MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MAY 15, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey and Interim City Manager Dale Helling: Sand Lake project...... 1
Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Kris Artley: Temporary Jail Alternatives/Mobile Crisis Team Lead....................................................................................................................................... 3
District Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson: Renewal of 28E Agreement for Judicial Hospitalization Referee 4
Durrant Group Managing Principal Mike Lewis, AIA: Justice Center Site Suitability Study.......... 5
Neumann Monson Representative Bill Hoefer: Proposed Property Line For New Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center Located at County Poor Farm..................................................... 14
Board of Supervisors: Appointment to the Johnson County Zoning Board of Adjustment for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2008......................................................................................................... 18
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 10:13 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey said that she would like to thank the Board for understanding the importance of partnering on projects. She said there have been five projects in the county, and the Board's participation has leveraged additional dollars from the State as well as private dollars. Bailey continued that the Vision Iowa Board has applied for a Community Attraction and Tourism Grant (CAT) for the Iowa City Sand Lake Recreation Area Project. She said that the project is $7.6 million and the City is supporting it quite extensively. Bailey said that County support is needed to apply for CAT. She said that Iowa City Parks and Forestry Superintendent Terry Robinson would explain the details of the project. Bailey said that the City would be reclaiming a formal gravel pit for non-notarized water use. Bailey said they are asking for a $2 million CAT grant. She said that they will be approaching the CAT committee in June, 2008.
Harney asked what the Vision Iowa Board is expecting from the Board of Supervisors. Bailey said they are expecting participation. She said that in her letter to R. Sullivan they are requesting $20,000 to be paid over a period of time. Bailey explained that it seemed $20,000 is how much the Board had invested in similar projects in the County.
Neuzil said that in the past the Board has given a $4,000 donation over a five-year period for a total of $20,000. He said that Coralville approached the Board in April 2008 and said that when they apply for the CAT grant they only need County support and not County participation. Bailey explained that it is the policy of the Vision Iowa Board to require County dollars. She explained that they had a meeting on May 14, 2008, however she wasn't able to see Coralville's presentation since she was on the Mayor's bike ride. Neuzil asked if the Board could anticipate the Coralville project coming back and asking for County participation. Bailey responded yes. Harney said that the County financially assists community projects on the pretext that they get the grant. Bailey said that is a fine arrangement as she has seen it used in other projects. She said she anticipates that they will receive some funding from the State.
Robinson explained his supervisor, Iowa City Parks and Recreation Director Terry Trueblood, is supposed to be at the meeting but that he is having surgery and would not be in attendance. He explained that the area being examined includes 188 acres, 95 of which are water oriented. Robinson said that the water feature is important, as it is not found within the City and will be an addition to public areas in the county. Neuzil reminded Robinson that he should give the perameters for the public. Robinson said that the Sand Lake area is directly south on Sand Road. He said that if coming south on Sand Road outside the City limits, the Sand Lake area is on the right after passing the Napoleon Parks softball field. Robinson added that Sand Road borders the area in discussion on the east, the Iowa River on the west by future McAllister Boulevard on the north, and Winter Eagle Road on the south.
Robinson said that a trail would be established around the area. He said the other important aspect of the project is developing it into a natural area and increasing the natural habitat and the educational possibilities available at the site. Robinson said that there is a lodge proposed on the south end of the site. Robinson said they are trying to create a larger space to be used for public meetings.
Stutsman asked what feeds the pond. Robinson replied that it is fed through ground water and some run off. Stutsman asked if the water is stagnant. Robinson replied that it isn't stagnant and that it is a very active water resource.
Interim Iowa City Manager Dale Helling said that there is an opportunity for the City to purchase some land, which is known as the Showers Additions. Helling said that adjunct to the project they would be able to expand the park to the river and have riverfront property. Helling noted that the land already purchased is not part of the area where there are houses. R. Sullivan asked if the plan in the future is for the City to do something with the land where there are houses. Helling said that in the future if they purchase the land they would integrate it. Stutsman said she is excited about the project and looks forward to it. Harney also said it is a great project. He asked if there would be a beach area. Robinson said yes and added that there is grading and other work that needs to be taken into account.
R. Sullivan asked Bailey if the match that they are requesting has to be cash or if it can be in the form of services and equipment. Bailey said they will be open to in-kind support. R. Sullivan said this is a possibility that the Board can investigate. Bailey said that if they can come to some kind of official agreement and can put a dollar amount on the in-kind support they can revise the application and indicate the in-kind support from the County.
Stutsman asked what the anticipated completion date for the project is. Robinson responded they anticipate the timeline completion to be 2012. However, he said he hopes to already see activity in the summer of 2008. Robinson said that grant funds are allocated each year successively until the completion time. Neuzil said that the $4,000 a year for five years commitment from the County would need to be integrated though a budget amendment or they could structure it to start in FY10. He said they could add it as an amendment in their budget discussions coming up in October 2008 and November 2008. Neuzil said that in the past the Board sent out a letter of support.
Neuzil said that the County has been pretty in tune with helping the projects in terms of CAT grants. Neuzil said that he thinks the whole mission of the County is the quality of life issue, from arts to recreational areas. Neuzil said the current project is a really neat project for all locals who have driven by the quarry. He noted that turning the quarry into a park is exactly the right thing to do. Robinson said the park is a great way to dress up one of the entrances into town. The Board agreed to move the item on the formal agenda.
Recessed at 10:30 a.m.; reconvened at 10:37 a.m.
Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Kris Artley said that the current person in the Jail Alternatives/Mobile Crisis Team Leader position needs to take temporary leave so there will be someone who can handle the day to day functions while some restructuring is taking place. She said the additional responsibilities will include leading and motivating team members, prioritizing staff tasks on a daily basis, directing activities, assisting with development and protocol of the jail alternatives, and tracking program information and reporting it to MH/DD director on a regular basis. Artley said that May 14, 2008 was the last day for Jail Alternatives/Mobile Crisis Team Member Nicole McGlinn as she is going to work for the University of Iowa. Artley said that because they don't have the Coordinator position filled, Jail Alternatives/Mobile Crisis Team Member Jessica Peckover is the last one on board that has the expertise and level of commitment needed. Artley said they are anticipating augmenting the job description to the next pay grade.
Artley said they would like to contract for clinical oversight supervision on a one-hour weekly basis. She said that by contracting the work out they will get an individual that has the higher level of certification to help review cases and make sure they are on target. Artley said they don't have a person in place yet because they don't have a job description.
Stutsman asked if they are in the process of advertising for McGlinn's replacement. Artley replied that May 16, 2008 is the last day for submission of applications. She noted that as of May 14, 2008 there are five applicants. Stutsman asked if Peckover would hold the temporary position until the coordinator is hired. Artley said it is a temporary measure while the program grows. Stutsman asked if, once McGlinn's replacement is hired, they would go back to being a regular jail crisis team. Artley replied that Peckover is temporarily appointed as the person to train the new individual. Stutsman asked if the program will go back to the way it was once the new individual is trained. Artley said that is correlated to the mobile crisis emergency legislation. Artley said that they don't want to duplicate the service if there is a local provider who is going down that road.
Neuzil said that Human Resources had a chance to review the proposed changes in the job description. He noted that at this point keeping the individual on is extremely important and he has no problem moving forward. Stutsman asked what the pay increase is. Artley responded that the pay increase will be $3,000-$4,000. Harney asked how many people would be under the supervision of the temporary person. Artley responded it would be one person. The Board decided to put the item on a future formal agenda for approval.
District Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson introduced Mental Health Advocate Veda Higgins. Edmondson said that for the past three years the County has entered into a contract with the State of Iowa Judicial Branch for a 28E Agreement for judicial hospitalization referees. He asked that the County renew that agreement. Edmondson said that there are a few changes to the original letter. He said they are proposing to do a two-year contract instead of a one-year, and to have quarterly reimbursements instead of monthly. Edmondson said that outside of those terms everything in the contract is the same. County Attorney Janet Lyness stated that Artley requested a report from the Clerk's office about case numbers, dates of the hearings, and patient names. She noted that Clerk of District Court Lodema Berkeley said that is no problem. Lyness said that the report is helpful if they need to bill other counties or are getting billed by other counties for services.
Stutsman said that the cost for the service is $30,000 a year. She asked if other counties are also providing the service. Edmondson replied that only five to six counties in the state provide the service. Stutsman said that when the proposal was first brought up the case was made that the County would save money by doing the agreement and that it is a much better arrangement for the clients. She asked if that is still holding true. Edmondson replied yes.
R. Sullivan stated that there was much discussion that Higgins has been working through Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan and asked if there is any possibility of transferring the relationship to Artley. Lyness noted that is a different discussion. Edmondson stated that in 2007 the State Court Administrator appointed a committee to look at the patient advocate issue. He said that after the situation in Dallas County some changes need to be made. He said that the issues raised by R. Sullivan also need to be addressed. He said that there is a separate study going on about the relationship between advocates, the judicial branch and the County.
Harney said that the contract would be for two years and asked if they can include a clause about renegotiations in case there are legislative changes. Lyness responded that they could add such a clause. Lyness said she doubts the legislation would change. Edmondson noted that they don't object to including such a clause in the contract.
Huggins thanked the County for their support. She said that when the State dropped funding for referees the District Court judges were holding hearings on Mondays and Tuesdays. She said her patients could be picked up one week and not have the hearing until the next week. She said that with the referees there are the magistrates presiding on Mondays and the referees on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Berkeley said that in 2007 there were around 370 hearings. She noted that 40 hearings were for substance abuse and those are not part of the agreement. Berkeley said that on average there are five juvenile hearings a month. Berkeley said the service provides big savings for the County. Berkeley said it is important that they continue with the agreement because it benefits both the State and the County. Huggins said that the ability to have hearings on Friday means the patients could have a shorter hospital stay, get treatment quicker, and get back to their lives sooner. She added that the referees are making very sound decisions. Huggins said that many times her patients testify on their own behalf, and if an order is signed for commitment they might think they have not been listened to or believed. She added that the referees take the time to explain their decision and the need for hospitalization. She added that the referees conduct the majority of the hearings because most of them are on Tuesdays and Fridays. The Board decided to move the updated contract to the formal agenda for approval.
Durrant Group Managing Principal Mike Lewis, AIA, said that it is important to step back and go over a few key points in the report. Lewis said that in the first presentation he proposed 240 to 280 beds by 2015. He said he has since revised that projection based on a number of factors associated with the jail. Lewis said that the types of offenses and charges that are happening are on the non-sentence side and are mainly affecting the booking operations. He said that they have changed the target year to 2025 in terms of meeting the 240 beds.
Lewis said that in the past 10 years the male population has increased 9.8% and the female population has increased 8.6% in Johnson County. Lewis said that the projections are that the population will increase to 12%. He said that in his work he prefers to use the past increases in population as opposed to future projections that may have a margin of error. Lewis said that the national average size for a jail is 375 people incarcerated. He said that the number of people anticipated coming into the community, the number of people incarcerated, and age of the public is a reason why they backed the number down to 240 people. He said that statistically the median age in Johnson County is projected to see a fairly low change from 28.8 to 29.8.
Lewis said that of the 240 beds projected, 20% fall into a minimum custody classification. He said that the current facility has close to 11% beds for minimum custody and that is one reason for getting into the overcrowding issues. Lewis said that the medium population is 67% because of the mental health and medical issues in the correctional system. He said that maximum offenders will not statistically change. Lewis said that the more they move towards a minimum style, custody level, or dormitory environment, the better it is for the taxpayers from a cost standpoint. He said there is an opportunity for those in the minimum level classification to look at alternative programs in the community to avoid jail incarceration.
Lewis said that they have written an overview of the adequacy of the Jail and moved to a program and operational description based on the programming and planning piece of work that went through November 2007. Lewis said that the description outlines a security design principle associated with the justice complex and how to handle security within the proposed building for the Jail and the Courts piece. Lewis said the description is designed to help interpret the square footage numbers given to the Board in the overall plan and projection.
Lewis said that the second floor of the existing Jail is small and that is the reason why there are issues moving people through the system. Lewis said they are proposing about 8,000 square feet of space in an open booking environment for the future facility. He added that the intent is to get people classified, help them move to appropriate programs, and get them the support they need early in the process to avoid building large, expensive housing units.
Lewis said they have done the square footage analysis associated with the Courts but the functional description needs to be added. Lewis said that for the housing piece, they based their estimates on Iowa Jail standards and American Correctional Association (ACA) standards, which were recently changed. He said he reviewed the square footage and the written description to make sure they are in compliance with the new standards. Lewis said they included standards associated with natural light in relationship to the day rooms.
Lewis said that, at the Sheriff’s request, they looked at the type of staffing needed for the new facility. Lewis explained that he based the staffing plan on the concept of direct supervision. He said he wants to get the draft document out in the hands of the stakeholders for feedback to make sure the concepts laid out are connected to what the Board wants.
Lewis said that they addressed the issue of specialty populations. Lewis said they did some work for the Department of Corrections on mental health and co-occurring disorder issues that are happening in the State of Iowa. He said that the information ties closely to what is happening at the detention and County level on mental health related issues. Lewis said that they received information from the Department of Corrections about what types of offenses are happening on the mental illness side in the correctional system. He noted that the individuals are cycling through the system. He said that the recidivism rate is of most pressing concern. Lewis said that they are dealing with recidivism rate of drug property offenses of 54% to 55%. He said he thinks that is a fairly high number of repeat offenders coming back through the system. He said that the more they can do to help place appropriate treatment level programs and educational support the better off they would be at changing the recidivism rate and reducing the number of offenders in the system.
Harney said that Lewis showed that the violent crime went up, yet he would rather have the dormitory style medium security. Harney said he thinks those statements are conflicting. Lewis replied that the statements are conflicting but his goal is to look for opportunities to have direct contact between staff and offenders and create the right environment to be able to put the offender in a less restricted environment. Lewis said he thinks that the more restricted the environment, the harder it is to manage the individuals. He said that if the prisoners are in a maximum environment, he wants to see work being done to move them to a medium environment, and if they are in a medium environment to move to a minimum environment. Lewis said that can’t happen overnight, but that they should gradually push the system in a transitional process to get to a lower custody level.
Lewis said the jail side of the project is set at 240 beds and the courtroom side at 10 to 12 courtrooms. The courtroom square footage is 81.9 and the jail component is 85.6 square feet. He said that there is a public lobby common support space in the facility that serves both components, as well as mechanical, electrical, and corridor space to circulate within the building. Lewis said the program works for both the downtown and a remote site environment. He said that as they discuss the specific sites the square footage would increase or decrease based on the complexity of the site and the circulation pieces associated with it.
He said technology can aid in the supervision of the offender and movement throughout the facility. Lewis said they can take advantage of technology and use a video arraignment process to reduce and change the movement scenarios, which will aide the staff efficiency associated with the facility. He said that the final document will contain generic concept layouts of court concepts, housing configurations, circulation, and security related issues.
Lewis said that they created a staffing plan to determine the operational and capital costs. Lewis said they are proposing command management supervision positions, support service, housing and security, program positions, and administrative positions. Lewis said they are using a shift relief factor of 1.7 for a three post shift. He said that for every one position it will take a 1.7 factor on the position for it to operate. Lewis said that if the position isn’t a 24 hour position they are using a 1.3 or 1.1 multiplier. For example he said the multiplier for an administrative position is 1.3 and for part time positions is 1.1.
Lewis said that there are 40 positions specifically associated with the current jail. He said the current positions breakdown is 25 detention officers and administrative positions, nine control positions, three food service and support, and three transportation positions. Lewis said that comparing the number of existing positions to the capacity of the facility the current ratio is 2.3 to 1. He said that it is customary in early planning stage to look at a minimum of 4 to 1 ratio for new jail design configurations.
Lewis said the number of positions baseline for achieving a 4 to 1 ratio is 54. Lewis said that if the Jail is located in an urban setting they will have to build vertically. He said that in order to operate the vertical transportation piece inside the facility, it will take an additional four escort positions. Lewis said that in a vertical scenario they are looking at 58 staff positions. He said that in a scenario where the Jail is remote it would require six additional positions to operate the transport. He said that the best possible scenario is 54 positions.
Lewis said that the planning process is to build the core of the facility to meet the needs of the Clerk of the Courts, records storage, and jail food service and laundry. He said that building the future addition makes the ratio go up to 5.76 to 1. He said that a year to year detailed planning and staffing process could improve the ratios a little. Neuzil asked how many positions are needed to cover the immediate need of the County. Lewis replied the need is for 54 positions, or 58 positions in a vertical scenario. Lewis explained that the immediate need is within one or two positions of the core analysis.
Lewis said the bid target is spring of 2010. He said that as a result of construction inflation he set the construction cost at $296 a square foot. Lewis said the average construction inflation in the past 10 years for the Iowa City market is 4.6% per year. He said that in the last two years the cost increased 5% to 5.5%. He noted that based on the price of material and oil the cost could go up as high as 6.2%. He said he used a 5% inflation factor and that adds $3.5 million a year for every year beyond 2010.
Lewis explained that $296 per square foot is the cost for the entire Jail and Courts complex. Lewis said the building itself is $49.2 million. He noted that the site work allowance is 7.5%. He said that he expects some sites to go as low as 6% and as high as 10% based on the location of utilities. He said that 10% is reserved for things that are currently unknown. Lewis noted that the furniture, fixtures, and equipment for the court are 8% to 9% and for the jail complex is between 4% and 5%. Lewis said that he used 7% average costs for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Lewis said that professional fees are accounted for at the industry standard. He explained that the cost presented is the total project cost and not just the cost of a building.
He said the existing court building has 27,000 square feet. Lewis said that if they reuse the Court building they save 50 cents on the dollar which adds up to $4 million savings. He said that in terms of the site of the facility they are looking at a minimum of 25 acre with a rectangular like shape. He noted that in analyzing the sites the take into account the earth work requirements, site utility, as well as water and electric service requirements.
Lewis said the site work piece is customized based on the conversation. He mentioned that the existing Courthouse site was expanded to include the entire adjacent site to the south. A second option includes the entire block of the site north of the Administration Building. Another option is the Armory site in its entirety, getting away from the creek and possibly closing the street. Lewis said he dropped one site and added the Menards site into the mix. He said he doesn't think the Menards site would work. He said that the site has 144,000 square feet and seems rather limited to meet the dynamics of the project. Lewis said that Menards isn't high on his list because of the site logistical issues.
Harney said that on the visual material presented the County Farm site appears to intrude upon the cemetery area. Lewis noted it is not meant to intrude in the cemetery. R. Sullivan said that the images are not all the same scale. Lewis said the graphics aren't the same scale. He explained that some drawings have a 1:500 scale while others are 1:200. Lewis noted that he would adjust the drawings in respect to scale. R. Sullivan said that the smallest lot is the Armory. He noted that if they plot a justice center to fit the Armory site they could adjust the design to fit a larger site. Lewis said that the smallest possible footprint for the facility is about 50,000 square feet. He said that for the Armory site they are looking at a four-story building with a footprint of about 50,000. R. Sullivan said the Menards site is considerably bigger than the Armory site. Lewis said the current Menards facility is 144,000 square feet.
R. Sullivan asked what the buildable space at the Armory is and how it compares to the other sites. R. Sullivan explained that the area highlighted on the visual as the County Farm site is about ten times bigger than the Armory site. He said the visual can fool them. R. Sullivan said the area at the County Farm does not have to be that big. Lewis said he is basing his interpretations on the need for 25 acres of property. He explained that in an urban environment he has to compress the land requirement and build vertically. R. Sullivan asked if they could use just 10 acres for the project. Lewis explained that they could. R. Sullivan said that there is more flexibility in terms of lot size than the visual indicates.
Neuzil said he assumes that on a fringe location the design is more spread out. He asked if Lewis could show the Board what the building would look like on such a site. Neuzil asked if the size of the building is the same on all places and the only difference is they are built horizontally or vertically. He said the Armory site is about 50,000 square feet. Facilities Director Dave Kempf explained it would be twice the footprint of the Administration building. Lewis said he would add the footprint of the building over the site image to clarify the issue. R. Sullivan said that 3-D images are also valuable because the Board can see the project with perspective.
Neuzil said they need to look at the pros and cons of utilizing the existing Courthouse. He said there is some reason to believe that they are going to try to solve the space and safety needs in both the jail and the courthouse at the same time. Neuzil said that they need to figure out if the jail and courthouse would be together in a building or not. For example, Neuzil said, they need to discuss if they are looking to place a Jail facility on the Armory lot and put an annexation to the current Courthouse. Neuzil said it is important to get a better grasp of the pros and cons of each option and the costs associated with operating if they had two facilities rather than one. Neuzil said another issue is the price tag of the project and the realism of how the County will pay for that. Lewis said that splitting the jail and the courthouse requires six additional positions.
Neuzil said that another piece has to do with the availability of the Federal General Services Administration (GSA) parking lot and the speculation that it is not available. Stutsman said that Lewis does the analysis and then it is up to the Board to decide how to further proceed.
Meyers asked if all the ideas presented by Lewis are based on the assumption of a combined Jail and Court space. He asked if the Menards site is adaptable to jail facilities if the Board decides to have a stand-alone jail. Lewis said yes. He said that from a physical side of things they would be building a jail inside a warehouse and that is very possible. Harney asked how they would retrofit that because they have to rebuild the facility within the facility. Lewis replied that in a warehouse facility the slabs are designed to accommodate a heavy amount of weight and could support the interior wall construction. He said this wouldn’t be the first time to retrofit a warehouse building.
Stutsman asked if there is interest to explore options where the jail and courthouse aren’t coexisting. R. Sullivan said they have to do that. Neuzil responded that it all comes down to if they use the Courthouse or not. Neuzil said that if they use the Courthouse they could build the jail next to it, have an annexation connected to the Courthouse or separate from it. Lewis said that the physical condition of the Courthouse Building is decent enough to salvage and save it, but the use of the space needs to be for a lesser secure purpose, like hearings or meeting rooms that can support the judicial system but does not require heavy security.
Harney said the Board has to look at an annex associated with the Courthouse to be utilized with the separate total facilities. He asked if the Board is expanding beyond what Lewis anticipated to do for the money received through the contract with the Board. Lewis said that the work he is doing to move the process forward is beyond the original intent. Lewis said that originally he determined there is about $138,000 worth of work but took it down to $70,000. He said he is trying to find ways to get the information needed in a streamlined approach. R. Sullivan said the Board needs to see what the alternatives are and determine if there is interest in proceeding with each specific scenario or not.
Lewis said $138,000 is about 5% of the total design process. He noted that on a $69,000,000 project the cost is closer to $200,000. Neuzil said the Board is just getting a draft report that and they need to match the report with the contract laid out. He said that one aspect of the contract is getting public input. Neuzil asked if Lewis will try to get public input. Lewis replied that in terms of public input he has two scenarios. He said he could create a PowerPoint document and present the information in a public setting. He said they might need to conduct two or three public meetings to get the representation needed. Lewis said the other piece is to get the presentation as graphic as possible. Lewis said that his request is that the Board tries to narrow the options to one or two locations.
Lewis said that the Board has a couple of forums, such as the Justice Coordinating Committee, where they could go over the information to try and narrow the site locations. Lewis said he could have the document ready a week prior to the meeting to allow time for review. He said he could come to the forum and participate in the discussion. He added that the Bar Association is interested in having some input in the project. Lyness said the Board is looking at three different options, an urban vertical combined justice center, a rural horizontal combined, and a separate jail and the existing courthouse with an annex. Lewis said that there are two options in terms of the courthouse and the annex. He said that the annex could be connected to the courthouse or not. Lyness said it would be helpful to get cost estimates for each option.
Lewis said that between 25 acres of land on the fringe and a block in Iowa City, the site cost ranges between 6% and 10%. Lewis said if he uses 8% and has a design contingency, they could put all the scenarios on the table and connect the relationship between the building cost, staffing cost, and operating cost for each option. Stutsman said this is a challenging issue to move forward on. She said the Board needs to decide if there will be a joint facility or not and only after that start looking at sites.
R. Sullivan said that certain people think it is important to have a joint center, for others the site location is most important, and for others the cost is the most important consideration. He said those variables are independent. R. Sullivan said that there are a couple scenarios that require condemnation or willing sellers of business in central Iowa City which implies a much higher cost than the Armory site that the County already owns. R. Sullivan said they have zero cost in one case and maybe $10 million in the other. Neuzil said the land acquisition is not part of the $69 million price tag. Harney said the courthouse annex doesn’t necessarily have to be connected to the Courthouse. Stutsman said she doesn’t think the current Courthouse will work as a courthouse because it can't be made more secure. Stutsman said she isn’t interested in pursuing using the Courthouse as a court facility.
Neuzil said that if the County will utilize the Jail and the Courthouse it would be primarily as office space. Neuzil said the question is if the County can save $4 million by using the Courthouse for additional office space. Neuzil said they would not use the Courthouse for courtrooms. He noted that the Board is looking to improve the safety and space for both facilities. Neuzil said the question is if they can keep the Courthouse for offices and court functions. He added that the court hearings could be held in an annex. Harney disagreed. He said the County could use the Courthouse for courtrooms if the access to the Courthouse is made through another building.
Stutsman said another thing to consider is Iowa City’s plans for the area. She said the City has different ideas for development of the area. Meyers agreed that the City's ideas sound good. He added that he doesn’t see a jail fitting into the scheme of things. Stutsman said the City is not ready to go to primetime with their development plan since they just started. She said that a lot of the ideas included make sense.
Lewis let the Board know that he does not have the City Development Plans and that it would be helpful to see them. R. Sullivan said the Board doesn’t have them. R. Sullivan said that Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Jeff Davidson told him that the Plans are not finalized yet. R. Sullivan said that as soon as the Plans are ready Davidson would be on the agenda to present to the Board. Stutsman said it is a vision and it might be helpful for Lewis to sit down and talk about it. Lewis said they could at least learn what the Planning Committee is contemplating.
Harney said the Board received a concept drawing in 2007 but that may have changed since. R. Sullivan said the concept was for the area around the General Service Administration (GSA). He said the Development Plans are for the South Central District which is the area south of Burlington Street. R. Sullivan said the process is almost finished. He added that Davidson thought he could come in and present to the Board within a month. Stutsman said she thinks it is worth it to have a discussion with the City. Lewis stated that he is in Iowa City on business on May 21, 2008 and May 22, 2008. He said he would make a point to get together and further the conversation with Davidson.
Meyers asked if it matters how far the Jail and Courthouse buildings are from each other. Lewis said that it matters. He said that the inmates need to be loaded and transported in a van which requires six additional positions. Harney said he would like to hear County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek's input. Lewis said he would like to hear Pulkrabek's input as well. Meyers asked if the six extra personnel are required for 240 inmates. Lewis said it is required. He explained that when the inmate population reaches 450 the County would need 20 additional positions.
Pulkrabek said that in terms of transportation one versus 10 miles is a significant difference. He said that currently the inmates could be quickly transported to the Courthouse. Pulkrabek said that it might not be as easy to do that if the jail is 10 miles away from the Courthouse. Pulkrabek said another option to be considered when talking about an annex is a podular style Jail. He said this was a design proposed in the late 1970s but did not pass the bond referendum. He said that the County could build an annex attached to the Courthouse without taking away from the historic appearance of the building. Pulkrabek noted that the people could be funneled into the new structure and into the existing Courthouse from there. Lewis said that this would address the security concerns because there will be no entering and exiting through the Courthouse. He said everyone would need to access the Courthouse through the new building.
Pulkrabek said he doesn’t want to build a jail in Hills or Lone Tree and transfer inmates that far. He added that some of the other sites are somewhat reasonable. Pulkrabek noted that it is easier to get to the Courthouse from certain locations as compared to others. He mentioned the transfer wouldn’t be bad from the Menards site or the area south of the Fairgrounds. Pulkrabek said that it is more challenging coming from the Melrose Avenue site. He said that distance is the main cause of disagreement and a main reason for the bond referendum failure. Pulkrabek said that consideration needs to be given to the Iowa City Police and how far they have to transport people when arrested. Pulkrabek said this is a very difficult issue to move forward on. He said he thinks it is helpful and important to see the different scenarios and 3D images of the sites.
Lewis said the direct supervision concept helps in the decision between horizontal and vertical construction of the jail Lewis said they have to look at the economies associated with building up versus building out. He added that the economies play a big factor because there is a difference of four employees between the two scenarios.
R. Sullivan said he suggested before that the Board go through the scenarios, talk about pros and cons and determine if there is support or not. Neuzil said that he thought it would be helpful to have the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) look at the report. Stutsman said the Board is looking at the first draft. She asked if the Board is ready to accept the draft as the final report. Harney said he thinks the Board needs input from CJCC. Lewis said that the document is in draft form because he wants to get feedback from the stakeholders while working on the final report. He said the document is close to being done.
R. Sullivan said if four Supervisors think there is a site that they would never vote for it should be removed from Lewis's list. Lyness said that the Board could narrow down the sites at the next Joint CJCC meeting. R. Sullivan said he would like to have that on the agenda for the meeting. Harney said the Board could arrange an earlier meeting if needed. Neuzil stated the next CJCC joint meeting is on June 4, 2008. R. Sullivan said he didn’t think the Board could schedule a meeting sooner. R. Sullivan said he would double check with M. Sullivan to make sure the agenda reflects that the Board will spend the whole meeting on the topic. Harney asked if Lewis would be interested in attending the next meeting. Lewis responded that he would.
Neumann Monson Representative Bill Hoefer said the main purpose of the presentation is to get directions in terms of property boundaries that will be developed for the lease to the Joint Emergency Communications Commission for the new Joint Emergency Communications Center. Hoefer said that the final land survey slid the building 47 feet to the west bringing it slightly closer to the County Poor Farm Building. Hoefer said that in the original location for the building, the west edge of the parking lot aligned with the road, and the axis drive was coming down from Melrose Avenue. He said that the front of the building had a 148 foot perimeter barrier. He said that a swale was proposed around the east, west, and south sides of the building. He explained that the swale is meant to act as a bioswale for storm water treatment and as a vehicle barrier.
Hoefer said that when the building was first located they only had a United States Geological Survey aerial photograph with general contours. He said that the land survey showed that the southeast corner of the building was getting into the beginning of the swale to the south of the property. He said the perimeter was 200 feet east of the corner of the main Poor Farm building. Hoefer said that even if the road and parking aligned with this, the need for a perimeter barrier on the property would extend about 100 feet west off the road line. Hoefer said the building was also getting into a gully.
Hoefer said the Subcommittee deemed that a 100 foot perimeter instead of 148 feet would suffice. He noted that allows moving the building closer to the drive and out of the swale. He said the building was shifted 47 feet. Hoefer said the building is 180 feet from the corner as opposed to 200 feet as previously proposed. Hoefer said that condensing the perimeter from 148 feet to 100 feet offsets the shift in the building. Hoefer said that the corner of the berm is 180 feet east of the corner of the Poor Farm Building and 167 feet south. He said diagonally it is about 300 feet as opposed to 325 feet as previously proposed. He said that the 100 foot setback from the building would require a 20 foot wide ditch and 15 feet outside the ditch to be able to grade it.
Kempf asked why there is 120 to 150 feet before getting into the ravine area drop-off that is on the right side of the diagram. Kempf said the structure can be fully placed behind Chatham Oaks rather than half of the facility being west of Chatham Oaks. Meyers asked if there is an aerial view of the whole site. Meyers asked if anyone else thought the entire site is on the east side. R. Sullivan agreed. Meyers said he thought the original site was more to the east. Neuzil said they could get Davidson's picture that shows the site over to the right. Stutsman said she thought it is because of the contour of the land. R. Sullivan said the land is flat. Hoefer said there isn't enough flat land. R. Sullivan said there is enough flat space. He asked why there are 80 parking spaces. Stutsman asked if the parking spaces are required by the City. Hoefer explained that the 80 parking spaces are for staff in the event of an emergency. R. Sullivan said that the Board needs to have a discussion because he doesn't understand why 60 people and 80 parking spaces are required. Stutsman pointed out that the parking spaces would be used in case of an emergency. R. Sullivan said that for the coordination of the April 13, 2006 tornado emergency response there were only seven people.
Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson said that when the tornado hit, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was overcapacity and under spaced. Wilson said there should be at least 14 to 15 people for emergency support functions. Wilson said they could shrink the parking area, but would run into the challenge of trying to park additional people. R. Sullivan said there were two to three emergencies in the last five years. He said that in case of emergency people could park at Chatham Oaks. R. Sullivan said the parking lot is not needed because it would be used once or twice every few years. Stutsman asked what they will do with the staff from Chatham Oaks. R. Sullivan said the staff could temporarily park at the County Farm.
Meyers said parking is not a daily requirement. Wilson said it isn't a daily requirement. Wilson added that part of the thought is to make the building available for meetings and training. Stutsman said the parking lot can be used as a County commuter lot. Wilson replied the lot would be restricted rather than public because of security and grant funding issues. Wilson mentioned they just received a $17,663 award for hazard mitigation and having a commuter lot would mean shooting themselves in the foot.
Neuzil said he is against the location. Neuzil said that the site was originally away from Chatham Oaks and against the Interstate. He pointed out that the diagram shows the building directly behind Chatham Oaks in a prime piece of property to be utilized for public usage. He said that another concern is seeing over 60 parking lots being proposed when the community is struggling to meet every need. He noted that it seems there are unlimited funds for this project. Neuzil said the project has ballooned from what it was supposed to be. Stutsman asked Lyness what the Board’s oversight abilities are for the project. Lyness said the Board doesn't have much oversight. She added that the Board is leasing the property and can determine the boundaries. Lyness noted that setting the boundaries is important for the project to work.
R. Sullivan said that 4.17 acres is too much. He pointed out that the building footprint is the same size as Chatham Oaks. Neuzil said the Board has some say and can choose not to approve the budget. Stutsman said it is her understanding that the Board doesn't have a choice on whether to vote or not. R. Sullivan said the Board can control the site size. Lyness said part of the reason the issue is on the agenda is because the County can't write a lease for the project until an actual location is determined. She said the Board has three representatives on JCC that can influence the decisions.
Pulkrabek said he understands all the concerns. He said that the Board representatives to JCC have haggled over the size of the parking lot. Pulkrabek said that as a compromise they decided to use pervious surface. Pulkrabek said there could be other uses for the location. He noted that they tried to find the flattest land possible to keep the costs to a minimum.
Neuzil said the original location was the cell for the Board agreeing to put the JECC building at the Poor Farm property. Neuzil said that originally the location was different to get the Board to agree. Pulkrabek stated that there is no intention to pull a fast one on the Board. He said everyone was shocked when the design came back and the ravine was shown. Meyers indicated a spot in the original location where the building could easily fit on. R. Sullivan added that would especially be true if the 60 parking spots are removed. Meyers said that instead of digging a trench they can use the existing ditch and the hill down to the Interstate.
Harney said that the architect told JCC that the ravine falloff would increase the cost of grading and sewer line. R. Sullivan said that is based on the 4.17 acres design. Wilson said that Hoefer worked under the understanding that the area is designated as an expansion area. The Board responded it isn't an expansion area. R. Sullivan said that the 60 parking spots wouldn't get used that often. He said that 120 cars could be easily parked, infrequently, at the Poor Farm. Neuzil said that part of the frustration is that the Board was not aware of the site relocation. Stutsman said she knew it moved.
R. Sullivan said that having 100 foot clearance and a 20 foot ditch isn't a codified requirement. Pulkrabek explained those are Federal guidelines on site designs for Federal Emergency Management Agencies and also the Department of Defense recommendations. Pulkrabek said JCC intends to go after grants. He said there is never a guarantee to receive the funds. Pulkrabek said that JCC hopes to present a stronger case by saying that all of the standards are already met. Stutsman said she finds it interesting that the Board is quibbling about the size of a parking lot. She said the Board has always supported bigger and better. She said her opinion is to build it so there is enough room.
Pulkrabek said JCC is trying to be as far sighted as they can on the project. Pulkrabek said he didn't realize that the Board was not aware that the site was moved over because of topography. He said that if the Board wants he can go back to JCC and let them know the Board wants to lease a smaller parcel and the location moved back. Pulkrabek pointed out that the Supervisors put trust in JCC to do the planning. He said he is willing to find a compromise because he believes it is best for the project.
R. Sullivan said it is frustrating. He said it was never explained why the parking lot should be so big and in a certain area. Meyers said he is frustrated as well. He said the Supervisors have to go out and answer a lot of questions the public has. Meyers said it is hard to give the public answers when the Board doesn’t have them. Harney said that the architecture is dated March 7, 2008, and that copies were handed to the Board. He said the building has been substantially reduced in size to accommodate future growth. Harney said JCC had an in depth talk about the size of the parking lot to suffice the training needs. Harney said that he was uncomfortable about moving the parking lot west, but he can live with it. Harney said the Board spent almost $100,000 to certify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and $200,000 on parking ramps. Harney said JECC building is in the best interest of the public.
R. Sullivan pointed out that Lyness told the Board that they had very few options other than re-bidding and going ahead with the process. Harney said the Board doesn’t have options with the financing of the facility because it went through emergency management. R. Sullivan said that Harney’s argument that the Board had frivolously spent $300,000 is unfounded. R. Sullivan said the Board received strong indication from the County Attorney that there is a responsible bidder and they should take it. Harney said the only reason he voted for it was because it would delay the project.
Meyers said that he didn't think anyone is arguing against the value of JECC. He said that the jail and court facility has a price tag of $70 million. Stutsman commented that is water over the dam. She said she ran for re-election two years ago and one of the main goals was the JECC facility. Stutsman said the Board put together a committee and she is alright with their decisions. Stutsman said the Board delegated the authority to JCC and they are doing their job.
Pulkrabek explained that JCC tried to right-size the facility for future growth. He noted that there is no place in the County to conduct large scale public safety training. Pulkrabek said that it is a good location for training. Neuzil commented that Pulkrabek's information is helpful. He added that there seems to be a break in communication. Neuzil said that the Board is funding the project and needs to be able to explain the project to the public. Neuzil said he has no desire to stop the process and progress of JECC. He said that the Board collectively made a choice to place the building at the County Farm. Neuzil said he is disappointed that the site moved over. He said that JCC should give the Board more information. Pulkrabek expressed his apologies that the communication hadn't been better between the Board and JCC. R. Sullivan said he would like to see the architect go back and try to fit something in the area between the sewer line and the property area to the east. Stutsman asked how much it would cost. Neuzil asked if Chatham Oaks has seen the proposal. Pulkrabek said that he would be surprised if they had since the Board just saw it. Harney said JECC is an evacuation site for people coming from the nuclear facility in Cedar Rapids.
R. Sullivan said he expected JECC to be much more focused on daily dispatching and much less on training. R. Sullivan said that he would have voted differently if he knew the plan is for a full-fledged training facility. Pulkrabek replied that training is a secondary purpose for the room. He said the real goal is to have one of the few decent emergency centers in the State. He noted that in the last 10 years the County had more presidential declared disaster areas than in the last 50 years. R. Sullivan said he was at a disaster site and there were about eight people coordinating. Pulkrabek said he worked that night and he thought it didn’t function well.
Wilson said the County can maximize tax dollars by using the building as a training facility. Harney said that moving the building further east will considerably raise the cost of the facility. R. Sullivan said the option is shrinking the size of the footprint and fitting it in. Hoefer said one of the vulnerabilities of the site is how close it is to the interstate. . Hoefer said the sewer and ravine are much more of a problem compared to the 40 foot shift. Hoefer said they can move the building 135 feet to have it directly lined up with Chatham Oaks. Harney suggested moving it over as much as possible. Hoefer said that there will be natural landscaping in form of berm. He said there would be a six foot high berm on the north and a ditch around the east, west, and south sides. Hoefer said the facility will be 18 foot high. He said they are looking at using brick and precast materials used on the new Johnson County SEATS/Secondary Roads Building. Hoefer said the site boundary will be somewhat invisible up to the berm and there won’t be a 10 foot fence with barbed wire.
Neuzil asked what the cost of the building is. Pulkrabek replied the building and site work is $4.8 million. He said there will be additional for the radio system. Pulkrabek said they have already downsized it. Kempf said they took almost 20% out of the first floor plan. Pulkrabek said the towers are $100,000 a piece. Hoefer said they will try to move it to the east as far as they can. Hoefer said that the City requires storm water retention to be designed for the facility. He said 4.7 acres is not enough to accommodate that. Hoefer said an additional .4 acres is required. He said that the question is whether it can be included in the lease property or if the storm water retention can happen since it is all County property. Kempf said that for SEATS/Secondary Roads Building the County owns the pond but in the future it will be part of the National Guard site. Kempf noted that the City asked them to put in place an agreement between the two entities.
Neuzil said the barriers around the facility are part of a County Park. Hoefer said the berms are more concerned about vehicles and vehicle intrusion as compared to foot traffic. Hoefer said they will come back next week with the revised drawings. Stutsman asked if JCC meetings are open to the public. Hoefer replied they are open, and there are minutes available. Pulkrabek said a lot of the meetings are televised on Channel 5.
R. Sullivan said that Dean Dykstra is resigning from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He noted that there are two new applicants. He proposed that the Supervisors give the suggestions to M. Sullivan. Neuzil asked M. Sullivan if he could give an update on the male/female ratio. R. Sullivan said that currently there are four males and one female. He said Dykstra is one of the four and when he is gone there will be three. Harney said he wants to clarify that JCC just started taking minutes.
Adjourned at 1:03 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary