MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE JOHNSON COUNTY CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
APRIL 2, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report from
Facilities Planning Sub-Committee................................................................... 1
Comments from the Public................................................................................................... 1
Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical
Abuse (MECCA) Executive Director Art Schut: Report from Alternatives and
Treatment Opportunities Sub-Committee........................................................................ 2
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 4:00 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present were: County Attorney Janet Lyness, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Bob Elliott, Dorothy Whiston, MH/DD Director Kris Artley, Jan Peterson, Clerk of Court Lodema Berkley, John Stratton, Sheriff’s Sergeant Kevin Bell, Kara Logsden, John Stratton, District Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson, University of Iowa Representative Larry Wilson, Sheriff’s Captain Dave Wagner, and Public Defender Richard Klausner.
Harney said that they were waiting for the Durrant report. He said that they thought that Durrant would have their interviews done with the Board members by April 24, 2008 when the Board has a joint meeting. Stutsman asked if that meeting would be held after the Board's Informal Meeting. R. Sullivan said it was scheduled to take place during the Board's Informal Meeting.
Johnson County Bar Association Representative Jim McCarragher said that he wanted to inform the Board that the Johnson County Bar Association has formed a committee. He said the purpose was to review and evaluate the Courthouse with regard to space, security, and facilities to meet the needs of the community. He said that they wanted to be a part of the process and assist where they can. McCarragher said that they could help by working with the Board and going out and speaking with the community. He said that they feel the Courthouse needs a review and evaluation with regard to safety and security issues. McCarragher said that he had given his email address to Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan. Harney announced that McCarragher's group is now on the email list so that they will have the opportunity to attend these meetings somewhat regularly.
MECCA Executive Director Art Schut handed out a report to the Board and committee. He stated that it included an addition to the Jail Alternatives and Treatment Initiatives and suggestions regarding changes in the Criminal Justice Agencies' policies or procedures that could improve the speed or efficiency with which they operate, thereby reducing time alleged offenders spend in jail. He said that they also wanted to recognize the efforts of the Johnson County Bar Association, the County Attorney, and the County Sheriff in terms of what they have done over time.
Schut said that the inadequate space in the Jail continues to be a critical issue and it gets in the way of providing alternative services. He said that moving prisoners to jails in other counties is costly and interferes with the ability of those prisoners to get adequate access to representation and to the courts. He said that there are benefits associated with jail alternatives and treatment opportunities, but they don't eliminate the need for additional jail space. Schut said there are strategies, which have been adopted to reduce the demand for jail beds. These strategies include electronic monitoring and GPS technology. He said that they have also addressed mental health and substance abuse issues in terms of evaluation, treatment, and diversion.
Schut said there is some expediting of cases. There is now a drug court, some DOT things that are happening, and incentives for inmates. Schut said that probation revocations in particular have been an issue. He stated that so far they have eliminated a second hearing on that regard. He said that they have reduced the sentencing ratio on time for electronic monitor to jail time from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1. He said that doing this has been expensive. Schut said that they needed weekend jail evaluations for substance abuse. He reported that there is a proposal pending on this. He said that in regards to promising strategies for future adoption, they have several ideas that include the expediting of cases and time management. Schut commented that the County Attorney has plans for adding a case expeditor in the next year. County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek commented that the case expeditor position was turned down by the Board of Supervisors. Pulkrabek said at a previous meeting they discussed that they needed to bring in the expediter from Davenport during a joint meeting with the Board. He said that one of the reasons it was turned down was because the Board of Supervisors didn’t have enough information about its benefits.
Schut said a diversion program in the form of a low-level drug court or informal deferred prosecution is needed. He said that in terms of inmates, there are a number of options that all require additional funding for staff. He said that some of these options are fines or additional community service instead of jail-time for contempt. He said that there are no funds to increase the number of alternative sanctions. He said that a Day Reporting Program is a possibility. He said there might be some problems with such a program in terms of volume and funding. He said that a Day Reporting Program is up for future discussion. Pulkrabek said that one reason they were holding back on a Day Reporting Program is because the County's insurance is unwilling to cover such a program. Pulkrabek said that the key would be tying it into the State somehow. Pulkrabek stated that he has asked the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to put together a proposal of costs for such a program. He said that they had awhile until budgeting came around again. County Attorney Janet Lyness said that she met with Sixth Judicial District Assistant Director Cindy Engler from DCS this week to talk about what they were looking at. She said that they were looking at a program through DCS. She said they needed more information first.
Schut said there could be a volunteer program and use of more volunteers at the Jail, which would require training and more supervision. He said that it would also require space and there are scheduling issues on how to do that. He said that in terms of facility, the County currently buys jail space in other counties. He said that there are ways to do that in terms of a lease arrangement for a three to six year period. Schut commented that a lease arrangement might help to save some money. He said that there were also other ways of solving this problem that include building a new jail.
Schut said that they've discussed what is considered a Long-Term Jail Plan, in terms of services and what would be needed for that. He said that they have also discussed creating a detoxification center in hopes of taking some pressure off of the Jail. He said that one of the issues with a detoxification center is that individuals who are detoxing do not always behave well. Schut said that they were also looking at the possibility of a wethouse, which is a facility that would take people from emergency shelters without the usual requirement that the people are sober or not under the influence of drugs. He said that wethouses help prevent other difficulties and problems for such individuals.
Schut said that they have also looked at new strategies for reducing various kinds of noncompliance, such as probation and parole violations, failure to appear in court, illegal driving, etc. He said they were thinking of having volunteers call such individuals to remind them of their obligations or writing letters to those who have unpaid fines too. Schut said they were also looking at a model from the Linn County Jail where the jail would provide the court with a set of weekend dates for sentencing. He said that there are a lot of creative alternatives out there and additional strategies that could be pursued depending on space and additional resources.
Harney
said that the wethouse sounded like a good idea, but the problem with it would
be that no one could be forced to stay there.
It would strictly be run on a voluntary basis unless the individual had
been picked up and arrested. Schut said
that he thought there is a provision that if an individual is picked up for
public intoxication they can be taken to a public facility. He said that there are some problems with
enforcement because people have to stay at the facility until they are sober
and if they left it often resulted in them not meeting the criteria for being
incarcerated.
Pulkrabek said that one of the things pointed out by Public Defender Richard Klausner was that three years ago they implemented a 10 day plan where no one in the Jail was shifted elsewhere until they had been jailed for at least 10 days to make them more accessible to attorneys and public defenders. He said that that plan has simply gone by the wayside and that due to pressure, they can no longer comply with that plan. Pulkrabek said that it is especially difficult with females. Pulkrabek said that they have also been forced to move sentenced inmates out of Johnson County. He said that they already filled up the jails in Cedar and Linn County. He said that they had to send inmates to Jefferson County and Washington County, though they had to sign a contract for the latter in order to do so. Pulkrabek reported that during March 2008, the County spent $87,000 to house inmates out of the County. Pulkrabek said that some defenders have asked his department to transfer inmates back into Johnson County so that they can meet with them, but that they are not always able to do that.
Harney asked if most of the inmates in question were awaiting trial or had already been sentenced. Pulkrabek said that very few of the inmates that they transport have actually been sentenced and that about 99% of them are awaiting trail with bonds on them. Klausner commented that it seems counterintuitive to him to send inmates that are awaiting trial out of County, while keeping those who have been sentenced in County. Klausner commented that those inmates who have already been sentenced do not have court appearances. He said that some of his clients are facing felony charges in Johnson County, but are being housed 100 miles away. Klausner commented that this causes major problems for client-attorney interaction. Klausner commented that if public defenders and county attorneys begin traveling to jails in other counties to meet with inmates, their travel expenses will be taken directly out of tax money. He said that sometimes they will charge $50 or $60 per hour just while traveling. Klausner stated that all of this causes a domino effect, which ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money.
Pulkrabek said that he did not disagree with what Klausner had said, but wanted to add that if the individuals present did not appreciate all the expenses that had been mentioned then clearly the general public has no clue what is going on. Pulkrabek said that the problem of shipping inmates to other counties always comes down to Johnson County's Jail. Pulkrabek said that they house the majority of their sentenced inmates in what is called an I-Block, which is a dormitory-type setting where the rooms are not lockable and do not always have toilets. Pulkrabek said that they cannot put forcible felons in that type of environment. He said that there has been talk of remodeling the I-Block. Pulkrabek commented that this would come at a great expense because of the addition of new doors and toilets. Schut said that it would be very expensive because you would be changing the whole infrastructure by putting in sewer and water lines, which would result in a further loss of cell space.
R. Sullivan asked what the difference was between "Strategies Considered for Future Adoption" and "Other Options Considered." Schut said that the strategies considered for future adoption are things his department thought would increase dollars and space pretty easily. He said that the other options considered are basically just a laundry list of things that were examined by the group. Schut said that some of the options and strategies do not just involve the Jail, but the whole system.
Klausner asked Pulkrabek how many bed spaces are attributable to warrants for contempt of nonpayment or unpaid fines. Pulkrabek said he did not know that number. Sheriff’s Sergeant Kevin Bell said that the number had been high recently. Klausner commented that he knows its high. Stutsman said that it will probably get worse. Pulkrabek said that probation violators also clog up the Jail. He said that the County is reimbursed by the State for housing parole violators; however, the County is not reimbursed for housing probation violators. He said that reimbursing counties for housing probation violators is something that the Iowa City Sheriffs and Deputies Association has tried to promote to legislators, but that it is dying because of a lack of funding. Pulkrabek said that in Polk County alone, the impact is somewhere between $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. He said that he expected the County would save about $200,000 to $300,000 each year in expenses if they were reimbursed for housing probation violators.
Neuzil asked if the committee could talk about what they hoped to do now because it is clear that the County will not be getting a new jail or Justice Center anytime soon. Schut said that the consensus from his committee was that they could not do much else without a newer, larger jail. He said several pages of their report are devoted solely to specific jail space needs and issues that they hope are included in the building plans. Klausner said that there are two people who send people to jail every day and neither one of them have been on the committee. Stutsman asked who they were. Klausner responded that they were judges. Johnson County Clerk of Court Lodema Berkley said that next time she will personally invite both of those judges so that they can be privy to the information. Stutsman said everyone has been present for many meetings to discuss the jail problem, and that everyone agrees that the County needs a new jail. She said that she supports the alternatives, but that sooner or later the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) has got to make a decision and inform the community so the project can go forward. Stutsman said that she is aware there will be a proposal for a huge bond issue on the November 2008 ballot, but commented that the committee needs to make a decision. She said they either need to spend all their time and energy on alternatives with the judges present or officially decide to build a new jail and educate the community.
CJCC Member Dorothy Whiston said she was glad that Stutsman brought that up because she was appalled that the bond issue was put on the ballot before the new jail was. She said she didn't know how it happened, but commented that she has spent seven years of her life working on the new jail project to help human beings in the community. Whiston said that she is all for land preservation and doing what the voters want, but that she also believes there is such a thing as a bully pulpit. She asked where the leadership was and said that from her perspective, the committee hadn't done anything because the Board of Supervisors didn't want to. Harney said that he thought she was wrong. He said that the Board was approached by the Conservation Commission regarding the bond issue on the upcoming ballot. Harney explained that the Conservation Commission would have gotten the signatures necessary to put the issue on the ballot if the Board hadn't agreed to put the bond issue on the ballot. He said the Board has been waiting for the study to be completed by the Durrant Group. He said that there have been some hang-ups in trying to get Durrant to meet with each Board member individually to get their thoughts, though they are scheduled to meet with the Board on April 24, 2008. Harney said that as soon as they get the study back from the Durrant group, the Facilities Committee is going to be busy. He said that the Board would be coming up with recommendations after that.
R. Sullivan said that Harney was right that the Board is waiting for the results of the study by the Durrant Group. He said that he and Neuzil are on the Public Awareness and Information Committee and though they have not met in a while, they experienced a situation similar to the one sitting before the Board. R. Sullivan said that in 2000, the bond issue for a new jail was defeated 70% to 30%. He commented that the Public Awareness and Information Committee members went out and met with the most vociferous opponents regarding the measure. He said that the opponents of the measure reported that they voted against it because they felt that alternatives needed to be used first. He commented that Pulkrabek heard the same thing when he ran for the position of Johnson County Sheriff. R. Sullivan commented that he believes if alternatives are not explored first, the County will never have a new jail. Whiston said that alternatives had been explored already and Stutsman agreed. R. Sullivan said that people seemed to think that alternatives and a new jail were mutually exclusive issues. Whiston said that she does not think they are mutually exclusive. She said that she has talked to a lot of members on the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee and a lot of members of the public and reported that there is a perception that something has gone wrong. Whiston stated that people have resigned from the committee because they thought it was a "do-nothing" committee and said that she did not think she was alone in having this perception.
R. Sullivan said the Board is trying to come up with something that will be acceptable to the public. R. Sullivan said that he thought if the new jail proposal were to be put on the ballot now, it would fail. Stutsman said that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee hasn't even laid any groundwork at all to prepare the public. She said that she has not seen or heard of one public release or article about the jail proposal. Stutsman said that she is frustrated. She said that the committee needs to inform the public that they are considering building a new jail that may cost $60,000,000 and explain how it may affect their tax bill. Stutsman stated that because of this, people will go to the ballot boxes without all of the information they need to make their decisions, including information about the jail.
R. Sullivan said that there is nothing to publicize or share with the public regarding where the jail might be located, how large it might be, or what it could potentially cost. Pulkrabek commented that they have not had cooperative methods either. He said that the Jail Information Campaign has had articles printed in The Gazette, but commented that the Iowa City Press-Citizen will not print articles because they do not want to be portrayed as promoting the concept of a new jail. Pulkrabek said that there are limited avenues to promote the new jail because the media sources are cutting off the committee. Harney agreed and stated that the Jail statistics need to be printed because they are factual information and not propaganda. Pulkrabek noted that he is the only person that has actually contacted the press. Stutsman concurred. Pulkrabek said that the committee members need to encourage the Press-Citizen to print the Jail statistics. Pulkrabek commented that he thought the public would read the statistics if they were printed. Harney stated that he believes the Iowa City Press-Citizen will publish information about the new jail if a group of people, including Pulkrabek, approached them and explained why they wanted the information published.
CJCC Member John Stratton said that the cost of building a new jail will increase every year. He said that the Board is not saving any money by waiting. He also commented that alternatives are not cheap. He said that alternatives are defensible in that they reduce jail time and are more humanitarian than jail. Stratton said that alternatives while worthwhile, do not eliminate the need for a new jail. Stratton said that it has never been clear to him who needs to make the decision to put the new jail on the ballot. Stratton stated that he had always assumed it was the Board. Stratton said that the Alternatives Committee will make the recommendation for a new jail if the Board needs that recommendation from them. He said that he felt everyone is going around and around in a circle, partly because of the Durrant Group. Stratton said that some group needs to give the Durrant group directed advice in order for them to do their job. Harney said that that was exactly what the Board was expecting from the Durrant Group (e.g. what was needed, what was the projected space, etc.). Harney said that as soon as that information is received, the Board and the committee can start coming together and making recommendations to the public. Stratton commented that if information needs to get to the public, a webpage should be created. Stutsman said that the Board cannot create a website, but that the community certainly could.
Rich Twohy said that he is just a member of the public, but has been attending the CJCC meetings for the past two years. He said that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee needs to identify for the public exactly how much the problems with the current Jail are costing the County. Twohy said that he thinks there has been some progress with the issue, although commented that he feels as though he has been actively disregarded by the CJCC. He stated that he believes that there is value in becoming allies with some of the most vociferous opponents of the new jail. He commented that until recently he was one of those vociferous opponents. Twohy said that it is important that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee release information in a way that will not come off as an advertising campaign. Twohy said that the County also needs to show that it is current with the treatments of individuals with disorders, whether they are substance abuse problems or mental illnesses. He said that there is very recent and strong evidence that shows that treatment centers do work to get people out of revolving between home and jail. Twohy said that he believes voters want to be persuaded that a new jail is needed and reiterated that it is important to become allies with the most vociferous opponents because they are some of the people that the community will listen to carefully.
Stutsman said that these are things that need to be documented. She said that the committee has done a diligent job coming up with alternatives. Stutsman commented that they are now at the end of alternatives and need to document the costs of the alternative programs that have been implemented. Twohy said that he thought there were some additional alternatives that could be implemented. Harney said that the committee needs to decide whether they want to involve the courts when the study comes back from Durrant. Klausner stated that the committee needs to show the public that the committee has implemented alternatives and respond to the misconstrued facts about the jail population that are floating around in the public. Neuzil said that he believed that this has been a really good dialogue. Neuzil commented that it sounds like the committee members are at wit's end. He said that the facilities side of the committee is nearing an end as well because the Durrant Group will be meeting with the Board later in the month to discuss the size and projected scope of the projected facility. Neuzil said that it is unfortunate that the Board members will not be interviewed for the Durrant study because of the Newport Road lawsuit. He said that realistically when people are in front of a camera they say different things than they would privately.
Neuzil said that the Johnson County Communications Center and Dispatch Center has been the number one priority for the law enforcement community and not the new jail. He said the Johnson County Communications Center and Dispatch Center is an $18,000,000 project that the Board is just beginning to pay off. Neuzil said there are other issues that are in front of the community that have taken priority over the jail. He said that the Board has made the schools and the sales tax priorities over the jail and it is unfortunate that the Jail problem has come to a head at a time when everyone else is getting their projects submitted. Neuzil said the question remains whether the community will tolerate another big project so quickly. Neuzil said that he believes the justification for a new jail will be with the Durrant report. Stutsman said that Stratton mentioned parameters and she suggested that the first parameter the committee should set is a timeline for Durrant. Stutsman said that they were supposed to have the study completed by December 2007 and now it is April 2008 and Durrant's work is not anywhere near being completed.
Whiston said that some of the materials presented to the CJCC are almost a year old. She commented that society has created a perpetual underclass of prisoners. Whiston said that as public leaders, they have the public obligation to be the voice for those people. Whiston said that they are not three months behind where she hoped they would be, but five years. Whiston stated that the County is going to preserve $20 million worth of land, while letting individuals languish. She said that it seems the County is waiting for a legal disaster. R. Sullivan urged Whiston to try to not play those things off against each other. R. Sullivan thought that a similar situation came about in 2000 because the library was being considered at the same time as the jail. Stutsman pointed out that voters had to pick between the two because they didn't try to educate the public. R. Sullivan said he doesn't think it is positive to try to win one case by trying to tear down someone else's case. Whiston replied that others will continue to get their projects completed first unless the CJCC takes action, puts it forward, and says that it is something the community needs to do. R. Sullivan replied he didn't disagree, but stated that they are trying to do things thoughtfully.
Twohy said that if he were a Board member, he would feel very frustrated. Twohy said that the Board members spend a large part of their lives around the issues surrounding the County Jail. He continued that the Board should consider having the public come in with three or four weeks notice, to discuss issues surrounding the jail. He said that this would be a chance for the Board to be heard and have the public vent. R. Sullivan said that they do want to have a public hearing, but that they wanted to wait for Durrant so that people could respond to something. R. Sullivan said that they hoped to have an "ABCD type agenda" so that people could say what they liked about each item. Twohy commented that it would be a good idea to invite others as a discussion not a hearing.
Whiston commented that she thought that part of the Durrant proposal was that citizens would have a stake in the planning. Harney replied that it is. Whiston said that Durrant had not completed that piece of the proposal to her knowledge. Harney said that they had not. Whiston commented that that was unbelievable. Stutsman agreed with Whiston that it is unbelievable. Stutsman said that the Board hasn't held Durrant accountable. Harney continued by saying that Durrant is aware that the Board will not put up with it any longer and that they need to come up with a report as soon as possible. Harney said that a lot of things are in place, they just need to come up with a plan. He said that he thought there are ways of getting things done.
Berkley stated they are having a Law Day on April 29, 2008 at the Courthouse. Berkley said that there are four members of the CJCC including Lyness, Berkley, Sixth Judicial District Court Judge Sylvia Lewis, and Sixth Judicial District Court Judge Marsha Bergan, that will be present. Berkley said that Law Day will be open to the public and suggested that someone from the Sheriff's Office provide them with Jail statistics. Berkley said that they would post these statistics. She said that the goal of the day is to educate the public on how the court system works. Berkley invited the CJCC members to the planned Law Day.
Schut commented that either way, the County will end up paying for a jail, even if a new one is not built. He said that the County is currently paying transportation costs and the bills keep getting bigger. Stutsman asked when they will begin to tell the community what the expenses are. Schut stated that they need to do so soon. Neuzil asked Schut which expenses he was talking about. Schut replied that he was talking about transportation costs, rental costs for beds in other jails, the increased legal costs, and the lack of access to representation. Schut commented that soon the County will no longer be able to offer some of the alternatives that they currently do because they will not have space for them. He said that taxpayers are already paying for these things and that they might as well put the money into building a new jail.
CJCC Member Bob Elliot stated that this is a public safety issue, a human rights issue, and a financial issue. He said that he wished they had had their ducks in a row and that he felt they were about a year behind in organization. Elliot continued by saying that the Board needs a plan of attack and at least a year to make sure they have every organization and group in the County on Board. He said that it will take months of hard work to get the word out. Elliot stated that as soon as they get a cohesive plan, the Board needs to meet with the public to let them know it is in their best interests to fund a new jail. He commented that the jail should have been a priority a long time ago, but now they have a chance to do it right and make the jail a priority.
Stratton stated that unless the CJCC gets things in order, they will perpetuate misunderstanding. He said that he believes the committee has the right concept, it is just lagging. Whiston said that she supports that statement, but is concerned that they will still be in the same situation next year. Whiston suggested a deadline of July 1, 2008. Whiston said that she believes it is important to educate the public in order to have a vote in November 2009. Whiston stated that it is important to set a deadline for Durrant and for themselves.
Stutsman stated that awhile ago, the CJCC talked about hiring a coordinator that could move this process along. She suggested revisiting the hiring of a coordinator. Whiston commented that Lyness wanted someone like that for case expedition. Neuzil commented that the Board had not heard that. Harney said that the Board must be careful when hiring someone to promote something. Harney stated that the Board could hire someone to organize the Board's activities, but not to sell a bond issue. Stutsman said that the coordinator is not supposed to sell the bond issue. Pulkrabek said that the coordinator would be someone who could coordinate all three subcommittees of the CJCC as well as the lead committee. He said that the coordinator could assign individual CJCC members to certain projects or events. Pulkrabek said that the Board cannot hire a company to organize and pass a bond reference. M. Sullivan said that Pulkrabek was correct.
Pulkrabek commented that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee needs a team leader who can devote their time to the project. Pulkrabek stated that hiring this leader would fall on the Board as they would fund the leader's salary. R. Sullivan said that that would assume that everyone is on the same page. Whiston commented that if everyone is not on the same page, they need to know that. R. Sullivan commented that if the Courthouse and the Jail were moved to a location by Highway 218, there would be those that approved of that and those that didn't. R. Sullivan stated there are many options that will garnish different votes. R. Sullivan stated that he is not sure that the CJCC members are all on the same page. He said that the CJCC has never sat down and discussed all of the options. He said this was partly because they do not have the Durrant study yet. Schut commented that he does not think anyone was suggesting that coordinator would do that. He said that there are a lot of community volunteers working on this project who have reached a consensus about a broad range of items. He said that there is a lot of information that the CJCC has and that this information represents facts not lobbying efforts. Schut said that there is an inability to communicate these facts clearly across the board.
Schut acknowledged that there are many options and stated that they should consider all of them; however, he commented that some of the information they could all agree on. He said that the CJCC members know how much money is being spent on transportation and housing people outside of the County. He said that they also know what kinds of alternatives have been done and what will happen if the County continues to house inmates hundreds of miles away. He said that there are and will continue to be problems with the access attorneys have to their clients who are housed outside of Johnson County. Schut said that there will be money spent by the County at the expense of taxpayers overtime if a new jail is not built. Schut reiterated that this information consists of facts not lobbying information. He continued by saying that the CJCC does not have enough time or ability to put the effort together in a coherent way in order to educate the public. Schut said that he isn't sure how to do it, but that it needs to be done.
R. Sullivan commented that that is not what he heard Whiston say. He said that Whiston wants to have something put on the ballot. R. Sullivan said that if they want to put something on the ballot, they need to decide what it is. Whiston said that she is all for putting something on the ballot in the Fall of 2009, but stated that the CJCC members need to give themselves deadlines, which is something that they hadn't done prior to this meeting. She said that if they do not begin to set deadlines, they will not even be ready in the Fall of 2009. Whiston said that she feels that they are behind. Pulkrabek said that he believes they will struggle meeting the 2009 deadline without a coordinator. Whiston agreed and thought the coordinator is an excellent idea. Harney agreed that they are way behind. He commented that he feels they can hire a coordinator right away. Harney stated that the Joint Communications Center had once been at a similar standstill. He said they eventually decided to hand the project over to JCCOG. Harney said that it was the continuity and getting everyone to work as a team that made the Joint Communications Center possible.
Stutsman suggested that the Board should put the coordinator position on the Board's agenda for the week of April 7, 2008. She stated that this would allow the Board to begin talking about getting the money to hire the person. Stutsman asked if there was consensus for the Board to hire a coordinator. Harney expressed some reservations and said that he didn't want the Board to discuss hiring someone on the same day that Durrant Representative Mike Lewis presents the Durrant study. Pulkrabek commented that Harney was probably right in that it shouldn't be on the same day, but pointed out that it would be nice to have a coordinator in place when Durrant comes with their study. Pulkrabek commented that Iowa City Resident Dick Gibson will force the Board and Durrant to say that a new jail will not save money unless they are at "x" amount of dollars in housing inmates out of County. Pulkrabek said that they will need to know the projected operations expense of a new jail facility and the debt service. He said that they needed to be close to the budgeted $800,000 to house inmates out of County. He said that that figure has to be close to the increase in operation expenses for a new jail plus the debt service, although he isn't for sure.
Twohy commented that the CJCC does not know if the figures are close and stated that the public is going to want these figures. Twohy said that some figures indicate it may be less expensive to house prisoners out of the County. Meyers commented that the Alternatives and Treatment Opportunities Subcommittee Report stated that the daily cost of housing inmates out of Johnson County for FY06 was $73.22. He stated that it cost $76.43 daily to house inmates in the County. According to this, Meyers commented that it was less expensive in FY06 to house inmates out of Johnson County. Whiston stated that those figures did not include transportation and other costs. Pulkrabek corrected Whiston and stated that the figures did include transportation costs. Pulkrabek said that the FY07 figures are much closer, but commented that bottom dollar, it will still be more expensive to house inmates in Johnson County. He stated that there are all kinds of caveats to that. Pulkrabek reported that it costs the County three-quarters of a million dollars each year just because their facility is antiquated. He said it is almost like a penalty for having an inadequate facility because it is old and iStrattonicient. Twohy recommended building this cost in. Pulkrabek commented that it would have to be built in, but that it needs to be articulated better than he can do.
Meyers said that they need to be careful with that figure. He said they would have to be careful not to put the argument out there that three-quarters of a million dollars could be spent building a new facility. He commented that argument was put out there several years ago and voters picked it to pieces. Pulkrabek stated that he understood that and said that is why they must know the projected operating expenses of a new jail. In the simplest terms, Pulkrabek commented that the CJCC must be able to say that even though they will have to have additional staff to operate a larger facility, it will be more efficient because they will have fewer staff watching more people and less staff physically moving inmates. He reported that in the newer facilities, the inmates move themselves by simply opening a door, which is connected to an exercise room or a room with a TV monitor that inmates can look into to visit with their loved ones or visitors. Pulkrabek stated that a Deputy Sheriff would not be needed to move inmates from one end of the Jail to the front. He said it is iStrattoniciencies like these, which need to be measured and commented that the Durrant Group is supposed to have projected operations expenses included in their study. Twohy said that it would not be needless spending because there would be a designed facility. Meyers said that they need to be careful about using the argument that all of the money, which is currently being spent housing inmates out of the County, could be used to build new jail. He stated that that argument would be torn to pieces.
Harney agreed with Twohy that a lot of time is wasted trying to find a prisoner to talk to, in order to provide them representation. He commented that perhaps they are thinking jail days beyond what they should for court appearances.
Klausner stated that earlier this week he wanted to meet with a client at the Jail, but when he arrived, someone from MECCA was meeting with his client for alternatives and kept Klausner from meeting with his client. Klausner commented that this was a space issue. He stated that part of the reason that he could not meet with his client was because of a lack of available meeting rooms at the Jail. Pulkrabek stated that they are often at a lack of space for alternatives and other programs. Meyers commented that that is part of the argument. He stated that the Jail requires more space and alternatives requires more space as well.
Stutsman said that this discussion was so good that they should have been taping every one of the CJCC meetings so that they could be available to the public and people could hear the issues the Board and guests were talking about.
Facilities Manager David Kempf commented that he is just a buildings person, but stated that from his standpoint, Meyers was correct in stating that the CJCC needs to define what the scope of the project is. Until they have the scope defined, Kempf said that they would not know what they would compare the costs to. Kempf said that the information that Durrant has provided thus far is great and that he hopes the rest will be as good. Kempf said that to say that the Board has not been doing anything is not a true statement, as they have committed a large sum of resources to get the information they need in order to answer the questions that will be asked of them.
Harney said that the only other thing he would say is that he would like to have some CJCC members sit in on the April 24, 2008 Board Meeting as an opportunity for some input. R. Sullivan said that the meeting would begin at 9:00 a.m., but commented that it would be one of the last agenda items on the informal agenda. Neuzil stated it was unfortunate that the Board members couldn’t be interviewed by Durrant like the members of the CJCC had. Neuzil commented that he thought that would take the process back another two or three months minimum. Stutsman stated that she didn’t know why that would set them back. Neuzil stated that it will set them back because the consultant will not have the opportunity to discuss the honest opinions of each of the key players. They could then take the key ideas in order to resolve some of the issues that the Board might have with the Sheriff or the Sheriff might have with the County Attorney or the County Attorney might have with the Board. Neuzil said that it is important to take all those interests and come up with a plan that is in the best collective interest of the County. He said that this would not happen now because there are five key players whose interests will not be represented. Stutsman said that she thought they overestimated their involvement. Whiston asked if the Board could ask questions in writing. Harney explained that the Newport Road lawsuit has been appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. Harney said that when the Board members met individually with the contractor to discuss Newport Road, it has been alleged that they had a walking quorum. He said that the local courts have ruled that the Board did not violate the Open Meetings Law, but because that ruling has been appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, Lyness wants the Board to wait to do something like that again.
Twohy commented that he does not think they will ever get the octane that they need from a cost comparison of what it would cost for a new jail versus money out the door because of transporting people. He said that it wouldn't work no matter how detailed they get. Twohy said that he thought the key thing that would reach people would be to make the proposed Justice Center amenable to basic civil and criminal rights. Twohy said that the current Jail does not allow for these rights to be met adequately. He said that the County needs to make sure that every person who gets pulled into the system one way or another is allowed the rights that should be provided to them. He said that the Courthouse could provide the motility for the idea.
Neuzil said that they just approved a Joint Communications and Dispatch Center that will cost every resident of a $100,000 house, $77.00 in 2008. Neuzil said that the law enforcement community has made the Joint Communications Center their priority and the Board has made its priority for that. He said that a new Justice Center would possibly cost taxpayers four times that $77.00. Neuzil said that residents will not pay that kind of money to assist individuals who have been arrested. Twohy said that the justice system will never work until they have something after the jail because a lot of people aren't ready and the CJCC does not have the facts. Twohy commented that that was no problem because the court system cannot presently provide constitutional rights for people.
Neuzil said process-wise, the CJCC will meet with the Board again in June 2008. He assumed by then that they would have something from Durrant. Stutsman asked about the communication with Durrant. M. Sullivan said that Durrant is scheduled to meet with the Board on April 24, 2008. Stutsman asked if the Board has given Durrant a deadline. M. Sullivan said that the Board originally gave Durrant a deadline of December 30, 2007 and then extended it. M. Sullivan said that they should have it done. Kempf commented that the Board needs to hold Durrant to the deadline. M. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil said that it would be nice to have Durrant at the CJCC Joint Meeting in June so that the CJCC could give the Board an idea of what they think. Neuzil said that beyond that, he assumed that the CJCC and the Board would decide what they like from Durrant's proposed options. He said he thought it would be August or September before they reach some kind of consensus. Stutsman wanted to know if that is their deadline. R. Sullivan stated that he didn't think the Board could pin down a deadline at the current meeting. He said that they would know more on April 24, 2008. Whiston asked if they were paying Durrant's bill. Neuzil said that the Lyness is reviewing that as well. M. Sullivan reported that Durrant has been paid. Whiston asked what time Durrant would actually be talking to the Board on April 24, 2008. R. Sullivan said he wasn't sure and that they would have to get that figured out. He said it would depend on how much was on the agenda that day.
Adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2008 at 1:00 p.m.