MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Durrant Consultant Mike Lewis: Durrant Study and Site Locations............................................ 1
Confirming a Location for the Justice Center............................................................................ 7
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Coordinator Position................................................... 7
Report from Alternatives and Treatment Opportunities Subcommittee........................................ 8
Additional Comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members.......................... 8
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 4:01 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, Facilities Manager David Kempf, Sixth Judicial District Court Judge Douglas Russell, MECCA Outpatient Clinical Manager Megan LaVelle, Temporary Mobile Crisis Coordinator Jessica Peckover, University of Iowa Facilities Representative Larry Wilson, Dorothy Whiston, Bob Elliott, Mental Health/Disability Services Director Kris Artley, John Stratton, and County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek.
Durrant Consultant Mike Lewis said they have put together a report that was distributed to members of the Board. He said the report represents the information from the public meetings they held. In order to document a written record of the public presentation, section one of the report contains images reproduced from the PowerPoint presentation. At the Boards request, Lewis put together a section including the questions they received from the public along with Durrant's responses. The September 7, 2008 meeting at the Coralville Public Library had a number of public comments. He said only three substantive questions were addressed at the North Liberty meeting. The meeting at the Iowa City Public Library had quite a bit of interaction.
Lewis said he wanted to briefly go through the questions from public meetings. One question involved exercise yard space. The State of Iowa Jail Standards state specific standards for exercise yard space but this space does not add to the cost of the project because the mezzanines are already 18 feet. Another question dealt with the size of inmate cells. The report documents the square footage requirements for inmate cell area. The actual cost to build each inmate bed in the initial construction is $79,935.
Lewis said another individual asked if library space and/or services will be available. Library space and information is in the project report. Lewis said some people were unsure how the Durrant Group arrived at the 240 bed count. He stated they originally proposed a range of 236-289 beds in the facility for the initial construction. Lewis said that after reviewing the peaking factor issues and program offerings as alternatives to incarceration, they chose to propose 240 beds. He said shell construction numbers are duplicated from before and are highlighted in the report.
Lewis said there was a lot of discussion pertaining to staffing costs. He put together supplemental information to clarify the staffing questions. The bulk of the annual staffing costs would start in 2012 when the new facility would open. Even at that time, 240 beds would not be full so the staffing needs would probably be around 61 when the facility opens. In the time leading up to 2012, Durrant proposes a few more transportation officers be added to move inmates to other facilities because of the lack of space in Johnson County. After the 2012 opening, the facility would gradually ramp up to 240 bed capacity and 68 staff.
Lewis asked Durrant Associate Architect Bob Olson to share information about land acquisition. Olson said one question pertained to the status of acquiring the Federal land that the Site 1 option is contingent upon. Site 1 is proposing to expand to the south of the existing Courthouse where a Federal government parking lot currently exists. In talking to people in Iowa City, Olson said he thinks the discussion has already been started with the GSA regarding the parking area to the south. Olson said since all the land is tied up with the County, the Federal government, or the City, there should be a way to put together a scenario where everyone benefits. He said they talked to people who were optimistic that the land could be acquired. Olson said another topic was differences in land acquisition costs. He stated Durrant made their first recommendation assuming all land costs would be pretty equal. He said he visited with Cook Appraisers from Iowa City and added that he too is a licensed appraiser in Iowa as well as an architect. He said land value is determined by comparable sales technique in what's been selling and relative to option one, that's the most difficult to determine what a value is for that because anything that might happen to selling that land is probably not going to be an arms-length transaction but rather a barter trading this land for that. Olson said even though the land the Courthouse sits on and the parking to the south is valuable, it's a tough piece of ground to utilize because the topography drops about 40 to 50 feet and there are different owners involved which is difficult for developers.
Olson said Site 1I is taking a whole block and leveling that and doing a new courthouse and jail facility that is four stories tall which is much easier to quantify. He stated in talking to Cook Appraisal there are have been some sales around, including the County buying the piece across the street, that is $30-35 per square foot, which equates to a market value of approximately $4.5-5.5 million. Olson said the piece is easy to take and put on that market in comparison to Site 1. He stated Site 1 has a value of $35 to $85 per square foot and a site acquisition cost of $2-3 million. Lewis said the current value of the Jail and Sheriff’s Office is around $85 per square foot for a total value of $4-5 million. He said Site 1V is owned by the County so that's really a moot point, and Site V’s land is not close enough to be good city development land so it is valued at $200,000-$400,000.
Lewis said construction inflation is on the decline. He said the cost figures they submitted include a 6-8% percent market inflation rate for construction. Construction inflation is moderating now and it's moving down to the 3-4% percent range. Lewis said from that standpoint it is advantageous to move forward sooner. Lewis said the reverse happens in the bond market. Long-term bonds sat at 3-4% for most clients in the Midwest. He said the bond market has jumped to 6.5-7% percent. The sooner the County moves on projects the more economical it will be.
Lewis said the public meetings presented some thoughtful questions from the community and the community has a wide variety of opinions about what the right site should be. Lewis said his personal view is there was more support for an urban rather than a rural site. Lewis said Durrant recommends the Board consider Site 1. It is the most economical and offers the most advantages from a long-term staff efficiency perspective. He said they have answered the public's specific questions about work and inmate cell configurations and so forth. However, a detailed design needs to happen after the project is funded so the Board can get a solution tailored specifically to their long-term needs.
CJCC Member Bob Elliott asked if Cook Appraisal Representative Casey Cook indicated Site 1, while the property is valuable, is not very conducive to development. Lewis said yes. Elliott said it seems Site 1I has property that may be valued in the millions of dollars and a suburban location would be valued at a half million dollars. He asked how Durrant counters this cost with the cost of operations. He asked if they chose a suburban location at a significantly lower cost, how much longer would it take the increased cost of operations to say it would be more economical in the long run to take the more expensive downtown location. Lewis said in today’s dollars they are dealing with $700,000 of cost differential in construction costs between the two sites. Elliott asked if the higher dollar amount was for the suburban site. Lewis said yes. Between the two downtown sites the extreme scenario is the addition of five staff positions. In today’s dollars, that is $65,000 per staff position. Depending on the cost of the land, if they end up with a piece of land that costs $3,000,000, they are talking $300,000 per year for a payback period of ten years.
Public Defender Richard Klausner said Site 1I is an expensive proposition, but they have discussed potential with Site 1. Lewis said he has not heard any dialogue that Site 1I has that potential. Klausner said he does not even know if the University of Iowa owns the land. Neuzil said the University of Iowa owns Site 1I and they recently put a million dollar renovation into it. Lewis said the factor affecting his thinking between Site 1 and II is the ability of Site 1 to reutilize the existing Courthouse whereas Site 1I does not utilize the existing space at a cost of several million dollars.
Harney asked what factors Durrant used to determine additional staffing needs. Lewis said he can answer for Polk County. They started with 443 staff in their projections for Polk County. He said at one point before they opened the facility they were up to 560 staff which was not realized because they only used 460-475 which was much closer to the original number. Part of the exercise in doing the preliminary concept plans for Johnson County was to do enough layout on the project that allowed Durrant to look at the required staffing positions for each site. Lewis said the baseline was 71, the low end 68 and the high end 73. He said they worked with the Sheriff and his team to look at staff positions and other needs such as booking, security, cooks, and more.
University of Iowa Campus Planner Larry Wilson said relocating programs is a big factor. Meyers said the University of Iowa does not own the whole block. Wilson said the Old A & P property is what they own and he is not sure what that covers. Harney said that includes the two HUD houses, the business plumbing shop, and the screening and window places. Elliot asked if there was a distinction between maximum and minimum security for the jail portion of the building on the floor plan. H said he was under the impression that the different areas could accommodate a variety of changes for male/female, young/adult. Lewis said there is a narrative on how many are maximum custody, minimum, and administrative beds that is detailed in the report.
Lewis introduced Durrant employee Laura Hawks, who is also an Iowa City resident. Jim McCarragher said part of the difference in staffing was due to whether the building went horizontal or vertical. Lewis agreed. McCarragher said that is the answer to the earlier question about how they determined staffing needs. County Attorney Janet Lyness asked about the two different exercise areas for the two cell block floor plans. She asked if that is acceptable jail standards in terms of the amount of space there. Lewis said yes. Lyness said it looks like there is only program area for all five pods in each of the two cell block floor plans and she asked if it is two floors. Lewis said the program room space is a single level. Lyness asked if there was a way to have more program or deposition rooms. Lewis said there are possibilities for that because the floor-to-floor height is 24 feet high and it is possible to look for opportunities to build a second level. Lyness said the design of the cell block does not appear to give them anymore deposition rooms and program rooms than they currently have.
Lyness said the cellblock floor plan is for approximately 120 people for each cell block which still is only one space for depositions or programs and it seems to be the same problem or worse than what they have with the current jail. Lewis said this is part of the risk of diagrams at the current level of design but the program space identified is going to be 320 square feet per inmate. He said Polk County jail facility has 240 square feet per inmate. He said the level of planning they have gotten to has included accurate measures for adequate square footage and there will be opportunities to work in these kinds of discussions once they get past this level. Lewis said he is confident the building size is adequate for Johnson County’s needs.
Lyness asked how large the professional visitation is. Lewis said it is 120 square feet apiece. He stated the program classroom is a 720-square foot room which could easily be split into two smaller rooms. Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said he agrees with Lyness that planning for 24 feet to build a second floor would be a good option. Lewis said the costs laid out and the space available allows ample opportunity for discussion. He said they put a 10% contingency number on the square footage to account for any changes that may take place at a later time. He stated a program room could be added.
Iowa City Public Library Adult Services Coordinator Kara Logsden said there is an upside to Site 1 because of space reutilization, but she asked if anyone has considered having the jail in one site and Sheriff operations in different site. Pulkrabek said when they talked about remodeling they discussed connecting the two buildings with a skywalk. Logsden said when they discussed a skywalk for the library they had to worry about clearance for large vehicles like fire trucks. Kempf said that would account for clearance issues because they cannot get the plan approved unless the skywalk is 16-feet 10-inches above the roadway.
CJCC member Dorothy Whiston said to her knowledge they have never had a discussion about youth holding cells. Harney said they did early on in the discussion and they felt working with Linn County Juvenile Detention was the best option. Pulkrabek said when they discuss juvenile offenders they are talking about two different things. He said juvenile detention is for those charged as a juvenile. The 16 and 17-year-olds who are adjudicated to adult court must be held in an adult jail. He said currently, they are housed in Dubuque, Benton, and Cedar counties. Pulkrabek said based on the number of individuals they’ve held in the past and pod size it is not fiscally sound to build another cell block to hold those individuals.
Stutsman asked why they are allocating 320 square feet per inmate whereas Polk County only allows 240 square feet per inmate. Lewis said because Polk County has 1,500 inmates and the balance of inmates to program space weighs out differently. Smaller facilities end up sitting somewhere between 400-450 square feet per inmate and a 240-bed facility falls in the middle. Pulkrabek asked if Lewis could discuss the requirements for the different cell blocks housing units. Lewis said a single cell is 70 square feet per inmate. Normally cells will be for two people but the single cells they have planned for are 93 square feet with the option for a second bunk. Medium custody housing in this facility is a two-person cell with 93 square feet each which is the State and Federal standard. Lewis said the day space requirements are 35 square feet per inmate at any one time. The plan allows everyone to be out of their cell at the same time. Lewis said the housing and day space areas are heavily regulated by codes. He said the exercise yard size in the program document is 160 square feet each, but larger yards are 500 square feet which accommodate multiple individuals.
Whiston asked if the plan is flexible enough to revisit the idea of video visiting versus glass visiting. Lewis said yes, there is space is each housing unit set aside for video visitation equipment on the inmate side. If it were a non-contact visitation arrangement where the inmate sat face to face with the glass in between, they would take space out of the housing unit and move it out into the hallway. They would look at public space in the lobby and locate them adjacent them. Whiston said nothing about this design precludes having further conversation about that. Lewis said no. Pulkrabek said this is a situation that is staff-labor intensive. A hallmark of a newer more efficient facility is less movement by staff on an inmate. He said it is a safety issue and usually two deputies are needed to move an inmate. All the newer jails he has seen are going to video visitation and he said he is opposed to the glass face-to-face visitation idea. Whiston said for restorative justice purposes, it is important not only for prisoners but also for the prisoners' families. She said if her spouse or child were in jail, it would be very different seeing them through glass than on TV. R. Sullivan said they can discuss that in the future. Lewis said it is common for other areas of the building beyond the housing units to have provisions for a room in a particular location to allow for contact. If the situation calls for contact visitation, there are rooms available for that.
Sheriff’s Captain David Wagner asked in reference to cells that will have a second bunk, if that would be built from the start or as an add on. Lewis said there are two ways to address the issue. There are wall mounted bunks where the in bed plates are mounted into the wall and then all that is needed is to weld the bunk to the wall. The other option is a floor mounted bunk where the lower unit is installed first and a second bunk is stacked later. Wagner asked how far off the ground the second bunk has to be. Lewis said the second bunk has to be 42 inches off the ground. Wagner said he is concerned about this because in the current jail, prisoners have rolled off the top bunk and injured themselves. He thinks a lower height would reduce the future liabilities. Lewis said the heights are industry standards. He said a facility they are working on in Scott County is using a triple bunk system. R. Sullivan said he would like to return to discussing the best location for the justice center.
Klausner said when they were talking about Site 1 he felt the Durrant people were alluding to the fact it was a viable possibility. The history for a possible trade for the Federal parking lot came up about eight years ago. He said that a year ago Lyness and others told him the proposal was dead. Klausner asked what the status of Site 1 is because he doesn't want to talk about Site 1 if it is not going to be an option. Harney said the bottom line is they had contact with a new individual working for the GSA. They have not been able to set up a time for this visit yet because of the GSA employee’s schedule conflicts. He said that before, the GSA was not willing to even talk to them, but that now they are willing to listen. R. Sullivan said this is as a high priority to discuss with the staffs of Congressman Loebsack, Senator Harkin, and Senator Grassley.
Klausner said people should know they have been talking to them since 2002 about the space and the guy who retired has never been here. Harney said the individual had been here but they were asking for equal space to what they have now for parking. Harney said they have some possible solutions to the problem. Klausner said he wants people to understand that Site 1 might not work out and they may be here next year picking from the other sites. Kempf asked if Lewis had considered Site 1 without the use of the GSA property and possibly only using Harrison Street and locating the whole thing closer to the Courthouse. Lewis said they had considered the possibility but felt compelled to show this recommendation. He said the evaluation leads to adding another story on the building plus a higher number of staff because of a loss of horizontal connectivity.
Harney said his first choice is Site 1, south of the Courthouse. Stutsman said she is in favor of Site 1 also. She said she is glad to have a Board decision on a site so now they can move forward. Meyers said he favors Site 1 also because it utilizes the existing Courthouse and makes the most economical sense. Lyness said she agrees with Site 1 too because it utilizes the existing Courthouse. It has the best access to public transportation with the downtown location and that is important. R. Sullivan said Site 1 is by far the best choice. If Site 1 is not supported by the public, then the CJCC will go back to the drawing board. Pulkrabek said Site 1 makes the most sense. There will be some hurdles with the GSA. Neuzil said based on the recommendation of the Sheriff, County Attorney, and consultant, and no dissent from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, he supports moving forward with Site 1. R. Sullivan said that it sounds like a majority of folks favor Site 1. Harney said that Site 1 provides the most options for future expansion opportunities. John Stratton said he agrees with Site 1.
R. Sullivan said he was not part of the decision making. Neuzil said there were two Supervisors, Harney and himself, along with Lyness, Pulkrabek, and M. Sullivan who reviewed the proposals. M. Sullivan said the subcommittee reviewed proposals from four candidates, evaluated them all and will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in the Formal Board Meeting on November 6, 2008. He said the recommendation will be to contract with the candidate for a period of six months. Lyness said due to economic times, nothing was going to go on the ballot until at least a year if not longer. Unless they wanted to have a special election next year, it probably wouldn't get on the ballot until 2010 anyhow. She said the Vernon Group data collection is only good for six months so they would not be utilizing the Vernon group, or any other group, to do research anytime soon. For the period of time from December 1, 2008 to July 1, 2009, the CJCC Coordinator will have time to organize committees, get the subcommittees organized, and get information together for what will be evaluated in the community. Then July 1, 2009, a decision can be made to hire someone different, hire the same person, or even change the scope of what that position is. It made sense at this point to hire on a temporary basis and then decide if it should be added into the budget in the 2010 Fiscal Year.
R. Sullivan asked what they are recommending. Lyness said they are recommending the proposal from Bob Elliott for work ten to 20 hours a week for about $100 dollars per week from December 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. She said they would negotiate the contract from there. Neuzil said over the next six or seven months it will be very valuable for the coordinator to bring the subcommittees back, get the Board back on task now that they have identified a possible location, coordinated with the Federal government people, work with the Durrant Group, utilize this study, and eventually consider hiring beyond their scope and looking at working with the Vernon Research Group or another group. Neuzil said the most important thing is to create a time line to keep everyone on task. He added that it is most important to keep going forward. There is a critical need in the community and a lot of time and money has been invested in this process and it can't stop now. R. Sullivan said the coordinator position is on the agenda for November 6, 2008. Lyness said there is no formal proposal written up to sign. R. Sullivan said there is no contract yet, the subject is on the agenda to approve the appointment of Elliott and giving the CJCC the authority to move forward with a contract.
MECCA Outpatient Clinical Manager Megan LaVelle said MECCA began going to the jail and providing evaluations seven days a week. She said for the quarter they completed 94 evaluations, and approximately 69% of these individuals were recommended for treatment services or further evaluation. 51 of the evaluations took place on the weekend. Stutsman asked whether the people seen on the weekends had been seen previously. LaVelle shook her head no. Stutsman said that this is then an increase in the number of people evaluated. LaVelle said yes. Pulkrabek said previously they had budgeted $25,000 annually for this program with MECCA. In the current fiscal year, the budget was increased to $35,000 annually to add the weekend evaluations. Rich Twohy asked if it would be useful to extrapolate what proportion of the 69% needed further evaluation versus those who needed treatment services. LaVelle said five of the 94 individuals were recommended for further evaluation.
Pulkrabek said for the current fiscal year the inmate housing out-of-county was budgeted at $800,000 for the fiscal year. He said through the first four months of the current fiscal year, they are on pace to spend just over $1,000,000 annually on rent. He said transportation costs are running an additional $7,000 per month.
R. Sullivan said that the next joint meeting with the CJCC is set for December 3, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.
Adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary