MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE JUSTICE CENTER COORDINATING COMMITTEE AT THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING, 855 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA:

AUGUST 5, 2009

Justice Center Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliott called the Justice Center Coordinating Committee to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building, 855 South Dubuque Street, at 5:02 p.m. Members present were: Supervisors and Chair Pat Harney, Supervisor Rod Sullivan, Professor Emeritus John Stratton, 6th Judicial Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, County Bar Association Representative Jim McCarragher, and Bob Elliott; absent: County Attorney Janet Lyness. Also present: Supervisor Larry Meyers. Staff members present were: Executive Assistant Andy Johnson and Auditor's Office Recording Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz.

Justice Center Coordinating Committee Facilities Subcommittee Recommendations to the Justice Center Coordinating Committee

Supervisor Rod Sullivan said he will leave the room until the County Attorney's office confirms how many Supervisors can be present at the meeting. Sullivan left at 5:02 p.m. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson left the room to call the County Attorney's Office for a ruling.

Justice Center Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliott reported that the Facilities Subcommittee met and agreed on a recommendation for the JCCC to present to the Board of Supervisors. Johnson then returned to the meeting and said that the County Attorney's Office said a majority of the Board should not be present at the JCCC meeting. Johnson said his understanding is that Supervisors Harney and Sullivan are appointed to the JCCC, and that Supervisor Meyers is on a JCCC subcommittee. Meyers confirmed that he serves on the Facilities Subcommittee. Johnson said it would be best for Meyers to leave the meeting. Meyers left at 5:04 p.m.

Elliott said the Facilities Subcommittee has recommended that the JCCC present a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the possibility of considering a split site scenario for the Justice Center. The Subcommittee met on July 15, 2009, to discuss whether the possibility of a significant financial savings from using both the downtown Courthouse site and the Press-Citizen structure and property should be further explored. The subcommittee's recommendation, though not unanimous, reads as follows:

"The county should initiate a competent exploration process to determine if sufficient financial savings and/or planning expediency could result from dividing the Justice Center into two parts at two sites - Courthouse area and Press-Citizen property. There is virtual unanimity that if there were a split site scenario, it would include appropriate downtown courthouse additions and renovations to address security, operational efficiency, and other needs.

We suggest two possible methods for exploring the two-site option. (1) Hiring a local consulting (architectural/engineering) firm to review existing information and conduct a somewhat informal independent study at a cost estimated at perhaps $10,000 to $15,000. (2) Another could be an RFP for a firm to do the final formal site/facilities program in two parts, with the first being a review to determine if the split-site proposal would be cost effective.

Any review process should include professional cost estimates for planning, design, construction, and operation. The necessity is to provide a clear apples to apples comparison with all potential costs and savings for each option, including operating costs for a split facility.

The committee assumes that, if it's approved, the Board of Supervisors has access to skilled, experienced staff to advise on how best to plan and carry out a split-site review process."

Elliott said that the JCCC can accept this recommendation and forward it to the Board of Supervisors, can reject the recommendation entirely, or can make another recommendation to the Board. He then invited comments from Committee members.

County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek asked if this recommendation would allow for evaluating the Press-Citizen site (PC) as a 250-bed facility to be comparable to the information from the Durrant Group, and also evaluate programming needs as it relates to the existing Courthouse space. Elliott replied that he would recommend that every line item be compared, but other than that, he did not want to get into specifics. Pulkrabek said that obtaining a comparable evaluation has been an identified weakness. Facilities Manager David Kempf said any comparison must include an evaluation of a 250 bed facility.

Supervisor Pat Harney said the issue boiled down to whether to further study the PC site or just the Courthouse or to hire someone to evaluate the Courthouse and PC site on an equal basis, apples to apples. If a $5 or $6 million savings can be realized by utilizing the PC site, then it must at the least be considered. Pulkrabek said that he wanted to be sure the recommendation is clear to the Board. Kempf said operational cost differences between a split facility and a single site will be evaluated. Sixth Judicial Court Administrator Carroll Edmondson said operational costs would have to include transportation between the sites if they are split.

County Bar Association Representative Jim McCarragher said he is opposed to the split facilities and noted numerous reasons. One concern is how the cost comparison will occur, especially since others have indicated that the Durrant Report has shortcomings. He suggested any such comparison would be unfair. Security and personnel would have to be doubled, and acquisition costs cannot be compared because that hasn't yet been determined for the downtown site. It is difficult to put a price tag on the intangibles such as sharing facilities between the Jail and Courthouse, sharing drug and alcohol programs, and sharing a secured parking lot/ramp. Other intangibles, he said, include staffing needs and a single security entrance. McCarragher asked how transportation costs would be identified and suggested additional problems would arise in facilitating the court docket in a timely manner. Inmate transportation would require more advanced notice as well as any document exchange necessary for court appearances.

McCarragher said that Johnson County appears to be moving towards localizing services to a campus-like facility and McCarragher thinks splitting the facilities is the wrong move for the County at this time. Efficiency will be compromised with a split facility. He said that this committee has spent six years studying, and the Board has already approved a single facility downtown. He emphasized his concern that a fair comparison be made between the alternatives to determine whether a substantial savings can be realized, especially in light of the intangibles. McCarragher closed by asking whether other locations previously rejected should now be reevaluated if the JCCC is now willing to consider a split facility rather than a single structure.

Pulkrabek said some have already had a preliminary view of the Press-Citizen building and realized how good a fit it was. However, the big number is 100 beds/$10 million. Personally, he thinks the best solution is a single structure downtown, which would provide the most efficient operation possible. However, the Board must at least evaluate if the PC site offers a significant savings because it appears to be a good fit. Splitting the facility automatically reduces the cost by $3 million because a parking ramp would not be necessary at the PC site. He said that taxpayers' best interest can only be served by evaluating the options. Pulkrabek said the Durrant Report contains solid information about the jail design, programming, and operations. The Report is very weak in its evaluation of and conclusions about the Courthouse.

Harney addressed McCarragher's comments about the six-year work effort, saying that time was spent evaluating whether the County needs a new Jail and Justice Center. The JCCC's recommendation is to have another professional look at this. The current price tag on the Durrant Study solution is $70 to $80 million, which is more than the taxpayers would be willing to support. He too, personally favors the single structure downtown and agrees that it is in the taxpayers' best interest to evaluate the PC site.

University of Iowa Facilities Manager Larry Wilson suggested the Committee consider how much the County can afford. He thinks the Durrant Report spells out the long-term needs. The JCCC is not talking about a definitive cost-estimate of a project, but rather a comparison of two options. This comparison must certainly be apples to apples. McCarragher asked if the same architect does not evaluate the PC site, what assurances are there for like comparisons. Kempf said that is exactly why the recommendation is to have one person look at both sites. McCarragher said that is not what was presented. Kempf said the architect would be expected to review the Durrant Report specifications to ensure that the same comparisons are made.

Elliott said that from the perspective of the Board of Supervisors, as long as the possibility of substantial savings exists, he thinks it must at least be investigated. From that point forward, decisions will be at the Board's discretion. Wilson stated that it is important to remember that blocks of space are in question here and those blocks on one site or two will be compared. He said that advantages and disadvantages of the intangibles can only be evaluated based on individual best judgment.

Professor Emeritus John Stratton said they need to look at the downtown site as basically two sites, using the Courthouse block alone or adding in the Federal parking lot that is still an unknown factor in time and costs. He raised the question of what constitutes sufficient savings, and said that the term is vague and debatable. He asked if $1 million, $5 million, or $13 million is sufficient. If the savings is at the lower end, the intangibles become more significant. Furthermore, Stratton asked to what extent the project will be cost-driven. Sullivan added that there is public buy-in to the downtown location and the public's opinion about the PC site is still unknown.

County Auditor Tom Slockett said that of concern to the public is the notion of separating the two facilities. He recalled that when the current Jail was built, the public was promised a tunnel would be built from the Jail to the Courthouse. That has never happened. Slockett asked if any thought has been given to building the Courthouse and Jail at the PC site as he thinks there is powerful logic, including financial savings, to connecting the two.

Harney replied saying that Architect Jim Novak said that a combined structure is an option on the PC site. However, the subcommittee chose to recommend that the Courthouse be utilized as part of the project, so the Courthouse would have to remain downtown. Edmonson said he agrees there is merit in keeping the buildings together. If the Courthouse is moved to the PC site, then his understanding is that in Johnson County, there is a lot of support for continuing use of the Courthouse and the Committee will need a rational plan for its use. Edmonson said the District Court's preference is to keep the facility downtown, but he agrees it is reasonable to at least evaluate the PC site. Pulkrabek said that a pressing concern is to lower the cost of the project, and splitting the facility might address those concerns.

Public Defender John Robertson said he hopes it goes without saying that a combined facility centrally located downtown is the preference. It will be very difficult to calculate cost savings from an off-site jail. The value of the intangibles has to be calculated, and if significant cost savings trump those intangibles, then the public is entitled to know that. His opinion is that opposition to the project is inevitable, and will be compounded if the public learns an alternative with significant savings was not investigated by the Board. Robertson said there is a fundamental disadvantage in a system where client/attorney meetings and communications are logistically inconvenient or challenging. There are significant intangible values in keeping clients and personnel easily accessible. Finally, Robertson said any study of the PC site must involve polling of the neighborhood as he predicts tremendous resistance from the residents in affluent housing developments adjacent to the PC property.

Elliott said the Board of Supervisor's are very aware that the community will demand that the Courthouse not only be retained, but also used and maintained. Sullivan said everything has its cost. He asked if a $20 million savings can be realized with a combined facility at the PC site, does that change public opinion about the use of the Courthouse. Slockett said he entirely agrees that the public will want to continue using the Courthouse. The Courthouse was originally designed as a County Administration Building which included courtrooms and the Jail was directly behind the Courthouse. Slockett said the Courthouse is an icon for County government, a very prestigious facility, and Slockett would love to see the Board of Supervisor's offices in the Courthouse someday.

Kempf said his preference is for a combined facility downtown, but Stratton was right when he said that "significant savings" is going to be debatable. Sullivan said he wants to add to the recommendation that whatever location is selected, the building plans must include options for expansion to the Jail and the Courthouse.

Harney said that he has not received any negative comments or resistance to the PC site, and has instead heard from supporters. The location near Interstate-80, and with accessibility to North Liberty and Coralville is an advantage, as well as is being on a bus route. Harney said the issue of including the GSA (Federal) lot in a Courthouse plan should be determined before putting forth a request for the land, because the General Services Administration does not want to start a process and have the County change their minds.

Elliott recommended polling the JCCC members to determine what recommendation to forward to the Board of Supervisors. He added that if an evaluation of the PC site is completed, those findings will be presented at a Joint Meeting of the Board and the JCCC allowing ample time for public comment. Elliott asked for a vote from the committee members on whether they would support a recommendation to the Board to further evaluate the PC site. Supporting the recommendation with a show of hands were: Pulkrabek, Stratton, Harney, Edmondson, and Elliott. Opposed to the recommendation with a show of hands was McCarragher. Sullivan declined to vote.

Johnson agreed to contact all JCCC members as soon as a date is selected for the committee to present their recommendation to the Board.

Adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary