MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE JOHNSON COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

JUNE 4, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Former County Attorney J. Patrick White and MECCA Director Art Schut: Jail Substance Abuse Treatment         1

Vernon Research Group Business Development Manager Susan Pfeiler-Todd: Utilization Of the Vernon Research Group....................................................................................................................................... 5

Durrant Group Managing Principal Mike Lewis, AIA: Draft of Site Suitability Study................... 9

Report from Alternatives and Treatment Opportunities Sub-Committee.................................... 23

Additional Comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members........................ 24

Additional Comments from the Public..................................................................................... 24

      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, Judge Douglas Russell, District Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson, Public Defender Richard Klausner, MECCA Director Art Schut, MH/DD Director Kris Artley. Staff present: Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan Sheriff’s Captain David Wagner, MECCA Outpatient Service Provider Megan Lovell, and MECCA Regional Director Heidi Kouda.

Former CountY Attorney J. Patrick White and MECCA DirectoR ART SCHUT: Jail Substance Abuse Treatment

      Former County Attorney J. Patrick White said he has been doing some work for Attorney General Tom Miller since he retired a year and a half ago.  He said one thing Miller has focused on for almost 10 years is substance abuse treatment.  White said the chart he brought is one that was used almost 10 years ago when Miller first unveiled his first statewide substance abuse treatment proposal, which picked up on a national study that documented the value of substance abuse treatment in reducing crime.  White said there was a 78% decrease in drug selling and an 82% decrease in shoplifting and the value goes on from there.  White stated that he has always said that 90% of people arrested have a substance abuse issue and that it contributed to their offenses.  White said that 75-80% of these people are destined to repeat their offenses unless someone else intervenes.  White said that when the Board implemented the Substance Abuse Evaluation Pilot Program two years ago, where the County pays MECCA to do substance abuse evaluations for people arrested who are determined to be indigent by the Court, he told the Board the next step in the process would be to extend it to substance abuse treatment, and that is what the proposal does.  He said that even though this is a Johnson County proposal, the Attorney General's Office has invited him to continue his involvement with the County because of their long-standing interest in substance abuse treatment. 

      White said that in January of 2008 he started visiting with the MECCA Director Art Schut about the possibility of expanding their evaluation program to treatment.  He said the concept is that the inmates would be the same people that are already being covered by the County's Pilot Evaluation Program.  White said that once they are evaluated, if they are determined to be in need of some sort of substance abuse treatment, then the idea will carry it on and fund the treatment that is necessary.  He said that the main goal of the program is crime reduction.  White said the concept is by getting people into evaluation, the treatment will reduce crime and contempts.  He said people who are indigent are very likely not to follow through because they can't afford an evaluation and continuing treatment, which results in them being found in contempt of court.  White said he took a couple month hiatus from the Attorney General's office in February and March of 2008, and started back again in April of 2008.

      White said that in addition to working with Schut to produce the draft for discussion, he kept in touch with County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek and County Attorney Janet Lyness about the first draft of the proposal and both seemed very supportive of the idea.  White said he also had at least one conversation with Johnson County Public Defender Dick Klausner, who was supportive when they first floated the whole idea a few years ago and who is likely to be supportive of the proposal as of today.  White said the proposed contract will pick up where the Evaluation Pilot Program leaves off.  White said the total annualized cost would be $97,000.  He said the proposal has a determination in it and the language in the proposal requires 90 days written notice by either party in case funding runs out or for some reason the program wasn't working. 

      Harney asked what the $97,000 would cover and if it was based on an average from the past year or two.  White said it covers five people who the Court have found to be indigent.  He added that determination from the evaluation is how they figure out who needs the substance abuse treatment.  Schut explained they must also have a diagnosis.  Schut stated the inmate has had to be determined to have a substance abuse problem by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is used in the field of Mental Health Services.  He said often people committing crimes are under the influence of drugs or have been in the past.  Schut added those involved have to have the ability to participate in a group setting, agree to follow up for at least a year after release, as well as receive an agreement from the County Attorney and their defense attorney.  He said a Judge could order those involved to participate.  White said that the numbers, in terms of five people, relates to inadequate jail space.  He said there is not enough space to have a group of more than five people at a time unless they use all the available space, in which they could have ten people, but then they would run the risk of no one else being able to program the facility at that time.  Schut commented he believed the space may also be used by attorneys for consultation.  He said, frankly, they have the issue of not having enough space for alternatives, which makes it less efficient because they are serving five people with resources they could use to serve 15 to 20 people.  Schut said that the reality is that the space may not be available every day, or it may have unpredictably available since there may be things that come up. 

      Schut said what they are really doing is holding an arranged follow-up meeting as a condition of release from jail.  He said that people continue to get services that hopefully will result in a number of them not returning to jail, thus ultimately impacting the jail population and reducing it.  He said the numbers and the ability to do so is mitigated by the space available.  White added that Schut is leaving his position at MECCA.  He said initially they assumed they would have to put the contract proposal on the shelf until Schut's successor is on board, but Schut has stated that he would like to finish this proposal before he leaves his position. 

      Stutsman asked if the Board needs to approve the contract if they want to move forward.  White confirmed and said they would address any questions the Board may have.  He said it will certainly envision a more formal review and approval by the County Attorney's Office.  He said Lyness has seen the draft version, but he didn't know if she had seen the more formal version yet.  White said one of the main questions will be where the $97,000 will come from.  He said the Board will have to take the discussion up with Pulkrabek and Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne.  Schut said it also assumes that certain things are leveraged, for example, that there are dollars available for case management for women who have minor children.  He said wherever there is the ability to use other resources, those resources will be employed.  Meyers asked if that will reimburse the $97,000.  Schut said no.  He said that the assumption is that that will enable them to do that as an add-on.  Stutsman asked Pulkrabek if he could make any predictions as to how much the County will save if they do the project.  White said the reality of the proposal is that it is impossible to prove the negative.  He said he thinks everyone would agree that the Pilot Evaluation Program has worked and has cut down on arrests, but it is impossible to say how many it has cut down on. 

      Klausner said that from working with the Pilot Evaluation Program in the last couple of years, he can say from his experience that it has not just decreased people coming back, but it is enabling those working with the program to propose a way of getting people out of the jail by getting them evaluated and back on track, which is what judges want to hear.  He said it provides inmates with a starting place and gives them a plan.  He said it has been very effective from his perspective in getting people out of jail and from the County's perspective in lightening the load on the jail.  He said that it has worked in that it is good for the community and has assisted people in turning their lives around.  He said the jail sees a lot of people that, once evaluated, don't go back. 

      White said that substance abuse professionals tend to agree that getting people actively involved in treatment early while they are motivated and are in the orange jump suit or in front of a judge, has a lot to be said for, rather than letting it drag on for a couple months.  He addressed Stutsman's question by pointing out that a 10 year old study that picked out people and tracked them for a total of two years, found that there was a 64% reduction in crime, which he finds optimistic.  White said the study was measured by individuals.  He explained the reason the study is 10 years old is because it is expensive to produce that lengthy of a study and track finite individuals during a period of two years. 

      R. Sullivan said he was somewhat surprised because it was his understanding that they didn't have room to run the program when it was first bandied about a few years ago and he recalled the comment being made that there was no room.  R. Sullivan says he sees no downside whatsoever.  White informed R. Sullivan that money was also an issue a few years ago.  White said the thinking was that they should start with the Pilot Evaluation Program and see if it works with the jail, see if it is cost effective, and then come back to treatment if they could find the money.  Stutsman said they should put it on the Board's agenda and work out the details with the contract and Claiborne. 

      Harney asked how they keep individuals in the program if they decide they don't want to continue it.  White said that it will be hard and will be based on condition of release.  He said if a judge tells an inmate they can't get out of jail unless they are participating in substance abuse treatment or as a condition of probation, the inmate will hopefully be motivated to stay out of jail or stay on probation, one of the two.  Meyers asked if those in the program start while they're in jail and then finish the year with MECCA once released.  Schut stated that was correct.  Meyers asked how many people would run through the program in a year.  Schut replied they could only do five people at a time because they are limited by space.  White said it seems to him that they are talking about 20 to 30 inmates being evaluated per month.  Schut said he thought there were 26 or 28 inmates a month.  MECCA Regional Director Heidi Kouda stated that they evaluate around 25 inmates per month.  Harney asked if some of the 25 inmates are repeat offenders.  MECCA Outpatient Service Provider Megan Lovell replied it is typically people that are already in services with MECCA.  She said every now and then they evaluate repeat offenders, but not very frequently. 

      Stutsman told Neuzil that the Board will need to work out the details and have a discussion.  Neuzil said the general concept of the program is right.  He said the program is just one in a series of alternatives they have been talking about and it comes back to cost associated with the programs.  He said that if the County is paying to house prisoners in other counties, they will not have enough money left to pay for the program.  Stutsman asked for clarification on whether the program would only be for indigent individuals.  Schut said that was correct.  She asked whether an inmate wanting to pay for treatment themselves would be turned away.  Schut stated that someone who could pay for treatment would not be found indigent by the Court, which is one of the program's eligibility requirements.  White said MECCA can provide substance abuse treatment for those willing to pay.  Lyness explained that those services just wouldn't be part of the $97,000.  She added that any inmates wanting to pay for treatment themselves could be included in the group, so if they were in jail they could participate. 

      R. Sullivan said that the Board will need to discuss some things with Claiborne and Lyness will need to look at the contract.  R. Sullivan said that, assuming there are at least three Board members wanting to move forward, they can put it on a future formal agenda.  Harney said that although he supports the idea, issues arise when the Board gives a program to MECCA without bidding it out.  White said it became an issue two or three years ago.  He said his issue at the time was that MECCA has stepped forward and has invested an inordinate amount of time with the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) and reacted to all sorts of proposals related to substance abuse.  White said MECCA is the primary delivery of substance abuse services in Johnson County.  White said he didn't have any apologies about working with MECCA.  He said certainly there is the option to open it up to other agencies, but he isn't sure that other local companies would be in a position staff-wise to work with the program on a daily basis.  Harney said that MECCA does excellent service and added that the only reason he asked was because if MECCA wants to maintain the whole trail through the court process as treatment, it would be much easier to do it under one than having someone else step up and say they could do the same thing.  He said he just wants to make sure they are OK on legal grounds. 

      White mentioned that Lyness, Sixth Judicial District Court Judge Russell and Sixth Judicial District Court Administrator Carol Edmondson were in the back of the room and can speak better about the topic, but it is his understanding that the Drug Court will involve services from MECCA when it gets under way.  Schut said the Drug Court is underway and MECCA is providing serves which could not be duplicated by another agency in the area.  He introduced Kouda and Lovell, who work with MECCA.  Schut said one or both will be his replacement for the CJCC. 

      Harney asked what the project start date would be if the Board were to fund the program.  Schut said they would need some start up time, but his guess would be four weeks.  White said the drafting approach was that if the Board decided to go forward, it could be implemented anytime the Board was ready.  R. Sullivan said realistically the Board couldn't even discuss the project on the informal agenda until June 26, 2008, so they are still several weeks away.

Vernon Research Group Business Development Manager Susan Pfeiler-Todd: utilization of the Vernon Research Group

      M. Sullivan said the Board would share their desire to use the Vernon Research Group with Durrant Group Representative Mike Lewis.  He said the Board needed to know what to do after they receive the completed Jail Site Suitability Study from Durrant.  He said it has been a few weeks, but they have talked about what Vernon Research Group can do to help Johnson County as far as marketing surveys and surveys for the community regarding the jail project.  R. Sullivan said there can be some real benefit to using Vernon, but that it depends on the approach the Board is going to take.  He said that if the Board could narrow down their selections on how they would like to proceed, then they wouldn't have to use Vernon because public opinion wouldn't matter as they've made a decision.  R. Sullivan said that if the Board narrowed it down to two or three options and then engages Vernon, then they would be doing something that makes sense because then could find out how the public would react to the options. 

      Neuzil said that it is a matter of timing and priorities.  He said initially the Board and the CJCC had determined the next priority step is to hire an individual to assist the Board strategically.  He said that position is currently being studied.  Neuzil said as far as R. Sullivan's point, if the Board is talking about taking the Durrant report and having the Vernon Research Group look at and identify which route is the best route to take to involve the community, then the timing for their organization to enter the picture would be fairly soon.  Neuzil said that if they are looking at hiring a Strategic Planner who keeps the Board on track with tasks, timelines, etc, they would be the one who would get public input involved in the process.  He said their organization would then be used later when the Board is discussing an actual ballot initiative.  Neuzil said those were the issues the Board was beginning to consider. 

      Vernon Research Group Business Development Manager Susan Pfeiler-Todd said it would be interesting to have someone oversee the entire project and help move it forward She said that puts the Vernon Research Group where they are right now in a holding pattern to make the end project happen the way the Board wants it to.  Pfeiler-Todd said she can answer any questions that would help the Board make a decision one way or another, or if there is anything unclear in the proposal, that would be open for discussion as well.  She said maybe they are hitting a date that is not necessarily a mainstay, but more of a wait and see.  Neuzil said that part of the conversation was trying to create the job description for the position.  He said if one of the duties of the individual is to get community buy-in in regards to two or three choices, he assumed that Pfeiler-Todd's organization would be working with that individual or at the very least the individual would be working with Pfeiler-Todd's organization until a proposal is set, then seeing if that sells it.  Neuzil said originally the concept for what the Vernon Research Group would do is determine if the public would get behind one option more than another.  Pfeiler-Todd said the Board will need public support to get their plan to fruition.  She said making the right choices at the right steps seems to be what the decision is coming down to.  Pfeiler-Todd said if the Board is going to move forward with hiring a coordinator, then she would probably best work with the coordinator to tailor the needs as to what the coordinator feels should happen so the Board can get to the end product.  Pfeiler-Todd said that things have changed slightly over time from what they had originally proposed, but not completely.  She said as Lewis comes up with recommendations that will tell the Vernon Group what level of involvement they will have or what need is there.  Pfeiler-Todd said it is up to the Board to decide if they are going to hire a coordinator and if so, if that is who the Vernon Group should work with.  She asked how close the Board is to making something happen.  Pfeiler-Todd asked if it was something they expected to see on the ballot and when.  Neuzil said they were just working on the details and have not decided when the measure will be put on the ballot. 

      R. Sullivan said he is not particularly interested in hiring a coordinator, but would just like to see the Board move ahead.  He said part of deciding when to put something in front of the public partly is dependant on how much public support they have.  He said if the Vernon Research Group does a study and finds that only 20% of the people are in favor, the Board has some work to do.  On the contrary, if they have 80% support, then the Board needs to hurry up and put the measure on the ballot.  He said that the Board's timing has to take into consideration Pfeiler-Todd's findings.  Pfeiler-Todd said she agreed with R. Sullivan that timing and support are both critical issues. 

      Harney said he agrees with R. Sullivan, but there is the question of what will the public support, a Justice Center or something else.  Harney said hopefully it will be a Justice Center.  Pfeiler-Todd said that after Lewis gets done with some of his research and wraps up his end report, she can talk more.  R. Sullivan said that in Pfeiler-Todd's last presentation, she noted that if the Board comes to a stand-still where they aren't sure if they should do an annex to the Courthouse and build a separate jail facility versus a combined Justice Center, the Vernon Research Group could research which option the public supports the most.  Pfeiler-Todd agreed.  She said that a tradeoff or a conjoint would be used to determine which option people will support.  She said that is what she would recommend.  Pfeiler-Todd said that as the researcher those option bundles will be whatever the Durrant Group and the Board decide to put forward.  She said her group can research which option bundle the public supports most and how many people support that bundle. 

      Stutsman said it seems like the Board has to decide whether they want to present a proposal based on what Vernon finds or what they feel the County needs based on what Durrant comes up with.  She said that it sounds like the Board would use Vernon and then say this is what they want to do, so frankly she doesn't know why they have Durrant studying the proposal.  Stutsman said the Board needs to decide which way to go.  Meyers said Durrant is going to provide different options to use and when they see what the options are then they can go from there.  Stutsman replied that none of the options will have any bearing if Vernon finds out that the public will not support them.  Pfeiler-Todd said that sometimes it is how they approach the publicity or education factor in making something happen.  Harney said that one step towards that was that Durrant was supposed to have public input sessions that would give the Board some information that would lead them toward the way they need to go.  He said that maybe having Pfeiler-Todd and others involved would be a good decision.  Pfeiler-Todd said that in the original proposal they were to work with Durrant to determine how to put everything in front of the public.  R. Sullivan said if the Board comes up with two or three proposals then he thinks it will be important for Pfeiler-Todd's group to see how the public will react to them.  He said if only one is proposed, then it doesn't make much sense to him to do anything with the Vernon Research Group. 

      M. Sullivan said he believes there is a practical difference between public input and public opinion.  He said that public opinion has always been an important issue since they have been talking about the jail concept for quite some time, as is the public input, so the two are very important.  Pfeiler-Todd said they are not the same thing, but maybe that's how they are being looked at.  R. Sullivan said he can distinguish between the two and said that he hears plenty from stakeholders.  He said that stakeholders won't change his mind on anything and a lot of the groups have been around for awhile.  R. Sullivan said that perhaps the only group of stakeholders they haven't heard from is those that are incarcerated.  R. Sullivan said that is not the bulk of the group that will do voting.  He said that the bulk of the voting will be done by the general population, who he has not heard much from.  Pfeiler said that was true and that those are the people who aren't likely to have use of the facility or the opportunity to have use.  She said a lot of times the public has already formed an opinion of which proposal should go forward, which is usually lead by what the media has reported or educational factors or marketing issues.  She said the Board also wants to uncover the best way to pay for a possible Justice Center.  Pfeiler-Todd said that even if there is only one primary choice, there is still a lot to be known in the public perception arena in regards to how the Board can get the vote.  She said that what they should do is find out what should have been done before the failed vote.  Pfeiler-Todd said this has to be determined over time.  Pfeiler-Todd said that in 2002 the taskforce suggested more research and study in this area and that Lewis has done a lot in the way of collecting stakeholder issues.  She said that Polk County is a good indicator for when they have something out there that doesn’t go forward.  She said in hindsight they know what they should have done.  She said the Board can learn from the other groups to make this happen.  

      R. Sullivan said he feels comfortable with things and knows where he wants to go.  Neuzil said he is on the same page as R. Sullivan.  He said that it all comes back to funding as they are trying to find funding for a coordinator since it was not budgeted for, along with another project they are doing that is not budgeted.  He said they are pretty big ticket items and they will have to figure out where they are coming up with dollars.  Pfeiler-Todd said it is a wait and see type of thing.  He said they are just getting to the final report in terms of research and are looking to hire a coordinator.  Neuzil said he thinks Pfeiler-Todd was invited for a reason.  Pfeiler-Todd asked if she had addressed most of the issues that cover that reason or are they suggesting moving everything to a later date with further discussion.  Neuzil responded that is what he is seeing.  Pfeiler-Todd said she agrees with Neuzil.  She asked if they would put it off another month.  Neuzil responded they are at least a couple of months from that. 

      Harney said he agreed with what they were saying, but added he would like to hear from Durrant to know at what point they think someone should be involved.  Lewis addressed the questions by saying the Board is very close to being ready for some research on the issue.  He said there are a number of drivers behind this type of project that help lead to a direction.  Lewis said that what he has been doing is getting the drivers associated with the economics and operational issues, including the physical infrastructure issues that are associated with the existing conditions and what that means with the long term issues.  He said that as they boil this down, what the Board will find that there are a number of sites that can work and are under consideration.  From that standpoint, Lewis said the Board will have to figure out which site is the best site that the public will support.  Lewis said they are close and added that there is a need for Vernon's services.  He they just need to look strategically at the appropriate time for those services and if there is information beyond the detail-drivers that Durrant is providing that the Board will want to make their decision.  Lewis said that if they can get a site that is similar to another, then they could use Vernon's services to pick one of them.  R. Sullivan asked if there are other issues for Pfeiler-Todd.  Neuzil said that he wants Pfeiler-Todd to come to future meetings and that it he doesn’t see the organization being used for at least four or five months, but that maybe he isn’t reading things right.  He said that it will take some time to get everything together, while they also study the report and get review from the public.

Durrant Group Managing Principal Mike Lewis, AIA: draft of Site Suitability Study

      Lewis said that it may not be exactly what the Board was talking about, but Polk County had a highly successful treatment plan.  He said that Polk County operated a 45-bed treatment unit in their interim jail and the success rate of their treatment program was fairly high.  Lewis said it became one of the drivers, as the new jail they built was planned for 385 beds and the projections to reduce the incarceration rate went from 6% incarceration rate in the projection to a 5% incarceration rate because of having the 385 treatment beds.  He said he commended the Board for looking at that to think about what it might mean for the overall plan. 

      Lewis said he has provided the Board with a little bit more detailed information regarding possible sites.  He said they had talked about getting some scale lab drawings that would show the massing and proportions of the properties and how each one of these properties be impacted.  He said they were looking at what it would mean to be on a rural site, what it would mean to be on urban site, and what it would mean if the jail and the courts were to be separated in terms of how the sites would be developed.  Lewis said that the six solutions may lead to other discussions and other solutions.  He said that they could lay out the proportions and massing.  Lewis said that in the urban and downtown configurations the scale on the drawings is one inch equals one hundred feet in order to show the context properly.  He said that when they got into the rural sites, given the size and the area, they had to change the scale to one inch equals two hundred feet.  Lewis said that in an urban area there would be a vertical solution whereas in the rural area the solution would be horizontal, which is why it took more area on the paper to show that solution.  He explained that each solution indicates the building footprint, the amount of parking allowed, and planned area for future expansion.  Lewis said there is also a height  ratio.  He said they were looking at 18-foot floor-to-floor heights on the buildings in order to put the necessary space in for structural and mechanical space.  He said they have statistically laid out and shown what each area means.  He said that when looking at site one, the existing Courthouse site, they would be looking into having the proposed Justice Center disconnected from the existing Courthouse, with the new jail and court components being built for the full maximum size of 196,000 square feet of space, which is roughly 50,000 square feet of space per level.  Lewis said if the existing Courthouse were to be reused or repurposed, there would be about 20,000 square feet of space there.  He said that the drawing in front of the Board showed the Justice Center separate from the current Courthouse by not trying to encumber the security issue of making an annex addition.  He said the Justice Center would get rather large on that block and the expansion into the structured parking area onto the south, would ultimately encumber the whole area.  Lewis said there would be some secured below-level parking underneath the building.  He said the Justice Center in this location would be comprised of five stories, one of them being a parking level. 

      Harney asked why Lewis decided against connecting and utilizing some of the space in the existing Courthouse.  Lewis said he had previously shown the Board what the connection would look like pressed up against the historic building.  He said he wanted to show graphically the difference between utilizing the Courthouse or not using it.  Lewis pointed out that if the Justice Center were to not be connected with the current Courthouse, the center would encumber the land and entire block.  R. Sullivan said they could still potentially keep the County Attorney’s Office and the Clerk of Court in the current Courthouse, but move other court functions to the new buildings.  Lewis said that they could do that, and given the elevation changes, they could possibly create a tunnel-type connection between the two buildings as opposed to an overhead link.  Stutsman asked if under this plan they would keep the current Jail to use as offices.  Lewis said that was incorrect.  He clarified that under this proposal, the current Jail would not be utilized at all and could be sold.  He said another option would be to have the Sheriff’s Administration and Control Divisions in the existing Jail, which would reduce the footprint a little bit.  Lewis commented that he feels the jail and courts should be in one building to support each other. 

      R. Sullivan asked if there was a reason that the design didn’t incorporate the houses to the west between the existing Jail and the lot.  He said at least a few of those houses are owned by Iowa City and could probably be incorporated easily.  He said they would have a willing seller for at least three or four of those five houses.  Harney said that Iowa City is definitely ready to sell three of the houses.  Lewis said they looked at it from a massive perspective.  He said that having that property would be advantageous to the solution, particularly from the future expansion perspective.  He said that it would incorporate parking and that it would be nice not to have to put money in and take money out for that future project.  He said that also, if they look beyond the three or so houses that would be available, it would be a pretty massive building sitting next to any residences.  He said his best recommendation would be to acquire the whole block. 

      Harney asked about how tall the building would be.  Lewis said it would be 72 feet above grade and then one level of parking below grade.  Lewis said that from the standpoint of the existing Courthouse which sits up on the hill, he said the proposed center would sit in a position that would feel 20 feet lower than the Courthouse.  He said the prominence of the historic Courthouse would remain intact, but there will be a massive building next to it. 

      Lewis said when they started looking at the site immediately north of the Health and Human Services Building, there was some question as to whether it would accommodate both the courts and jail.  He said that they were originally seeing it as half a block for the jail only, but they were later given direction to look at it as a full block.  Lewis said in doing so, it would be a three-level building to meet the program intent of 75,000 square feet per level.  He said there would be a 250-stall secured parking area below grade and three levels above grade.  Lewis said 100 stalls would ultimately need to be built for future expansion.  He said there would be room for 30,000 square feet of additional footprint for future growth, which would give the County up to three levels of up to 90,000 square feet of expansion.  Lewis said the projections based on the need for growth for courts and the need for growth for the jail in the future, are an additional 60,000 square feet of space beyond what Durrant is recommending the Board do at the initial stage.  He said this site with the possible 90,000 square foot of future growth could work.  Lewis said the limitation would be where they would have parking.  He said the parking ramp for the Health and Human Services Building may accommodate some of that parking concern.  R. Sullivan said that the Health and Human Services Parking Ramp is being built with enough footings that would allow another floor to be built if necessary.  Lewis asked how many parking stalls there will be more floor.  R. Sullivan said it will be a little over 100.  Lyness asked if the anticipation of the parking is underground.  Lewis said the anticipation of any parking underneath the building would be secured parking for official vehicles or for staff considerations only.  He said they would never propose a public stall go underneath the building because of the threat of security risks.  Lyness asked what the water table at that site is and if it would be possible to build there.  Lewis said on this specific site, there is a 15 foot drop from the high end near the railroad line to the low end, so that it would have to be a building in which one portion would be in the ground and another portion of the building would open to the outside.  He said they would have to look at entrance configurations to figure everything out.  Lewis added that he doesn’t think they would have to dig down 18 feet to get parking for the site. 

      Lewis said site three, the National Guard Armory, is very similar.  He said the only difference being that on the south side they wouldn't have the advantage of being able to use the topography and the 15-foot elevational change for the site to work.  He said this site would have a 66,000 square foot building footprint with the same amount of parking demand at three levels so the building would be 54 feet high.  Lewis said there would be the possibility of building four levels if digging down into the ground to put parking underneath would be undesirable.  He said the proximity to the creek and the water issues would have to be handled with a perimeter drain system and protection system of the foundation walls.  Lewis said the site ultimately would have added development costs compared to the site north of the Health and Human Services Building because of the need for the parking to go into the ground as opposed to just being partially buried.  R. Sullivan asked how much more it would cost.  Lewis said they are in the process of calculating the cost from each of the drawings.  He said that he just wanted to get some feedback from the Board.  Lewis added that Durrant will provide cost comparisons in the future.  Lewis explained that for this site they would most likely need to close a portion of Dubuque Street to get the expansion area needed for future growth.  He said that is just the dynamics of the site. 

      Lewis said site four, the County Farm area near Highway 218 and Melrose Avenue, was questioned as to the scale and footprint of a possible Justice Center.  He said at this site the jail would be a horizontal solution and would be tucked behind the courts building. He said that secured parking would not be housed in a structured environment surface lot.  He said official vehicles would drive around the side of the courts building and enter a vestibule system to the new jail.  He said there would be room for expansion and growth on the end of the building.  Lewis said that the courts building component would get built outward.  Lewis said he is proposing that the courts be built as a two-level solution and the jail a single level solution on the back, so there would be two stories and one story, with growth on each sides.  He said the proposal as built would not get into the tree line and the ravine, so they would want to take advantage of the grading slopes.  Lewis said he had to leave early during the Board's last meeting on the Joint Communications Center.  He said that he doesn’t want to do anything that would compete with the Board's ultimate decision on the Joint Communications Center and its location. 

      Meyers asked if the 120,000 square feet footprint would include an additional 60,000 square feet on the second floor for court space.  Lewis said that the each level of the courts building would be 45,000 square feet of space.  He said that is not clearly communicated on the item list.  Lewis said the Jail would be 85,000 square feet of space total, but would be in a mezzanine configuration where they have some cells on the ground and some cells on the mezzanine.  He said that in terms of the 120,000 square footprint, that is taking advantage of having the lower height construction and the mezzanine construction.  Lewis said, operationally, they are looking at a rural site, which is a flat site versus a vertical site.  Lewis said he and Pulkrabek have been having conversations about whether they should be looking at direct supervision or indirect supervision and which would be more efficient.  Lewis said he needs to look at other facilities.  Lewis said Pulkrabek had asked him to look at Dubuque's facility, which he was able to get to the first week of June 2008.  Lewis said that Pulkrabek has since communicated that he wants indirect supervision, so Lewis will have to layout everything since it wasn’t originally based that way. 

      Lewis said that site five would be south of the Johnson County Fairgrounds and would be very similar in terms of its layout requirements to the last site.  He said that instead of expanding property in a linear fashion, site five would expand the property in a U-Shaped configuration.  Lewis said that there are some efficiencies to be gained from the U-Shape from the planning perspective, because the longer the building, the longer staff would have to walk.  He said they can also do more to centralize control and staff points. 

      Lewis said the only reason he didn’t configure the building at the County Farm in a U-Shape was because of the historic barn property on one side and the ravine on the other.  He said these things forced the building in that location to be drawn out.  Lewis said that if they built the complex at the County Farm near the corner of Melrose Avenue, which is the northwest corner of the property, then the complex wouldn’t be long and drawn out and he could create a tighter configuration to promote some more efficiencies.

      Meyers asked if the square footage of site five would be virtually the same as site four.  Lewis responded they yes.  He said that the site proportions at site five would be a little more accommodating to some efficiencies.  He said he finally got the site to scale and site five is approximately 15 acres of property, which is a little less than the 25 acres previously recommended.  Nevertheless, Lewis said that it appears that the layout would still function fine.

      Harney asked Lewis if he would propose that any of the buildings be built so that future expansion upwards would be possible.  Lewis said it would depend on the location.  He said that in an urban environment, it would be worth putting the extra cost into the structure in order to be able to add another level at a future time or to simply build the exterior shell larger than needed and leave the interior vacant until it was needed.  Lewis said that at the rural sites, it would be unnecessary to allow for upward expansion because the County could always build next to the buildings in the future. 

      Lewis said that site six would have the ability, when looked at solely as the Courts piece, to spin off a whole host of other options.  He said site six proposes the situation of building the courts next to the existing Courthouse.  Lewis said, from his perspective, the courts would still be built separate from the existing Courthouse and would require acquiring the adjacent street or closing it.  He said the adjacent properties would not need to be acquired.  He stated the plan would require a four-level layout with secured parking below.  He said in this option the jail would not be located with the courts, but would be housed elsewhere, possibly at the Menards site.  Lewis said that of the exsisting144,000 square feet of space at Menards, they would need 85,000 square feet for the initial jail and the remaining 40,000 square feet could be used for future expansion.  Lewis said the Menards Building could only accommodate the jail.  Lewis said the Menards Building also already has 260 parking spaces in front of it.  He said he had projected a need of no more than 200 parking spaces with 120 needed for staff and 80 for visitors. 

      Stutsman asked where public parking would be for the courts building if it were to be built next to the existing Courthouse.  She said that Lewis had said there would be secure parking below, but wanted to know where the public would be parking.  Lewis responded that would be a problem with this site solution.  He said by building the footprint and only acquiring the street, they can only build approximately 80 stalls of secured parking under the court’s footprint.  He said this is unlike site one where they would have the benefit of having more secured parking under both the courts and the jail.  Lewis said there would obviously be a lack of public parking, which is a problem the County currently has at the existing Courthouse.  Lewis said either they could acquire the three houses down on the corner or other property to construct public parking.  He said they could also develop parking on the existing Jail site because they would be able to abandon that site.  He said there are a whole host of options. 

      Stutsman asked if a street would need to be closed for the sixth option.  Lewis confirmed this.  Meyers asked if the public parking in the earlier proposals would be surface parking.  Lewis said it would be surface parking.  He said that in the various scenarios, when the future expansion piece is looked at, they need to determine if a structured parking component is need for future growth.  Lewis said extra parking isn’t an immediate issue, but will be a long term one. 

      Meyers said that with the various sites there seems to be different square footage requirements.  He asked if that has anything to do with the sites.  Lewis said it directly relates to the area of the site and how much they have to build on.  He said the programmatic need is 196,000 square feet of space.  Lewis said they begin to look at the number of levels based on the site proportions.  Neuzil asked if there were any thoughts about concept proposals from the 1970s, looking at a portion of the hill behind the Courthouse and reverting that into possible area, thereby utilizing the Jail or the Courthouse.  Lewis asked if Neuzil was referring to the west side of the Courthouse.  Neuzil said yes.  He said that was the one that wasn’t represented today.  Lewis said he would call it 1A or 1B and added that that was put on the table two months ago.  Lewis said given the potential of closing the street and possibly being able to get into the ramp area the Federal Government owns, it seemed like the natural place to build.  Lewis said that it could be swung out on the west side, but the south side is more accommodating. He said if he took the same dimensions over to the west side, they would actually be getting into the public street.  He asked if the County would have the ability to close Capitol Street.  Lewis commented that he didn't think they would because of the traffic flow on Capitol Street, which is unlike that on Harrison Street.

      R. Sullivan asked Lewis if he has some information that will be coming in terms of operational and building costs to factor into the scenarios.  Lewis said he is ready to wrap up the final report and give R. Sullivan the details.  He said the costs are currently being calculated.  Lewis said he went ahead and started to input the other items that he told the Board about, including the courts components, and writing those narratives.  He said that he was under the impression that there would be some dialogue and they would be able to narrow everything down.  Lewis said if they couldn’t narrow everything down, that was fine.  He said he would just finish his information on the six proposals and narrow the options down at a different time.  He said from a process standpoint, it would be helpful to narrow the options down to two or three of the Board and Pulkrabek's favorites.  He said he could then do a detailed staffing plan with costs for those select sites.  Lewis said he recommends the Board and Pulkrabek narrow the options down so that he can give them more detailed information about the selected sites.

      Neuzil asked Lewis if he wants input from CJCC Members that have additional thoughts regarding the proposals.  Lewis said that he did.  Neuzil asked how Lewis would like them to contact him.  Lewis said email would be best because it would allow him to share the question and the response to a broader group of people when appropriate.  Stutsman asked if the Board wants Lewis to proceed with all of the sides or give him input to narrow the options.  Lewis said part of the scope is to hold some Community Awareness Meetings.  He said he wants feedback and is willing and would like to hold Town Hall Meetings to get a broader group of input.  Stutsman asked why they wouldn't have Vernon Research Group do that.  She said it seemed like it would be duplication.  County Attorney Janet Lyness said that is part of the contract with Lewis.  Lewis said the Vernon Research Group certainly has the skills and the talent to do some of the work.  He said there is a part of his agreement with the Board that requires him to participate and hold community meetings.  He said he is trying to fulfil his contractual obligations.  Stutsman she understood, but stated that six sites weren’t in his contract either.  Lewis said that is true too. 

      Pulkrabek said that is why he thinks the CJCC and the Board need to narrow down the options for Lewis.  Pulkrabek said he thinks they need to narrow the options down to three, so that Lewis can begin to figure out detailed costs associated with the remaining options.  Pulkrabek said that Lewis can also hold his community meetings after the Board determines which options to pursue.  Pulkrabek added that the Vernon Research Group can then step in to analyze the public's opinion of the remaining options to determine what the public will tolerate.  He said there is some room to use Vernon in the future, but the Board needs to give Lewis some direction now. 

      Pulkrabek said he is not impressed with the last option, which utilizes the Menards Building.  Harney commented that he isn't either.  Pulkrabek stated that he will speak for at least one Board member and say that the last option is off the table.  Pulkrabek asked the Board to help narrow down the options.  Harney said he doesn’t like the houses still being there with option one.  Harney said that he knows Iowa City owns three of those houses.  He asked if Lewis had looked at the possibility of acquiring those houses and then turning the facility somewhat so that the restricted parking would be more accessible from Capitol Street.  Neuzil commented that he thinks they should eliminate a few of the options and then they could look into some variations of the remaining options.  Stutsman asked if site six was off the table.  Harney and Pulkrabek commented that they do not like that site.  Pulkrabek said Neuzil is touching on some important points regarding site one.  Pulkrabek said there is some flexibility with site one.  He reiterated that they need to narrow the site locations down to three. 

      R. Sullivan said the problem with narrowing down the options right now is that there are no costs attached to any of the options.  He said they would be making decisions based on subjective things only.  R. Sullivan asked what if site six would cost $4 million and the rest would cost $80 million.  R. Sullivan said it would make it an easy choice for him to go with site six.  He said he is obviously exaggerating, but cautioned the Board and the CJCC from omitting such factors from the decision process.  R. Sullivan said without knowing the costs associated with purchasing certain property, building, and operating, he can’t fully judge these sites.  Lewis said he has to be honest.  He said that that he could estimate the cost of developing each site in terms of the infrastructure.  Lewis said that he could not estimate the cost of purchasing or acquiring land.  R. Sullivan said the Board could ballpark the cost of acquiring land because they've recently done that. 

      Lewis said there are two components left in that calculation.  He said that of the x number of million dollars that they have, Durrant has put in a site allowance development cost of 8%, which is the baseline number.  Lewis said that from that baseline number it will go down no more than 2% to 6% and will go up to no more than 12%.  He said the other issue is how to handle the parking scenario with regards to structured parking.  He said that is beyond the site development cost issue and is a whole other issue.  Lewis said those are two factors to calculate.  He said that is what they are finishing up with.

      R. Sullivan asked if the Board would like to hear what everyone else has to say.  Meyers said he would.  Meyers asked if he was correct that Pulkrabek didn't like the Menards site.  He asked Pulkrabek his reasons for that.  Pulkrabek said the proximity is somewhat of a problem.  He said if they are going to look at a combination package where they create an expansion to the Courthouse on the Courthouse property and do something with the Jail, then he would like to be closer to the Courthouse.  Pulkrabek said if they are talking about moving both the courts and jail somewhere, then that is a different story.  He pointed out that Menards doesn’t have the space for both.  Pulkrabek said that he doesn’t despise option six, but prefers combining the courts and the jail.  He said that the problem on site one is that the County doesn't know if they can acquire the General Services Administrations (GSA) Parking Lot from the Federal Government.  Pulkrabek said even if they don’t tie the two buildings together in the area of the existing Courthouse and Jail, at least it keeps them centrally located.  He added that based on what he has been doing the last couple months, he thinks there is pressure to keep the courts and jail centrally located.  Pulkrabek said they may have to look at a package that incorporates the current Courthouse and they may even have to look at something scaled down at the current Jail facility.  He said they may not get the GSA Parking Lot so they need to consider other options such as annexes.  Pulkrabek said Lewis' report recommends the County build ten or twelve courtrooms for future needs.  He said they may need to start out by building three or four courtrooms.  He said besides courtrooms they also need additional meeting space, Clerk of Court space, and County Attorney space.  Pulkrabek asked if they could make any of the buildings expandable so in 15 years they could build another floor so that they could have eight additional courtrooms.  He suggested building a 150-bed jail facility.  He said he knows the University of Iowa is willing to buy the current Jail property.  Pulkrabek commented however, that if they only get $5 million for the current Jail property, he doesn’t think that a $70 million bond issue will pass.  He said that they need to narrow down the sites and then look at options for changing them.  Pulkrabek commented that they need to think smaller and then move up and create buildings that are expandable.  He said that he appreciates R. Sullivan's cost concerns, but said that he doesn't think they are going to see a huge difference in the price. 

      Stutsman said that if they find that the options that were narrowed down are not acceptable, they can always go back to the other sites.  Pulkrabek agreed.  Pulkrabek commented that if the Vernon Research Group finds that the public won't support any of the options, then they'll know that they just need to spend $2 million per year on transporting inmates.  Stutsman said that they need to narrow everything down.  She said there will always be advantages and disadvantages of sites, but they don’t seem to be getting any closer to narrowing the options or making a decision.  R. Sullivan reiterated that he will have a hard time narrowing the options without knowing the costs.  Pulkrabek said that he understands what R. Sullivan is saying and doesn’t disagree, but he is thinking of Lewis whose hope was to analyze three or four sites.  He said having him do a cost analysis on six sites would be beyond the scope of the contract.  Meyers said site one, two, and three are essentially in the same area of town and essentially the same layout and site four and five are essentially the same thing, but site six is something different.  He said there are three different styles.  R. Sullivan said four and five are similar, but the County already owns the land for option four.  He said they would have to acquire land for option five, so he believes that should eliminate it.  Stutsman asked if there were three votes to eliminate option five.  She said she was willing to eliminate five. 

      Johnson County Bar Association Representative Jim McCarragher of the Bar Association said he agrees that they need to narrow down the search and that they need a combined courts and jail facility.  He and his committee proposed, however, that the Board would consider construction of a single complex that would house both the courts and the jail.  McCarragher said, secondly, they would like the Board to focus on a site that is located in the metropolitan area of Iowa City.  He said that there are many reasons that would support a joint center rather than two separate centers.  McCarragher said the first reason would be cost.  He said there would be real estate acquisition costs that would be saved by having one parcel of land to build one structure on as opposed to two parcels of land for two structures.  McCarragher said there would be equipment costs that could be saved.  He said there would be one secured entrance with equipment for monitoring rather than having two different buildings that have to be secured differently at two different locations.  McCarragher said maintenance costs would also be saved.  He said there would also be future expansion cost considerations.  McCarragher said one expansion would be much cheaper and take up less space than two.  He also said if the two buildings were together then they would be able to share things such as meeting rooms for attorneys and clients, deposition rooms where inmates may be involved, rooms for housing drug and alcohol programs, as well as MECCA programs.  He said they need to have multiple spare rooms within one building.  McCarragher said they also need secured parking for both the Courthouse and the Jail.  He suggested having one central parking facility for both of them, rather than building two parking lots.  McCarragher said then they get down to the cost and issues of planning, design, voter referendum, bonding, funding costs.  He said it would be best to build once.  He said it would also reduce staff concerns for Pulkrabek.  He said a single secured entrance staffed with three or four different people would be more cost and staff effective.  He said when moving inmates, there would be a lot less staff involved.  McCarragher stated he envisioned transporting inmates through secure passages and elevators to courtrooms, which would reduce transportation costs.  He said if the courts and the jail were in one building together, they wouldn’t need to use a van that would require gas.  McCarragher said transportation costs will vary depending on how far apart the buildings are and in what location they are placed.  He said it would also depend on the time of the day.  McCarragher said one building would significantly enhance the efficient movement of inmates.  He asked the Board to consider the lost time that would be saved if the inmates were in the same building as the courts.  He explained that under the current system, even though the Courthouse and Jail aren’t far apart, the courts aren’t always running at the correct time.  McCarragher said if the inmates are in the same building it would make things much easier. 

      Stutsman said McCarragher made some great points for the one building, but said she believed the Board had already decided that they didn’t want to do separate sites and had eliminated site six.  McCarragher said he wanted to reinforce R. Sullivan’s points.  R. Sullivan said the only decision made was to eliminate site six.  Stutsman agreed and commented that site six was the only site with two locations.  McCarragher said he thought that R. Sullivan wanted to check out the Menards and the costs.  He said the Bar Association is looking at a single facility.  McCarragher said the second point he wanted to make is that his committee wants to see the facility built in the metropolitan area of downtown Iowa City.  He said Iowa City has always been the seat for County Government and always will be.  He said that the continued location in the downtown area with access to public transportation would be in the best interest of all who wish to use the facility, including the elderly, the low income, and those with disabilities who have trouble getting around.  McCarragher concluded by saying that he would like to ask the Board to focus on a single building for the courts and the jail and keep it in a central, downtown location and focus on the first, second, or third choice.  McCarragher continued by saying that he likes option one because they could continue using the current Courthouse for something.

      R. Sullivan said that what McCarragher said makes sense, but it still doesn't address costs.  R. Sullivan said that the public will decide on the bond issue in large part based on costs.  He said they took option six off the table, so that they are down to five choices.  R. Sullivan said, as Meyers pointed out, numbers four and five are of similar design and are equidistant from the current Courthouse area.  R. Sullivan said the big issue being the County owns the land for site four, but not for site five.  Stutsman said that she thinks there needs to be a central location, but the public needs to weigh in on building downtown or on land the County already owns.  She said she still wants to consider option four for that reason.  R. Sullivan said his choices would be options one, three, and four.  Stutsman said she would go along with that.  He said they already own the land for option three and option two doesn’t gain much over three other than that it would be two blocks closer to downtown. 

      McCarragher asked if option three was next to the Armory.  R. Sullivan said that three would be the Armory.  McCarragher said there they would have the additional cost of the water problem with the creek, plus they would have to close off the street.  R. Sullivan asked if those additional costs would be more than buying out a downtown block of land.  He added that the County at least owns the land the Armory is on.  Stutsman said those are the unknowns they don’t know, but at least it would put it on the table as to what the next step would be.  R. Sullivan said, having considered things, they could throw out options one, three, and four because they get the same costs looked at that way.  Lewis asked if the County owned the land for options three and four.  R. Sullivan explained that they owned the land for options three and four.  Lewis stated that he misspoke and was talking about options two and three.  Lewis said land acquisition on option three is more economical because the land is already owned by the County as compared to option two.  He explained that even with the cost of underground parking, they would still be paying less for option three because the County owns the land.

      Harney said what Lewis was saying is true, but added that the University is willing to do a slot or pay cash for the current Jail site.  Stutsman said site two is limited in terms of expansion.  She said they could get into details as to why it won’t work, but that they need to move ahead and go to the next step.  R. Sullivan said he prefers options one, three, and four, but that they could also look into option two as well, which won’t narrow it down much.  Pulkrabek said there is at least one supervisor that won't even consider option four because of the location.  Stutsman stated that she knew that one Board member wouldn't consider option four, but explained that it takes only three supervisors to make a decision.  R. Sullivan said they have to have the costs, even if they decide not to do the project, it is vital to have the cost.  Stutsman agreed, and said the public will ask why they are looking into a project without knowing how much they will have to spend on it.  Stutsman and R. Sullivan said they got rid of options five and six.  R. Sullivan said with option five they don’t gain anything over option four since they already own the land for option four.  Neuzil explained that the other difference between option four and option five is the residential factor that option four has, but five doesn't.  He added that option five would also not be in the middle of a park.  Pulkrabek said they do gain something with option five.  He explained that the option five isn't designated to become a park and doesn't have residences that are high in dollar value within a half a mile of it.  He said for those reasons option five would take precedence over option four.  R. Sullivan commented that Lewis can figure out the costs for all six options then.  Harney asked what the dollar value has to do with it.  Pulkrabek said he believed that the people who live on Melrose Avenue have the resources to mount a campaign against a facility being built there.  Neuzil stated that they did last time.  Pulkrabek agreed.  Harney said they have the same problems with site five. 

      R. Sullivan said the Board agreed they could eliminate site six.  Neuzil said he was also comfortable eliminating site two.  Stutsman said they were all over the map.  She commented that they should pay Lewis more money to evaluate all of the options.  Neuzil asked if anyone wanted site two.  Stutsman replied she wanted site two.  R. Sullivan said they are grabbling with a seventy million dollar question and should evaluate each option and spend money to do things right.  He said they shouldn’t have to guess on what could be a maybe.  Stutsman said she almost thinks they should do the Vernon project first.  Stutsman said that she is worried that the Board will come up with a plan and site that they feel are right, but the public will want something completely different.  R. Sullivan said they have to be able to tell the public what it will cost.  He said as a voter, costs motivate him.  Pulkrabek agreed and said they must have the costs of the options before the Vernon Research Group begins their work. 

      Lewis asked if he should figure the costs on all five options.  Stutsman said she would like to pull option five off the table because she doesn’t think it will be very practical.  R. Sullivan asked Meyers what he thinks.  McCarragher asked if there is a reason the Board doesn't think the public would support keeping everything in the central downtown area.  He said they will have extra costs that they must consider if they want to take stuff and put it out in the county.  He said they have a community that currently supports the courts being located in the downtown area.  Neuzil said the Board can't simply look at options that would require them to purchase property.  He said, for example, if the Board chooses site one, the public will ask why they didn't chose the Armory site when the County already owns that land.  Neuzil said that is what he and the other Board members are looking at.  McCarragher said they can narrow the decision by only looking at options that will keep the jail and courts centrally located.  R. Sullivan said McCarragher has a hundred reasons and they are all good, but the public needs to know costs as one of the comparisons.  Lewis said that he will figure the costs for the five remaining options.  R. Sullivan asked if Harney would be ok with that.  Harney said he doesn’t have a problem with the five sites.  Pulkrabek commented that Story County built their jail outside of the Ames city limits and has been very successful with it. 

      Oak Crest Hill Road Resident Paula Gretter said that the residents in her area have been meeting since it was brought to their attention a couple of weeks ago that the Board was considering building a jail in their area.  She said that the majority of residents were under the impression that the jail was going to be built on Melrose Avenue.  She said it caught them off guard.  Gretter said it has concerned them because County officials seem less concerned about placing the jail next to a trailer park than next to high dollar homes.  She said it is not an avenue that the community wants to pursue, but there are enough people out there that can raise money.  She said it is also on record that the Board is concerned about the high income people and is trying to put a jail very close to a trailer park.  Gretter said it will have a higher impact on the people living at the trailer park. Gretter said the Board should be evaluating the sight options on their merits.  She said she was hoping to see a point system.  Gretter said she was hoping a site would be decided based on the merits and criteria rather than income level.  She said that no one wants the jail in their neighborhood and that her community found it offensive that the Board wanted it in their neighborhood. 

      Neuzil explained that the issue that came out in 2000 was that any Iowa City residents released from a possible jail at the County Farm would have to walk back to Iowa City through a neighborhood.  Neuzil said at the site near the trailer park, Iowa City residents would not have to walk back to Iowa City through any neighborhoods.  Neuzil said he was trying to explain to Gretter the justification of why they would put the jail south of Iowa City.  He commented that he doesn't think any rural sites would be that plausible.  He said that was the argument in 2000.  He said a lot of residents were against the measure because the concern was that a lot of students were going to get arrested and have to walk back.  Pulkrabek said that it isn't about economics, but the residents living near the County Farm went on record against it.  Pulkrabek said the bottom line is that this is a political process and they have to look at the politics of it.  Pulkrabek commented that based on their past record, the residents near the County Farm will oppose the site and mount a campaign.  He said the residents living in Regency Trailer Park may mount a fight against it too.  Gretter said that she doesn't want to go into any further.  She told the Board that the residents at Oak Crest will mount against the cause too.  R. Sullivan commented that he believes its safe to say that residents in either of those areas will put up a fight. 

      Gretter said in Oak Crest, the Board would also get into the whole zoning issue.  R. Sullivan said that the land would be used for County use, so the Board would control that anyway.  She said the three criteria in zoning includes that it has to fall into the comprehensive plan and putting something out at Oak Crest is completely different from the Board's comprehensive plan.  Gretter said all the Board's planning is growth north.  She said that they don’t want anything south.  Neuzil explained that the area is in the fringe area of the community.  Gretter said, according to the plat map, that it was not.  She said according to her plat map it would be right outside Iowa City's growth area.

      R. Sullivan said that Gretter's point is a point well taken.  He said the Board is well aware of her concerns.  Gretter reiterated that no one will come in and ask the Board to put a jail in their backyard.  She said it makes her and other residents nervous when they hear that residents on Melrose Avenue don't want it in their backyard and nothing is ever said about residents on Oak Crest.  Gretter said Oak Crest residents don’t want it either.  Stutsman said there are a couple of things to consider about the Oak Crest site.  She said for one, it would not be accessible, as there isn't a bus route out there.  She said that County also doesn't own the land near Oak Crest.  She said it goes without saying, that if they have to buy land it will increase the cost.  Gretter said that in the evaluation, one of the nine points is fire.  She said that would be the Hills Volunteer Fire Department.  She said the would have to do something about that.  She said even if they could still get it into Iowa City, it would still more than double the distance from the nearest fire department, than any of the nearest sites.  Gretter said when they talk about law suits and overcrowding, it will come out that they purposely put it more than double from the nearest fire station.  R. Sullivan explained that the jail would have sprinkler systems.  Pulkrabek agreed and explained the fire suppression system for a jail is much different than that for most buildings.  Neuzil said Gretter's points were points well taken.  Pulkrabek said they are things that they will have to consider. 

      R. Sullivan said they need to make a decision as to whether they need to consider three, four, or five of the locations for financial review and data.  Lyness said that someone had made the same comment earlier, but options four and five would be similar in structure.  She asked if there will be a lot of cost difference between the two.  Lewis commented that costs would be similar.  He noted that if they move it up on the northwest corner, the impact is virtually the same.  R. Sullivan said that Neuzil is against site four, but not necessarily site five.  Lyness said that if they are trying to figure costs, aside from acquisition costs, it won’t matter if it is site three or not.  Lewis said it will cost the same to develop it.  Meyers reiterated that options one, two, and three are similar and options four and five are similar.  He said option six is a third option.  Meyers asked Lewis if he could come up with three estimates that would reasonably cover all six options.  Lewis stated that there was enough difference between site two and site three that they should be considered separately. 

      R. Sullivan said they should focus on what Lyness had recommended.  He asked if they would get a good enough sense of the costs if they eliminated option five and looked at options one, two, three, and four.  Pulkrabek stated that he agreed with Lyness and said that he would be fine with looking at those options.  R. Sullivan asked if it would be OK to take option five off the table.  Neuzil clarified that they wouldn’t be eliminating site five as a possible site, but would be eliminating as far as the financial study.  He added that he would be comfortable eliminating it.  R. Sullivan said they should go ahead with four sites.  Stutsman agreed.  Meyers said he would be OK with four sites, although he hadn’t heard why site six was dropped other than that it was too separate.  He commented that R. Sullivan was making the point earlier that they shouldn't take options off the table without knowing their costs.  He added that they won't know whether option six would have been cheaper than the other options if they eliminate it.  Lewis said that he had looked back to his notes from the last meeting and his notes read "continue to evaluate a separate jail and court solution."  Lewis said that he agrees the Board shouldn't look at the Menards site, but recommended they still consider separate facilities. 

      R. Sullivan commented that there are so many assumptions to deal with.  He said they are looking at sites with the assumption that the County could acquire any of the needed land.  Stutsman said they are definitely going to consider sites one and two.  R. Sullivan said he would like to see site three as well.  Stutsman said she would as well.  R. Sullivan and Stutsman said they would like to see site four reviewed.  Stutsman asked about site five.  R. Sullivan said he would be comfortable leaving that off because of similarities between site five and site four.  Stutsman asked about considering site six.  Harney said he wouldn’t consider site six.  Stutsman said she has a hunch that the Menards Building won't be on the market forever.  She said that she would hate to see them spend a lot of time and energy on something that isn’t going to be feasible.  Meyers said he struggles with proximity of site six to the airport.  R. Sullivan asked if there were three Board members in favor of looking at option six.  Stutsman said she doesn’t want to look at site six.  R. Sullivan said that it sounded like the Board is interested in sites one, two, three, and four. 

      R. Sullivan said the Board would like to see the acquisition costs, land development costs, and operating costs for sites one through four.  Lewis said he wants to be very respectful of the Board's choice and the timeline.  He said that he doesn’t want to give the Board a quick decision.  He informed the Board that he would send Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan an email outlining the remaining tasks and timelines, in order to give the Board the documented plan on or before June 11, 2008.  Harney said Lewis won’t know the true cost if he has to guess on acquisition costs.  Harney said Lewis would know building costs, but not acquisition costs.  R. Sullivan said the Board is going to estimate acquisition costs based on what they paid for the block that the Health and Human Services Building is being built on.  Lewis said his scope stops short of getting land acquisition costs.  R. Sullivan said that Iowa City Assessor and the County Assessor could assist with the acquisition costs.  M. Sullivan said it would be an estimate at best. 

      Meyers asked if Lewis is going to hold public input sessions.  Lewis said he would up to three public input sessions.  He said obviously he owes the Board some public input sessions.  Meyers asked if Lewis had any thoughts on when the sessions might take place.  Lewis said his personal view is that in the summer months it is very difficult to hold such sessions because of people’s vacations and travel schedules.  He said given where they are now, the September or October time frame would be logical for a public meeting.  Lewis asked Pfeiler-Todd what she thought.  Pfeiler-Todd said she wouldn't necessarily hold out that long.  She said the Vernon Research Group recruits people all year long.  Pfeiler-Todd said the Board needs to figure out who they are targeting for input.  Pfeiler-Todd said she is thinking of other ways to get community feedback that would help determine how much needs to happen and how many groups the Board needs to hear from.  She said that could work something out so that work doesn't get duplicated by Lewis and Pfeiler-Todd. 

      Lewis said his preference would be not to have public meetings right away.  Stutsman said Lewis has a lot of information to get together before he goes out to the public.  Lewis said he is in the information gathering stage and hopes to wrap it up in a couple weeks.  He said that he wants to give M. Sullivan a very detailed, thoughtful task list to share with the broader group.  Pfeiler-Todd asked Lewis could get some ballpark figures together by July 1, 2008.  Lewis said that he could.  Pfeiler-Todd said she thinks she can put something together to figure out what the best plan of action is so that they can get people on board.  Pfeiler-Todd stated that she thinks she can tweak her original plan so they can decide how to proceed with the next project. 

Report from alternatives and treatment opportunities sub-committee.

      Lovell said MECCA staff attended the initial appearances for 63 inmates.  She said they had 64 requested evaluations and of those, 61 were completed.  She said that one person declined because they wanted to get to work, one didn’t want to wait for a translator, and one was already in their services so they didn’t complete it.  Lovell said approximately 67% were recommended for substance abuse treatment, 26% were recommended for the extended outpatient program, 2% for the continuing care program, 6% for intensive outpatient, and 6% for residential.  Pulkrabek asked if they got the disclaimer done for the back of the form.  He explained that because there have been several people declining MECCA's services, they wanted to put a disclaimer on the form explaining the benefits of the services.  Lovell said that they meet with everyone that has been court ordered to attend treatment.  She said that MECCA workers explain the benefits of their services to those who refuse.  If they further refuse, MECCA provides them with a handout of all of the treatment agencies within the area in case they later change their mind.  Pulkrabek said he is comfortable with that. 

      Neuzil left at 6:12 p.m.

additional comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee members.

      Pulkrabek informed the Board that Coralville had called his office regarding sandbagging efforts.  He said they sent nine inmates to Coralville to assist with sandbagging.  Pulkrabek informed the inmates that they would consider a higher percentage of good time for sandbagging.  He said that they inmates that they sent are all short-term and are not a risk.  Lyness asked if anyone got hurt.  Pulkrabek said they are probably still pushing sand.  R. Sullivan asked where they were sandbagging at.  Pulkrabek said he didn't know where they were sandbagging.  He said the Corp of Engineers is going to raise the outflow of the Coralville Reservoir to 16,000 feet, which will flood Coralville.  Stutsman asked if it flood all of Coralville.  Pulkrabek responded that it will flood that area of Coralville.  Stutsman commented that the Clear Creek area may flood as well. 

      Lyness said that she and Captain Dave Wagner went to Black Hawk County the day before and met with the Lieutenant of the Jail and the County Attorney.  She said they have a Psychiatric Nurse who works within their jail.  She said they have a contract for something similar to Johnson County’s Jail Alternatives Program.  She said the county also jointly funds a position that handles intensive pretrial supervision with the Department of Correctional Services.  Lyness said that a committee meets every Tuesday to go over a list of who is in jail to figure out who they can move out.  She commented that this is similar to what a case expeditor might do.  She said Black Hawk County has a 250-bed jail, so it isn’t as crucial a need as Johnson County’s, but it is a program Wagner and Lyness are looking at pursuing in order to decrease the amount spent on shipping inmates out of Johnson County. 

      Pulkrabek commented that Jasper County is now home to many Johnson County inmates.  Stutsman asked if the County uses a big van to transport inmates.  Wagner said they use a van, but it is not big enough.  Lyness asked what the cost to transport inmates was last month.  Pulkrabek said the cost last month was $106,000 or $108,000.  He said the he put out a press release.  He added that it was the first month they've ever went over $100,000.  Wagner said that one day alone they spent $4,000 in transportation costs.  He said that in next year’s budget they budgeted $800,000 for transportation costs.  He said if they average $100,000 a month, they will only be $104,000 below what they should have budgeted.  Pulkrabek said 1.2 million is apparently what they should have budgeted.  He said hopefully they won’t retain that.  R. Sullivan asked if there was anyone else on the CJCC with comments. 

Additional Comments from the Public

      Gretter said that those in the Oak Crest neighborhood have been discussing the fact that their neighborhood is being considered for a possible jail location.  She said they hope the Board's decision is reasonable and logical.  Gretter said that they realize that even though they do not want the jail near their neighborhood, it may be the most logical place to put it.  She said that her job is to listen and take down the information and share what she has heard.  R. Sullivan complimented Gretter on her ability to talk about the situation.  Pulkrabek said that any of the Board members and Elected Officials would be glad to go to the meetings the community has.  Gretter commented that Harney had met with her last week.  She asked the Board to give their side fair consideration. 

      Adjourned at 6:23 p.m.

Attest:  Tom Slockett, Auditor

By John Deeth, Recording Secretary