit to abandoning it.
“I will continue to work with the county executive and my colleagues on council to identify the best path forward,” Jones said.
If council votes in favor of the site, the county will have until Jan. 27 to close on the property, which could effectively give the next executive time to back out of the deal, as both candidates have said they will do. But there is also nothing that would prevent the county from closing before the end of the year, locking the county into ownership at the very least.
Multiple members of council and Budish have already said that they believe the property can be safely remediated to eliminate the risk of a methane explosion or benzene exposure, once they install the same prevention controls used by countless other housing projects across the country.
It’s the same debate that Marion County, Indiana, is still having after building its new consolidated jail and courthouse 4.5 miles outside of downtown on a former gas manufacturing plant that was considered more toxic than the one proposed in Cleveland. According to media reports, it contained 14 hazardous substances, including arsenic, lead, naphthalene, iron, mercury, and benzene.
Some officials there also protested the environmental concerns and hired a second consultant to take another look, but that study also concluded that “an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment does not appear likely” if remediation occurs as planned, media reports said. The county eventually installed a vapor exhaust system to prevent harmful substances from mixing with indoor air and replace several feet of soil with a layer of clay to act as a natural barrier.
Inmates and court staff began moving into the $590-million complex at the beginning of the year, but one official says the environmental fight is not over.
Bob Hammerle, who sits on the Marion County Public Defender Agency Board, told cleveland.com in August that he still opposes use of the site and hopes to dissuade the county from moving any other services there. Pleasant Run Creek, which runs through the site, continues to be polluted, he said, calling it a continuous health hazard.
“My argument remains...if you could not build a residential property because of the toxic effects, how is having a courthouse down there any different when you have people in that jail for lengthy periods of time, you’ve got lawyers, police officers, judges, witnesses, family members in that same area,” Hammerle said. “It didn’t make sense before, and it doesn’t make sense now.”
Considering Cleveland’s industrial history, officials are going to have to spend some money on environmental cleanup if they want to keep the jail close to downtown, Appelbaum has repeatedly warned. Sites that fit the county’s criteria and don’t require remediation are already claimed by businesses or residences, he told the steering committee at their April meeting, “unless you want to start evicting people.”
But the Transport Road property could be a viable site, he said this week, once it receives a roughly $7-million cleaning.
“At the end of the day, we do believe that it’s not toxic for the people who have to work there. It’s not toxic for the people who live there,” Appelbaum said.
Elliot Allen, one of the DLZ Architecture consultants hired to reassess renovation options at the existing jail, seemed to agree. He was one of the project managers for the Marion County jail and said toxic sites are an increasing reality for municipalities, but “fortunately” experts have developed strategies to remediate them.
OTHER OPTIONS
Some of the steering committee members say they aren’t willing to be boxed in and hinted at wanting to consider sites with a smaller footprint, drawing from another Ohio jail for inspiration.
During Tuesday’s meeting, they pointed to Franklin County’s new $360 million low-rise, soon-to-be 1,290-bed jail on a 24-acre site that previously was a dairy farm.
Eric Ratts, DLZ’s principal architect, helped design it. The jail is two levels, has a parking garage for 300 cars, and the ability to expand up to 2,800 beds, he said.
That’s very similar to what Cuyahoga County is aiming for, with plans to build a 1,600-1,900 bed facility with the ability to expand up to 2,400 beds. And though the county has been pursuing a 40-acre site, the actual jail is expected to sit on only 22 of those acres.
A smaller footprint comes with more compromises, though, Appelbaum warned. Franklin County’s jail is split between two facilities, doesn’t house sheriff’s administration like Cuyahoga plans to, needs more parking, and has no space left for buffers from the surrounding neighborhood, he said.
Jones, who recently toured the new facility with other council members, said officials also told him they wished they had more space.
The county’s initial search for properties produced 28 options, county officials said in previous meetings, but only five of them were ultimately deemed viable. That list later narrowed to two, with the Transport Road site preferred.
“We have limited ourselves in terms of the site size,” Sweeney, one of the letter-writers, accused at the time. Any site will require compromises, he conceded, but one compromise the county hasn’t offered them is the ability to consider smaller properties.