MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Discussion: Future Status of Conducting Joint Meetings
Additional Comments From Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members
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.
R. Sullivan said the Justice Center Site Suitability study has been distributed to members of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC). Durrant Group, Inc. AIA Managing Principal Mike Lewis said he and Associate Bob Olsen have put together a PowerPoint for outlining the existing four sites. Lewis said Site One is the existing Courthouse site, Site Two is immediately north of the Administration Building, Site Four is the Melrose site on the farm property, Site Five is the Oak Crest site. Site Five has the same footprint as the farm. Lewis said the Armory site immediately to the south has been eliminated due to flooding issues.
Lewis said the conceptual designs they are presenting are not final floor plans and are intended to evaluate block diagrams of how major blocks of space need to fit together. Lewis said they prepared enough design or conceptual layout to determine the staffing plan for the Jail.
Associate Bob Olsen said the existing Courthouse and the site south of there are classified as urban sites. The other two sites are classified as suburban sites. Olson said, the existing Courthouse site took advantage of what is known as a phenomenal drop in elevation from the northeast corner to the southwest corner of about 40 feet. He said that plays to their advantage on the site. They located an annex to the south to allow for a single and secure entry point at the lowest level of the existing Courthouse. After meeting with the Sheriff and his staff several times, they determined this scenario allows the existing Jail building to be reused by renovating 13,000 square feet on the lower level. Olson said the upper level could be for future expansion.
Lewis said using the existing Jail space allows the Sheriff's administration, patrol, and civil/investigative divisions to remain in the same location, so the Justice annex, including jail and courts would comprise the new jail space. He said they are looking at the existing Courthouse space to be reused in the scheme as well. Lewis said there is a little over 40,000 square feet of space in this solution of existing buildings that gets reused. He said that comes as a savings to the ultimate solution.
Olson referred to the PowerPoint to show the lower level Sheriff’s Administration space. The next level up is the first level of the Jail and the kitchen and laundry are connected to that the Jail. The vehicle sally port is off of South Clinton and the Jail Administration Intake Release Center. He said the upper level will be for future expansion. Stutsman asked if the street level is the second level. Olson said the second level is one story above street level. R. Sullivan clarified that the street level entrance is on Capitol Street and Olson said correct. Lewis said there is a way to bring a connecting skywalk into the Jail on the second level of the existing Sheriff’s building.
Olson pointed to the slide indicating where the ramped new plaza entry would be. The plan shows meeting rooms off to the right, and off to the left is the lobby with the Clerk of Court and County Attorney's office. This space will also include meeting rooms and the mezzanine level of the Jail. The new courtrooms are up one more level in addition to some public space with an internal bridge connecting to the Courthouse. The plan includes the possibility of renovating and adding two family courts within the Courthouse. There are also four new courtrooms with a holding area that would come up from below, and there are Judge’s chambers all around the perimeter. The next level is the upper level of the Courthouse. Olson said as part of the renovation they would like to develop vertical circulation stairs and elevators so this area can function with its own circulation system. Olson said another advantage to this scheme is that it allows for vertical expansion on top of the Jail or horizontal expansion to the south if the Federal Government cooperates with the Government Service Area parking lot (GSA).
Lewis said future vertical expansion is possible with this scheme. Neuzil asked if there will be an advantage to building the shell now. Lewis said, yes, it is more economical. Lewis said in the report this site was priced out at $270 per square foot. The original baseline price was $296 per square foot. They calculated that the shell cost would be $130 per square foot which adds another $6.8 million dollars to the project.
Lewis said they worked with the Sheriff’s Office to identify the number of staff needed. The baseline staffing need is 71 for a 240 bed facility. Currently there are 52 staff members and the current ratio is 1.7:1 when taking the rated capacity of the current Jail. He said with 71 staff on the baseline, they will need to add 19 people. Lewis said they took the baseline information to determine staffing needs at each site. The vertical movement layout of this site calls for five movement officers as opposed to eight identified in the baseline. Therefore 68 staff members are needed to operate the 240 bed Jail.
Lewis said they evaluated a Level Five position in terms of cost for staff. Lewis said County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek sent him calculations and information on the salary and benefits for the cooks, the control matrons, and the deputies. They calculated an average cost per staff position of $64,350. Lewis said while some people will be making more than that and other entry people would be lower than a Step Five, they took the blended average in the calculation. Lewis said he calculated 16 new people at this site at a salary of $64,350 to get to the number of $1,032,000.
R. Sullivan said currently the Jail houses about 150 or so inmates. Hypothetically the Justice Center could be up and running in three or four years and the number of inmates could increase by 20 for a total of 170. He asked how Lewis justifies a 240 bed facility and wondered if the Jail would be at capacity within a few months of opening. Lewis said his experience is that staffing ramps up over time. They have evaluated the incremental calculations of the number of inmates per year, and over a 20 year period they expect the Jail would be at 240 inmates. R. Sullivan said it is safe to say that 16 new positions will not be needed upon opening. Lewis said he agrees completely. Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said some people believe that empty jail space should be leased out for revenue. He said he has talked to people in the business community who feel strongly in favor of leasing for revenue.
Lewis said the current booking operations are extremely limited. The staffing projection of 68 new people includes 21 in the booking operations. Right now the deputies that are responsible for housing, food, and laundry are in and out of the booking area. He said they want dedicated people in the booking area dealing with classification and movement in and out of the holding area. Lewis said he thinks by having an effective booking operation they will actually improve on the number of people in their facility because they have changed the length of stay scenario by better utilizing booking.
Neuzil asked where public parking would be. Lewis said inside the lower level there are 105 secured parking stalls and traditionally they wouldn’t allow the public to park under the building for terrorist threat reasons. Lewis said there are also 14 stalls in the vehicular sally port for a total of 119 parking stalls. If the GSA land is acquired 160 stalls will be available for public parking. Parking on the west and north sides around the existing Courthouse can continue. That adds another 40 stalls in addition to metered spaces on the street. Neuzil said he knows there has been talk about removing the parking near the Courthouse simply because of security and he knows the City of Iowa City is talking about building more ramps.
County Attorney Janet Lyness asked how many spaces would be available to Courthouse employees. Lewis responded 40 surface spaces and 105 underground. Lyness said the Courthouse alone currently has 70 full spots already and that does not include the Sheriff's Office staff. She stated 145 spaces will not be nearly enough parking. Neuzil said that they will have to consider parking needs in more detail later. Lewis said in the baseline report they identified a need for 200 stalls. This analysis shows how many can fit on one level underneath this footprint and he does not deny that there are other parking needs. Neuzil said this location looks like it incorporates a little of the GSA lot and they would have to determine fairly early on if the County can negotiate something with the owners of the GSA parking lot.
Olson said the good news is the number of scenarios they can pursue with this site. Parking structures are being built a couple of blocks away. Neuzil asked if there has been any discussion about the west side of the Courthouse. Olson said that is available if they want to go down some levels for parking. He said they can still go down two stories and get some parking. Lewis said one of the first schemes they did on this site at the level is to look at two levels of secured parking underneath the footprint. That was not the best option as it impeded some service and delivery aspects of the kitchen and booking operations. Lewis said the advantage of only having one level is the ability for at-grade access for service and delivery on one side.
Olson said a variation could also be to go down a half level and up a half level. There are many opportunities with the topography, the existing buildings, and existing urban fabric. Harney said the original plans included almost three levels of parking on the west side of the Courthouse and with this there would be ground level parking behind the present Courthouse. Lewis said they did evaluate that possibility. The 51,000 square feet footprint would be compressed a little tighter and it also gets taller. Lewis explained they were beginning to get concerned about the height of the mass against the existing Courthouse because it got more slender.
Neuzil asked for more detail about the actual Courthouse and renovation versus building another level and making courtrooms, and not using the Courthouse as much. Neuzil recalled that early on there was talk about making the Courthouse more administrative with updates to the courtrooms and occasional use of the existing courtroom. Lewis replied with more details and said the cost is at $125 to $130 per square foot to renovate compared to new construction costs that are pushing about $280 per foot. He said they are looking at about $150 per square foot and trying to figure out how to use it. Stutsman suggested avoiding too much detail in presentation at this point.
Olson said Site One offers good access to public transportation. He said smart growth and sustainability issues also make this site attractive. Stutsman asked Olson to clarify smart growth and sustainability. Olson said it means keeping the Justice Center closer to the urban fabric and closer to the attorney’s function.
Olson presented Site Two stating it is confined to a 220 foot square block. The first level has half structure-enclosed parking. He identified all working areas of this site. Lewis said the lobby is the reception lobby for people going to court. Visitors will go up an escalator once they have processed through screening. The lobby on the lowest level houses the video visitation for the Jail. Olson showed the main floor lobby and pointed out there is a bit of a slope to the south, so they can tuck it in to the north where the first level of the Jail is. Olson identified the lobby, the Clerk of Court, meeting rooms, the County Attorney offices, and storage on the PowerPoint. He said the second level of the Jail is on top of that as well as eight courtrooms, public circulation, private and more secured circulation, Judge’s chambers, support, and holding area.
Olson said this site will require vertical expansion for the Jail and courts. Lewis said by adding another story they will basically be able to put another 240 beds on top of the Jail that is there now and another eight courtrooms above that if they build the shell. Olson said that because of the vertical movement necessity with this site it is less efficient then Site One. Site Two has increased staff and construction costs are about $8 million higher. There are about 85 parking spaces here and Lewis explained that this has to do with the ramp being built across the street. He said when they first laid this out and put secured parking on a whole footprint underneath the building they then determined it was not needed since they already are building parking ramps.
Stutsman asked Facilities Manager David Kempf how many parking places they have in the ramp. Kempf replied they can add another 120 on the third level. He said they have the capacity to add more. Meyers asked when considering the parking ramp across the street, did they factor in the costs for having to add a third level to it. Lewis replied no. He said there is a lot more vertical movement on this site and therefore they have added five staff positions.
Neuzil asked if the scenario incorporated using the existing Courthouse or Jail. Lewis said no. He explained that part of the footprint is a little bigger and has all the Sheriff’s, administration, civil, and court functions in the building. R. Sullivan asked if jail alternatives such as classes with MECCA, DCI, or religious services would take place on the mezzanine. Lewis said that would be in the Housing Support area. The physical space is there, but it is not identified in the diagram. R. Sullivan asked approximately how much space for those sorts of things is built into the designs. Lewis said housing support space is 3,500 square feet of space. Lewis said they build medical support space in the classroom and in the housing unit. He said the idea is to not have the offender move from the housing unit. Lewis said once they are in, they have the multi-purpose classroom space in there. R. Sullivan asked if the 3,500 square feet is exercise space as well. Lewis said no, that it is professional visitation and classroom space. There is however exercise space built into the housing units.
Stutsman asked if the first site had space for medical housing. Olson replied yes. Stutsman asked if staffing for medical housing will add a lot of staff. Lewis replied it is included in the detail analysis. Stutsman asked if they will have nurses on staff. Lewis answered that this site includes just a clinic, not an infirmary. The medical beds are designed to be just like another housing unit; they are basically running a clinic inside the Jail.
Pulkrabek addressed Stutsman saying he thinks they will eventually need a full-time nurse on staff. Then, preferably, the County would expand its contract and program with Physician Assistants from the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Pulkrabek said, if the County Jail will be dealing with 200 plus inmates, it will be time to add a nurse. R. Sullivan asked if the public and the Jail inspector would be satisfied with what will be built in there. Lewis said yes. He said another staffing issue is the number of support service staff needed in the kitchen and laundry, specifically cooks. Lewis said the number of support staff now is three but the projections have been expanded to five based on discussions and the knowledge that more staff are needed to serve the amount of offenders.
Olson said Site Four is the County Farm. He said he and Lewis have spent time on the farm to better understand the relationship of the complex of buildings and the cemetery to the fields. They developed a scheme that lies to the west side of the site. He said there will be a court component, a main entrance, a sally port, and then a jail to the south. There will be 100 public parking spots and 200 employee secured spots. Horizontal expansions can be made and are shown in the plan.
Olson said Site Five has a very similar footprint. It has a similar parking arrangement with 100 public spots and 200 employee secured spots. This site has a natural buffer with topography, vegetation, and trees. The main level will include: video visitation, the lobby, the County Attorney's Office, Clerk of Court, hearing and meeting rooms, and then the court component. The public circulation is secured. There will be Judge’s chambers, administration, Intake Release, the sally port, Sheriff's Office, Jail Administration, and then the Jail component. Olson said the mezzanine is on this level. Both sites have a slight drop to the south which works well from a topographical point of view. The main level, kitchen, laundry, storage, and mechanical areas tuck underneath the side and a tunnel is built to get to the inmate holding area on the court level above.
Olson said the capital cost is $700,000 more than Site One at the low end, and more than that at the high end. Since future expansion can be horizontal, they don’t need to factor in shell construction. He said a positive is that all functions are in one building.
Lewis said their recommendation is Site One with the existing Courthouse. Staffing is 60% of the cost of the Jail and so it makes sense to factor that in and ask what is the most staff efficient location. Lewis said saving staff positions is a major issue. He said from an energy efficiency standpoint, they all start with the same base point. The building will be highly energy efficient and take advantage of the natural light in the court spaces. Lewis regards all the sites as equal in regards to energy efficiency.
Harney asked if the County chooses Site One and is able to obtain the entire GSA lot would that change the plans very much or does that just become parking for the Justice Center. Lewis replied the lot gives more flexibility for future expansion and certainly helps with the onsite parking eliminating the need for another source. Olson said he and Lewis are strongly recommending Site One. The flexibility alone is really a win-win scenario. Harney asked Olson if he has an estimate of possible costs to renovate the existing Courthouse. Lewis said it is included in their calculations. He said for Site One the cost would be $61.2 million. That includes 25,000 square feet of space being renovated at the cost of $125 per square foot.
Meyers asked if ground acquisitions were taken into account when calculating projected costs. Lewis replied that land acquisition is not calculated in their cost projections. Meyers replied, even though the one at the farm is the same footprint as the one south of town, in one case the County owns the ground and in the other case they do not. Lewis said correct. He said the Board will have to consider land acquisition and the complexity of acquiring land. Stutsman asked if they are planning for parking around the Courthouse in Site One. Lewis replied yes. Stutsman asked if they will be tearing down the old garage. Lewis said if that will be allowed, he thinks it should be taken down and preserve the existing Courthouse building. It would certainly add additional parking stalls. R. Sullivan said it seemed counterintuitive that something that could be built new and designed exactly the way they would want it, would cost more to staff than something that is 100 plus years old retro fitted. He said he doesn't understand how that is possible and asked for an explanation.
Lewis said it is all tied to the movement scenarios associated with the facility. He said on the existing site they have to deal with entrance points on multiple levels. He said at the current site people will only be moved vertically in the building to the Court holding area up above. Lewis said everything else has been happening in close proximity, so they had less movement and less staff was needed to transport people inside. That is why the staff is smaller. Lewis said given topography of the Farm, that the Jail kitchen and laundry will be receiving on the backside. He said the Courts piece requires the tunnel to go up to the Court area. It is a logistics issue. Lewis supposed there could be another solution or another site where they cluster the Courts a lot closer to the Jail to deal with less movement.
R. Sullivan asked if they could gain the same thing 100 yards to the east on the Farm site with the slope. Olson said there would not be enough topography. Sullivan said he is curious because it struck him as an odd scenario. Olson said they were surprised too. He said, if they can make it more efficient, they will still have a spread out complex no matter how they do it. He said they will still have a 320 square foot Jeffersonian grid to deal with downtown. On Site One they have a bit more with the Courthouse to the west, and they can vacate one street and go to the south. He added they have topography with a 40 plus foot drop from the north. They were pleasantly shocked with the numbers. Stutsman said it is a lot better than she anticipated. Neuzil said there is an advantage with being able to use the existing Courthouse and the existing Jail. He said there should be some cost savings simply from having that space. Neuzil said he is curious to hear from the Court individuals and Lyness. He said he has gotten a feel for how much space and how many beds will be needed for the Jail.
Lewis replied in large part the number of Courtrooms that were identified came out of a series of discussions six to eight months ago. He said the conversations dealt with how the Courtrooms are currently being utilized and ultimately how many staff felt they needed in order to function with the changing case load. He said projections were born out of serious discussions. Neuzil asked if they have factored in 25 years of adding a few more judges in that time. Lewis said the background behind the courtrooms is eight juried courtrooms. In addition, in the hearing and meeting component they have put in four 900 square foot spaces that can function in a non-juried environment. There are a couple hearing and meeting conference rooms in the component besides the Court and non-juried spaces. Lewis said the idea for the 900 square feet rooms is that they can function as meeting space for mediations or things that do not necessarily need a court environment.
Lyness asked how many Courtrooms are in the new building in the first proposal. Olson replied eight. Lewis said the hearing and meeting room component includes another four spaces that are 900 square foot non-juried environments. The cost estimate was done with that block of 10 to 12. He said the 10 to 12 include the eight juried environments plus another four non-juried meeting areas. Lewis said if the Board wanted ten juried environments, then the two 900 square foot rooms will be looked at in order to have enough space.
Olson said they have tried to be consistent with the comparison, knowing there is much more detail and programming. Lyness asked if 10 to 12 courtrooms include eight juried and four others. She asked for clarification on the size of the rooms for the other four. Lewis said the size is written in the report. Lewis said they are 1,350 square foot courtrooms, and in the juried courtrooms there is one 1,600 square foot courtroom which is comparable in size to the ceremonial courtroom. He said there are three 1,350, one 1,600, and four 1,200 square foot courtrooms all considered as juried size environments. In detailed planning they may want to standardize the rooms and make them all the same. He said the four hearing rooms could convert to non-juried rooms at 900 square feet each. Lewis said in all scenarios the County Attorney does move into the new facilities.
R. Sullivan said there are members from the Judiciary present. Harney asked if Lewis and Olson planned an area within or close to the jail for initial appearances on weekends, so detainees do not have to be transferred into the big courtrooms. Lewis said yes, it is an arraignment courtroom located in the booking area.
Johnson County Facilities Manager David Kempf asked Lewis if he addressed how to get the prisoners from the Jail into the old Courthouse. He asked how the prisoner's entrance was segregated from the secured entrance linking the two buildings if four of the courtrooms will be located at the old Courthouse. Lewis said prisoner holding will require vertical movement into the courtrooms in the new building. He said the courtrooms in the existing building would likely be considered for family court activity as opposed to prisoner activity. He said that way they are moving prisoners up and down in a secured environment.
Neuzil asked if the juvenile crime court system was incorporated in the plan. He asked if future movements of that nature were included to have space for flexibility in the future. Lewis replied there has been discussion about support program space that was desired. He said there is a section in the plan discussing functional descriptions around the square footage. Lewis said things like Court Appointed Special Advocates Program (CASA) and other space in there like that is in the block. Neuzil said he is trying to think how much the Board gave CASA in the new building. He said there had been talk CASA will move again. Kempf said he can see CASA easily going into the old County Attorney space. He said off the top of his head he thinks there is around 8,500 square feet in the new building. Lewis said the initial concepts are in the report.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliot said the CJCC talked about additional staffing needs and total staffing needs, but asked if the figures represent the total compensation or just salary. Lewis said total compensation. Harney asked what they based the figure on. Lewis replied data received from the Sheriff’s Office. Pulkrabek said it is based on level five of the pay scale. Pulkrabek said there will be some deputies that will be level seven and others that will be level one and two, because that is where everyone starts. The two additional cooks required will start at a level one, but Durant used an average. Meyers calculated the average salary per person at $65,000.
Harney suggested the Sheriff take a second look of how he staffs the Jail. He said he thinks the County can move towards a corrections component rather than full deputies in all positions within a Jail. Pulkrabek said he understands, but wondered how much money the County will save on each position. Harney replied they will save quite a bit. Harney said at $64,000 base wage for everyone they can hit the corrections component for considerably less. He said not all staff members need to be sworn deputies. Pulkrabek said he doesn’t disagree but he doesn't think they will get the savings they are anticipating. Harney said there is quite a variation. Olson said it is the blended average at a level five position. Harney said over a period of time, it adds up fast.
Iowa City citizen Dorothy Whiston asked if the key points pages shown are included in the plan booklet. Lewis said the key points are scattered throughout the document. Lewis said they gave M. Sullivan a copy of the key points sheet. Whiston said she wants to know if there are juvenile cells in the facility. Kempf said they never talked about adding juvenile cells. Stutsman said there are site and sound limitations. Pulkrabek said, if they are talking about juveniles that are adjudicated, they haven’t gone that far. He said he would anticipate they would want the ability to house some adjudicated juveniles. He said they do not anticipate housing the non-adjudicated juveniles that are held in detention. Lewis said the planned or programmed housing breakdowns are on page 25 of the report. The smallest component, the Administrative Housing Unit, is a piece of the pie that is being watched and monitored in 16 beds. Lewis said depending on how many, an adjudicated juvenile could be placed in the 16 bed unit.
Whiston asked where religious services or in-house drug treatment programs will be located. Lewis replied they have included classroom space, educational space, and treatment and religious service spaces in the square footage. The goal is that the offender has the ability in his/her unit to go to the programs and services. Lewis said because it doesn’t always work in the housing unit for everyone, there is another multipurpose classroom. Whiston clarified that each housing unit has a classroom or something similar. Lewis said yes.
CJCC member Larry Wilson said, since the County owns Site Three, there would not be a direct cost. The other three sites have to be purchased adding to the total cost. Wilson said on Sites One and Two he thinks there will be demolition costs, and on Site One there is 40 feet of fall across the site, which he translated into an average of 20 feet of excavation which seems like a considerable cost. Wilson asked how much of those costs are incorporated into the plan.
Lewis explained they have started from a baseline perspective and did a detailed analysis on each site to determine how the baseline would be affected. He said in Site One they took the baseline analysis up to 8% for all the conditions Wilson mentioned. Lewis said the complexity associated with building next to the existing Courthouse, abandoning the street, the utility relocations, goes up to $3.5 million. Comparatively, the other extreme is Site Four and Five, where they are dealing with a site that is basically green field with a site development cost of $2.5 million. Lewis said the factors referred to in the allowance have been taken into account. Harney said the other two outlying sites do not have sewer and water, which is an extension issue. Lewis said he understands and that is how they arrive at that 5% number of $2.5 million. He said there is not a huge amount of grading work that needs to be done, but the utilities have to be extended.
Lyness said the Jail is divided into eight separate areas. She asked Pullkrabek and Sheriff Deputy Dave Wagner if that is enough space in terms of segregation. Lewis said the detail in the written report in terms of the number of segments is what they would expect. He said they are trying to count how many control points there will be, and how many staff it will take to supervise those control points. Lyness asked Lewis what he means by a control point. Lewis said he is talking about the circle in the middle of the 220 bed units where staff is sitting there monitoring moving doors and so forth. Lewis said from those control points they determine how many segments can go around that. He said a 32-bed node or 40-bed node can be separated to make two 16 or 20 bed housing units. That separation can be made without a change to the staffing calculations because the units are only separated by a wall. Lewis said housing configurations are on page 25 of the report and there is more detail in the report about the configurations.
Lyness said there needs to be natural light into each cell. She asked if the cells to the east, by the kitchen and laundry, are going to be lit by skylights from the mezzanine above. Olson said there will be light wells. Lewis said if it is expanded horizontally, then they have to bring in sky lights through the roof. He said that if it is expanded vertically, with the option of putting the next level with shelf space, then they handle it through the light shaft.
Resident Richard Twohy asked if the Durant Group had been asked to identify or evaluate the functional cost to the taxpayers of these sites, the staff, and related needs compared to what it currently costs for the County to transport prisoners. He said he thought it was somewhat less expensive to transport and house a prisoner at the Linn County Jail. Twohy asked if the Durrant Group was asked to address those issues. Lewis replied no and he can't say off the top of his head what transportation costs are at the current time.
R. Sullivan said Pullkrabek has those details that they can compare what Durrant has given them to the Sheriff's figures for inmate transportation. R. Sullivan said they will get the answers to those questions. Twohy said he understands that the practical realities of incarceration and related aspects of recidivism control have been changing in the very recent past. Twohy said he understands that approximately 4/5 of all people incarcerated have ongoing mental illness of one sort or another. He asked if there have been discussions on what types of facilities will be made available for people with disorders. Twohy said a huge percentage of incarcerated persons have two or more disorders including substance abuse and/or mental illness. He asked if the Durrant Group has consulted with any mental health professionals regarding these issues.
Pulkrabek responded, that is a little outside the scope of what the Durrant Group was contracted to do. That is why there is an emphasis on the need for proper programming space for a new facility. They can not effectively address mental illness issues with the current facility because there is no programming space. Pulkrabek said he thinks it is important to continue to push for sufficient programming space in the new facility.
Neuzil said they can assume that the million plus dollars the County is spending on Jail transport and operational expenses will be shifted into the operational expenses of the facility. Twohy asked if that is an assumption Durrant has made. Pulkrabek said Durrant has laid out predictions for additional staff. He said the County is on pace to spend almost $1 million in rent in FY09. Pulkrabek said the $1 million does not include transportation expenses which will be around $30 to $50 thousand. Pulkrabek said the Sheriff's Department is still working with John Neff on finalizing a report for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. He said they are behind, but that he is comfortable saying now that it is no longer cheaper to house an inmate out of the County than it is in for multiple reasons. Pulkrabek said, however, they won't get into that discussion at the current meeting since Neff isn't present and the report is not in hand.
Pulkrabek said Johnson County is housing inmates in Marshall County and Jasper County and expenses increase exponentially the farther away inmates have to be transported. Lewis said the purpose of this report was to look at the issues and program and plan at a high level an environment that will help deal with those issues.
Gary Wherley asked if the City of Iowa City pays for incarceration yet. R. Sullivan said no, there is no booking fee. Wherley clarified there has been no change since 1976 when the Jail was built. He said he is confused because everyone else pays but the City doesn't. Pulkrabek responded, if someone is arrested on a City charge only, the City is billed. He said generally when someone is brought in on a City ordinance, usually there is a State code charged with them, and therefore the City is not billed. Pulkrabek said he thinks some of the argument from City residents will be that they do pay taxes to the County and therefore it is the County's job to fund and operate a jail. He said a booking fee is comparable to a user fee and currently Johnson County doesn't charge any type of users booking fee. He said that is a discussion they will need to have in the near future.
Stutsman asked if many jails charge a booking fee. Pulkrabek said currently there is a survey about this on ISAC. He said the Sheriff's Office is gathering information on fees as well. Scott County does charge a booking fee. Lyness asked Pulkrabek if he could clarify what the difference is between a booking fee and what Linn County does in terms of charging inmates to stay at their jail. Pulkrabek said, in the state when someone is arrested on a serious misdemeanor charge and above, there is a requirement to book the person in, which includes fingerprinting. The booking information has to be submitted to the State and there are requirements on accurate record keeping. He said the law requires the jail to book inmates from the Iowa State Patrol and the Sheriff. Pulkrabek said the law does not necessarily require the booking of a City municipality. He said if the Iowa City Police bring a person to the Jail, the Iowa Code requires a city agency to book the person, not the County. He explained the Sheriff's Office is not technically required to take an inmate until that person has been seen by the Court. Pulkrabek said in the late 1970s there was an agreement that Iowa City would close their detention facility and the Sheriff would do all the bookings for all the inmates.
Pulkrabek said the Linn County Sheriff doesn't charge a booking fee, but a housing fee to each inmate that gets arrested. He knows Linn County has had some success collecting that fee, but in our society people of lesser means generally are the ones going to jail and getting additional money from them can be very difficult. Pulkrabek said former County Sheriff Dick Klausner left, but that he would be a great one to speak about how the State kept increasing fines and it didn't allow his clients to ever get caught up or ahead. They have an amount of money built up, but it requires a lot of resources for collection of those fines. Pulkrabek said the County has not discussed fines or the means it would take to set up a system to deal with fining inmates.
Pulkrabek said the Johnson County Attorney does some collection, and between conversations he has gathered collection is very labor intensive and there is not a lot of reward. Stutsman said the Board discussed fines with the previous Sheriff. She explained it was the Board's decision at that time not to fine. She said it is always good to revisit issues. Wherley pointed out it was 30 years ago. Wherley said they are talking 30 years of not charging Iowa City for the use of the Jail. Harney said the funding for the operation of the Jail comes out of the City's taxes as well as rural taxes. He said if they want to charge them extra, then he wants to know if they will charge themselves also. Wherley said it is not only Iowa City. He said Sheriff Zeller for a couple years has done a usage or housing fee. He said whoever brings an inmate in should be the one to pay. Wherley said in the case that Pulkrabek mentioned about the challenges of collecting fees, there is a program available where the inmate can work off time in County hours. Wherley said if the majority of inmates on a Friday or Saturday night are from Iowa City, the City should pay for using the facility.
Harney said State Code requires the Sheriff to take any of the State Troopers arrests, but they are not required to pay any sort of fee. He said it is hard for him to justify charging Iowa City and Coralville. He said charging a fee for booking back to the individual is feasible, but as the Sheriff said, if the inmate can't pay are they going to put them in Jail for nonpayment. Wherley said he is just bringing this up to raise awareness. He said in the 1970s that was the agreement between the County and the City, and the reason was that the City was not maintaining their standards. He said the City passed on thousands of dollars in salaries to the County.
Pulkrabek said the County does approximately 8,000 bookings per year. A $10 booking fee would raise $80,000, but out of those 8,000 some are from State Patrol and some are from the Sheriff, although the majority are from the City. Pulkrabek said out of those 8,000, about 6,500 are new original bookings. That means 1,500 of the bookings are people that have been arrested multiple times and may get arrested again. Wherley asked who was responsible for the 6,500 new bookings. If people knew there was going to be a charge for going to jail that might be a deterrent. Stutsman said people don’t think that will make a difference.
Sullivan leaves at 5:32 p.m.
Neuzil said Wherley brings up a good point, and that is all the different kinds of fees or costs associated with the facility need to be explored. He said he thinks they can assume that with a $50 to $60 million price tag, everyone, especially taxpayers will be paying for it for awhile. He said there was discussion of whether it will be appropriate for the Iowa City Police Department or University of Iowa Public Safety to have an employee during peak times to assist the Sheriff.
Sullivan returns at 5:34 p.m.
Wherley asked if they can do a vertical application in sites four and five, primarily Site Four on the existing County ground. Lewis replied they can certainly take a vertical solution to a green field site. He said their charge was to compare what a horizontal solution would do on a green field site compared to an urban site. Durant was not asked to look at the sites vertically, but that could be done. Wherley said he would like to know the direction, because in building residential and small commercial, it is cheaper to build up than out. Lewis agreed that in many types of construction, vertical is cheaper than horizontal. The only word of caution is the real cost comes in with the various things that affect the daily operations of a vertical jail. Neuzil said it should be noted that at least as far as Site One, the County is in the process of purchasing three of the seven homes. Neuzil said acquiring the GSA property or doing something of that nature may not necessarily be a cost. He said it may be a trade and that obviously needs to be explored.
Wherley said, when reading the paper and listening to the news in Cedar Rapids, the GSA ground may be quadruple what Mr. Sullivan owns next door. He said, just because the Feds have it, doesn't mean they will give it to the County, which is his concern. Wherley said he is wondering what the price would be on a site that is already owned. However, it is coming six months after the Joint Communication Center, which should have been included with the Justice Center. Lewis said given the level of study they have done to date they could do a cost analysis for a vertical structure. Olson said he will venture a guess that the vertical structure, with elevators, stairs, and other features involved, will be more costly.
Oak Crest Hill Road resident Paulette Gretter said she is very concerned with abandoning the Courthouse because of its historical value. She assumes the County will not sell or give it away. Gretter asked if in the future, the Board will propose plans to refurbish the Courthouse, which will then cost more money. Neuzil said the County would have to acquire the entire block for Site Two, and likely consider selling property to help pay for that. Gretter said she doesn't want the Courthouse to be sold. Neuzil said those scenarios do exist. Meyers said it will be more likely to sell the Jail, but that leaves the problem of what to do with the Courthouse that is not being used as a Courthouse. Gretter said that is what she is trying to point out. In terms of cost, any site other than Site One, is more expensive. Gretter said Site Five is the only site that doesn't have public transportation and sidewalks. She said she is assuming they won't release inmates on County roads and expect them to walk on the highway's shoulder. Gretter asked who pays for sidewalks and if it is individual businesses or the Fairgrounds. Stutsman said if it is seriously explored, she is sure they would be working with the City to work out details with transportation. Gretter asked if sidewalks would be installed.
Lewis said the costs they have presented are the costs needed to develop the site internally. Costs associated with installing a sidewalk from the site to the nearest sidewalk are not included. R. Sullivan said it is worth pointing out there are at least two miles south of Riverside Drive where there is no sidewalk. He asked if the County would put that in. Neuzil said that makes that site a little less appealing.
Pointing out obstacles with both directions, Gretter said it is hard to picture where they would put the sidewalk. Neuzil said there are some general concepts about trail use anyway. R. Sullivan said he doesn't think the County is obligated to build sidewalks, although Gretter's comments are well-taken. Gretter asked if they estimated $2.5 million to put the utilities in and acquire the land. Lewis said land acquisition cost is not part of any solution at this time.
Gretter asked if anyone has communicated with the property owners of those three houses. Gretter said she has read they need a minimum of 25 acres, and the cost of commercial land right off the interstate is $5.5 million dollars for 25 acres. She asked if that is what the Board is expecting to pay for land. Stutsman said she isn't thinking about that yet and R. Sullivan said the purpose of this Durrant Report is to find out what things would cost, and those will all be considerations.
Gretter asked if the Board chooses Site Four or Five, will it consider changing the zoning to allow for gas stations, restaurants, and other businesses. R. Sullivan said Gretter is so far ahead of them that those are things the Board hasn’t considered yet. Harney said that is part of the decision-making process. Meyers said there is a long range proposal to extend Highway 965 south to Highway One, so it will cross IWV west of the farm and Secondary Roads. He said what Gretter is asking about will certainly be brought up again. R. Sullivan said he thinks it is safe to say that all of their points are good, but that they are also a lot further ahead than they have gone. For now, the Board has just asked Durrant to give an idea of what it would look like and cost. He said everything Gretter have mentioned will have to be taken into consideration, they just aren’t there yet.
Neuzil said one of the valid points is going to be transportation between downtown Iowa City and the site, if it is located on one of the rural sites. A lot of the Jail and Court population are students. Neuzil said obviously a lot of them won’t have a car and this is one disadvantage of having a facility out on the fringe of the community.
Stutsman said she appreciates the report with all of its careful analysis. Harney agreed, saying the report has come a long ways and there is a lot of information to digest. He explained that over the last several years a lot of things have changed in society that is contributing to the Jail. A lot of that starts with the Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT arms officers and makes arrests. Campus Security has also armed their officers and they are making more arrests and traffic stops than ever before. University Heights and North Liberty have added personnel. Harney said this shows that it is not just one community adding to the Jail population, but a process that is verging as the community is growing. Harney said a lot of arrests are among the student population, as well as surrounding communities. He concluded by stating that the problem extends beyond Iowa City and Coralville.
Neuzil said the growth in the Jail population is doing exactly what was projected over the years, at least from 2001 to 2002. He said it is amazing how well projected it has. Pulkrabek said Johnson County is now probably the fourth largest county in the state and have probably the tenth largest jail.
R. Sullivan said he would like the Board to decide where to go from here. He suggested that at the next meeting the Board should determine if they have a preferred location and what they do about it.
Pulkrabek said there is a huge element out of the contract they are still missing, and that is the public focus groups. It is important that the public hears the site analysis and provides feedback to the Board before the Board asks taxpayers to support the project. Pulkrabek said part of the Durrant Group contract is focus meetings and that should be the next step. He would like to ask Lewis what their plans are for having public meetings covered under contract. R. Sullivan said, if the Board were able to narrow down the sites from five to two, they could then use the Vernon Research Group. Stutsman said she would like to hear from the community what they think about the five sites. Neuzil said he would like some public input also. He said his assumption was that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee would meet in October 2008, and then the Board would get together in November to decide on what areas they need to focus on. Neuzil said he thinks they need to have a month or two to familiarize the community with the locations.
R. Sullivan said the question is how. Stutsman asked if they are going to have public meetings. Lewis said their contract does include public presentations about the information and can certainly start with PowerPoint presentations. He said the public meetings would presumably stimulate discussion. Lewis said there is still ultimately that question of narrowing down the site selection. Neuzil suggested conducting the public meetings in the month of September and October of 2008, and that the Durrant Group would provide a report of the results of the public input at the November meeting. Stutsman said she thinks the advantage to having the public meetings will be increased community buy-in for what the Board will finally decide. Harney said the contract states that Durrant will do the focus groups, and if they have to engage someone else to assist with that, he doesn’t mind, but he wanted to make it clear that it is Durrant's responsibility to conduct the focus groups. Lewis said he agrees with that totally. He explained that the reason for bringing up Vernon Research, or someone like them, is that they conduct a polling activity and a broader survey than what the focus groups are going to do.
Neuzil asked if the timeline he proposed is realistic and Lewis replied yes. Neuzil suggested that Durrant could present their report at the next Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee meeting on November 5, 2008. Lewis said that is reasonable.
R. Sullivan asked M. Sullivan to coordinate the meeting details with Durrant. Harney asked at what point they will get a telephone survey included. He said he thinks they reach a larger population with the phone survey. Harney said that in the past when they have had the Jail issue before the public, there was public turnout was spartan and they haven’t had very big turnout for the Conservation Bond either. Neuzil said that at least it gives the public an opportunity and that is all they can do. Stutsman said the focus with the groups is the site selection. She said she thought the Vernon Group would present the selection to the community. Neuzil said the point is it will give the public three or four opportunities to look at the report and provide feedback. R. Sullivan summarized that M. Sullivan will coordinate three to four public meetings with the Durant Group to be finished by mid October, 2008, and then the Durrant Group will present its site analysis report to CJCC at the November 5, 2008 meeting.
John Stratton said the public is going to be very interested in the cost of the site and that for many people it may be the deciding factor. Neuzil replied that the facilities committee of the CJCC could gather that information. Stratton suggested they start working on that now. Whiston said she thinks Stratton's suggestion is to include that information in the focus groups, so when people are saying certain things, they will have some idea about cost. Lewis said that information is available; they will be happy to share it at the public meetings.
R. Sullivan asked Lyness how to schedule the public meetings and Lyness responded to schedule them as work sessions. M. Sullivan said a work session is open for discussion and questions. Kempf said he thinks they can look at the site and come up with a broad estimate of the potential cost. M. Sullivan said it will have to be a land value estimate with no more detail than that at this time.
R. Sullivan said the discussion had been that once they have something to work with, it makes sense to have all of the meetings become joint meetings, once there is work to be accomplished, with the Board essentially being the one to decide when and if something goes before the public, and in what form. He asked if that should begin with the November 5, 2009 meeting. Board members discussed their expectations of the future CJCC meetings and the scheduling of the public meetings. R. Sullivan said all future meetings should be joint meetings with the Board.
Harney said the bottom line is they still have CJCC business to attend to. He said if it turns into a Board of Supervisor's meeting rather than a CJCC meeting, as it seems it has the last couple times, then perhaps the Board needs to take it over. Harney said it has been the CJCC's meeting up until now and they need to address the issue of whether they are going to hire a coordinator. R. Sullivan asked if Harney is talking about the CJCC or the Board. Harney said it is a combination of both. Neuzil said whether and who to hire as coordinator is a CJCC function. Pulkrabek said the CJCC is already in favor of having a coordinator position and he thinks the committee just needs to discuss it with Board members. Neuzil said he wants to know if a job description is drafted. That is a CJCC function and he expects they would draft the job description, give it to the subcommittee, and then present it to the full committee. Whiston recommended, whoever is to put the concept together should do it before October 3, 2008, and then October 3, 2008, have a joint meeting to get it resolved. She added that by November 2008 they can be working on the substance of the report. Harney said Lyness was working on the job description. Lyness said she was working on that with Pulkrabek and M. Sullivan. Stutsman said she thinks everyone works better with deadlines, so maybe October 3, 2008 they need to have that ready for discussion. R. Sullivan asked if the job description would be ready then. Neuzil said, if it is ready, then they will have a meeting. R. Sullivan said he wants to know if they will schedule a meeting. Lyness said they should schedule the meeting. She said the job description does not have to go through Human Resources because this is a contract hire. R. Sullivan said the meeting will be October 1, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. He said it will be a joint meeting.
Elliott said he would like to meet in September 2008 to discuss what is coming up for the public meetings. Elliott said they need to target each presentation with very specific information on location, cost, and the average range of the additional cost. He said he thinks it needs to be much more targeted than it was today. R. Sullivan said he wasn’t going to try to tell them how to do the presentation, although he wanted to show up to see how it is done. Neuzil said he thinks the presentation ran very smoothly.
Neuzil said he wants to make sure they publicize the dates and times of the public meetings very soon.
Adjourned at 6:13 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on July 1, 2009.