MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AUGUST 20, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District Soil and Water Conservationist Kate Giannini: Quarterly Report for October Through December.......................................................................... 1
Justice Center Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliott: Committee Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to Initiate a Process to Determine if Sufficient Financial Savings and/or Planning Expediency Could Result from Purchasing the Press-Citizen Building and Dividing the Proposed Justice Center Into Two Sites....................................................................................................................................... 2
Reports and Inquiries from Executive Assistant Andy Johnson.......................................... 15
Appointment to the Civil Service Commission for a Term Ending October 15, 2011......... 15
Reports and Inquiries from the Board of Supervisors......................................................... 15
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:30 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Soil and Water Conservationist Kate Giannini presented a quarterly report to the Board. She said there have been a lot of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres that will be going back into production this spring and summer. They have been putting buffer strips along the contours and designing water ways. She said soil investigations are a huge part of her job because in order to put in these practices they have to be sure the soil is going to be suitable. They have identified a potential raingarden site and will need to amend the soil to increase the sand content. She said she has made urban field visits with concerned residents regarding erosion issues. For the past year and a half she has been working on the Rapid Creek Watershed project, completed the development grant, and submitted the final report in April 2009. She also submitted a grant for approximately $500,000 for funding from the Clean Water Act Section 319. They did not receive funding, however, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) contacted them and have chosen Rapid Creek Watershed along with four other projects in the State and are willing to give Conservation funds to develop a Watershed Management plan. This is a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard required of all states. She has submitted this plan and developed a budget for the project.
Giannini said in April and May 2009, they held their annual Johnson County Soil and Water District Tree and Plant Sale. This is their biggest fundraiser of the year. They had approximately 3,500 trees ordered which is a little down from last year but they had a great turnout. Every year they have seventh graders from Mid-Prairie Middle School help put the tree orders together.
Giannini said she recently earned a Wildland Firefighter certificate. This will help with the prescribed burning that she does in the spring. She also attended training in May 2009 and earned Raingarden Design certification. She attended the Johnson County Soil Commissioner meetings, the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Community Leadership Program’s Agriculture Day, and she has been accepted into the Community Leadership Program that will begin in September 2009. She also attended Cultural Resource training which looks at potential sites that could have artifacts such as arrowheads or stone buildings from the late 1800s and an Invasive Species Workshop. She is a member of the Johnson County Chapter of Pheasants Forever and attended a burn and also attended IOWATER Snapshot where they tested several sites in a few hours. She also participated on the Riverside Visioning Committee. The City of Riverside received a $20,000 grant from Iowa Living Roadways. They worked with landscape architects and interns from Iowa State University, and developed a more aesthetic landscape at the entrance to the City and they also did a downtown revitalization. The Board thanked Giannini for her report.
Justice Center Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliott said at a joint meeting they discussed the possibility of exploring a split-site for the proposed Justice Center, and because of a unique opportunity, ended with the Board asking the Justice Center Coordinating Committee (JCCC) to come up with a recommendation. The Facilities Subcommittee met in July 2009 and came up with a recommendation that was passed along to the JCCC. The JCCC approved to send that recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. There was not a unanimous vote but it was approved. The general idea of the discussion was that he thinks there is no one who does not believe the preferred site, other things being equal, would be a combined site either connected to or adjacent to the present Courthouse. The present Courthouse must be retained, must be used, and security must be enhanced. Because of the unique opportunity for savings that has been estimated to range from $1 million to $13 million, the JCCC felt it was appropriate that the Board explore the possibility and determine whether those savings were viable.
Stutsman asked Elliott what would be involved in exploring the savings and does it mean hiring someone. Elliott responded that in the memo he sent to the Board the committee recommended the Board explore the possibility of whether the savings were a viable amount that would be sufficient to seriously consider. The JCCC suggested there were perhaps two ways that could be done. One, they could have a Request for Proposal (RFP) that would put the final planning for the Justice Center into two parts. The first part would be to explore whether the Iowa City Press-Citizen facility and property would be appropriate and would represent the savings that have been suggested. The other option would be to hire a firm that would have the appropriate expertise and experience to do a separate exploration process. He said Facilities Manager David Kempf and University of Iowa Facilities Manager Larry Wilson both thought this could be done for probably $10,000 to $15,000. There are some individuals on the Board and on the JCCC who have strong feelings to proceed with a joint facility and not a twin site.
Neuzil said this is an opportunity for those willing to show up to have a conversation to see where the process is and how the JCCC got to this point. County Bar Association and JCCC Member Jim McCarragher said he is a staunch advocate for a joint Justice Center. He said he believes the County’s time and the proposed $10,000 to $15,000 that would be spent toward reviewing and revising the current plan would be better spent on a joint center rather than on separation. He said these funds should be used to reduce costs on a joint Justice Center that has been previously approved by the Board, as opposed to spending that money and time on studying the separation of the Jail. A split facility would not just separate the Jail from the courts but from the Johnson County Clerk of Court, the Judges, and the County Attorney’s Office. A county jail which serves as a short-term holding facility as opposed to a long-term detention of inmates will prove to best serve the current and future interests of Johnson County residents in a joint Justice Center and not in separate facilities.
McCarragher said the Board previously considered many of his reasons and came to the decision that a joint justice center in downtown Iowa City would be in the long range best interest of the County. Arguments in favor of one building versus two fall into several categories: costs, security, efficiency, and many more. He said some of these factors can be quantified into costs although he questions how that is going to be done, but others cannot. From a cost standpoint they have planning and architectural costs of one facility versus two. As far as acquisition costs, they do not know what it is going to cost for the downtown location but may find out in this study, if it is done. The construction costs for one facility versus two is not just for the courts. They were saying they could add Courts to this system but are looking at space problems for the Johnson County Attorney’s Office and the Johnson County Clerk of Court, as well as space problems for the court.
McCarragher said the County will need to provide separate security for Judge’s Chambers inside the court system which was looked at within the joint study. There will be additional costs for future expansion, secured parking, operational costs, utilities, building and ground maintenance, and transportation for one facility versus two. He said the number of additional vehicles that would be required to separate the facilities, the depreciation costs, gas, oil, and maintenance would be higher for one facility versus two. The staff of the Sheriff’s Office would increase because a single security entrance requires less staff. The movement of inmates would have substantial savings on staff costs. Sharing a facility, that was talked about in the approval of a single facility, where there could be multiple rooms and shared programs, such as drug court, meeting rooms, depositions, alcohol programs, and other programs for the future, could be sharing the rooms and times rather than having to have duplicate rooms. He said those are some of the cost concerns he sees and maybe they are quantifiable but maybe they are not.
McCarragher said the next two items he will talk about are very difficult and probably impossible to quantify the costs but are extremely important. The first is security. He said that there is a big difference between inmates being transferred inside one facility and the security required as opposed to putting them in and out of vehicles which would leave them open to the public during that process and also open to officers who have to put them in and out of cars. In one facility inmates could pass through a secured hallway and be separated from the general public. This could be done straight from the Sheriff’s Office through a secured hallway up into the Courthouse and they could be held in a secured area. Having the Sheriff’s Office on-site provides an extreme detriment for any security problems and it also provides immediate response time if something happens. If it is in a separate facility neither of those are available. He asked how that cost is quantified. He asked if a minute, two minutes, five minutes, or fifteen minutes make a difference if a situation occurred at the Courthouse in how it could be dealt with and resolved.
McCarragher said efficiencies are the last area and again are intangibles. There are access issues because there are lawyers who need access to their clients, particularly the Public Defender’s Office or anyone who has inmates in the Jail and the Courthouse. One facility could provide an opportunity for lawyers to see their client in Jail and in Court, all in the same facility for easy access. It will save the Sheriff’s staff time if they can move the inmates inside one facility and will save time for the courts. There will not be as many time conflicts or delays for judges, prosecutors, or public defenders in one facility that would occur if individuals had to travel from one facility to another. McCarragher said a single facility offers the possibility for backup of potential problems. Right now the initial appearance of inmates occurs via video conferencing with the inmate at the Jail and the Judge at the Courthouse. If that video process would break down there is nothing they can do if they are in separate facilities. If they are in the same facility, it would be easy to move the judge or inmate to a different room to accommodate them. There is a lot of document exchange that occurs between the Clerk of Court and the Sheriff’s Office and this could be streamlined in a single facility. He added it will be easier to facilitate, supervise, and monitor a single secured parking lot rather than two.
McCarragher said he thinks the downtown location is the preferred site. It utilizes the existing Courthouse, it is a historic site, it has always been there, and he believes the public is going to require it. He asked what they are going to do with the Courthouse if they move to another site. He said in the downtown area, Iowa City has been the County Seat for many years and it keeps the County services in close proximity to each other. The Board has done a great job of consolidating County offices in the area around the Courthouse which has created a campus-like facility. He asked why they would want to separate the Jail from other court services. The downtown area, with its central location offers multiple and available use of public transportation. This creates an ease of access to all who want to use the services including the elderly and disabled.
McCarragher said there have been three public meetings and the information was presented as a joint facility. The public knows about it, they have received information about it, and the County has not heard any negative responses. There was also a survey performed by University of Iowa Political Science Professor David Redlawsk. The findings indicated it was a good thing to present to the public and therefore the public had a good thought that the facilities were going to be combined in a single Justice Center. There has been no information provided to the public about the separation of the facilities and no public input at all. From the standpoint of money and time spent, it is better to look at the current approved project and try to cut the costs and try to work with that rather than spend money on something that is unknown.
McCarragher said he is really concerned about cost comparison. He asked how they achieve a fair apples to apples cost comparison under the current proposal. He said, as he understands it, the proposal is a recommendation to take one architect’s design of a building and cost estimates, prepared with that person’s thought process, with no written specifications to determine what materials, supplies, specifications, layout, and other matters were being considered. Then they look at another design for the Press-Citizen property, which is even more difficult because it is a separate facility, by another person, with their thought process and no written specifications, to determine what they utilized in their thought process for materials, supplies, specifications, and layout. He asked how the two can be fairly compared without knowing the specific underlying thought process and the basis each person used to derive their costs. He questioned how they value the intangibles. McCarragher concluded the money will be more well spent by going forward with what the Board has already approved and trying to work to save costs rather than explore a different matter that no one at the present time has much knowledge about.
Neuzil stated that McCarragher currently serves as the JCCC Public Information Subcommittee Chair. He reminded those in attendance that the Board will not be voting on anything at this meeting but rather are gathering information. If Board members agree, they may place this item on a future agenda.
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said he does not dispute most of what McCarragher said. He does not know anyone who actually wants to separate the two facilities. He said ideally the best solution is everything under one roof. Unfortunately, what they have in front of them is a study that indicates this joint project is $60 to $80 million. He said that Johnson County cannot afford that. He said he does not know anyone out there who is going to raise their hand and say please raise my taxes $500 a year to build a nice big Justice Center. Pulkrabek said they decided to step back and reevaluate. A group of people, of which he was not a part, were contacted and took a look at the Press-Citizen property. That facility has a very unique feature including 22,000 square feet of space that has Clear Span approximately 24 feet high. He said they asked Novak Design Group to take a look at what it would take to put a consolidated Justice Center there. Some of the costs came within just a couple of million dollars of difference compared to the downtown facility. There were, however, a couple of very distinct differences. When they were talking about the project downtown, they were talking about a Jail facility that had a capacity of 250 inmates. When Novak did the quick review of the Press-Citizen property, they talked about a Jail there with a 350 bed capacity. Pulkrabek said based on the information he has and based on his experience, a 100 capacity difference is about $10 million in costs and that is significant.
Pulkrabek said when this conversation came up, a lot of people contacted him and said a million dollars is a million dollars. He said he understands that even though he does not approve budgets, he still feels that he is a steward of tax dollars. There are probably other properties that they could look at as a separate facility but he does not think separate is the way to go. It makes sense for efficiency and safety to be under one roof. Pulkrabek said he runs into difficulty in looking at the tax dollars to spend on that. They are asking to spend $10,000 to $15,000 to have an apples to apples comparison in the two locations. He said the $10,000 to $15,000 will also help them correct the flaws in the current study. Aside from the fact they cannot afford $60 to $80 million, they need to find a way to downsize the project. They need to consider whether to continue to talk about a facility on the General Services Administration (GSA) property with a parking ramp or do they look at a third possible option that has been suggested. That suggestion is placing three buildings on the same block as the Courthouse that would basically surround the Courthouse on the north, south, and west sides. He said if they can get all of that analyzed for $10,000 to $15,000 to show that absolutely the Press-Citizen property does not make sense, he thinks it is money well spent.
Pulkrabek said there are other things that McCarragher mentioned that should not be argued. He said they are looking at taking yet another step forward, in his opinion. Some would call it a step back ward and some call it a side step because it will take a couple of months. If they are talking about anywhere from a $2 to $13 million difference overall plus decreasing the current estimate of $60 to $80 million, then they will know that is not going to work and look for something in the $30 to $40 million range with the different options. He said if they can get all of that done for $10,000 to $15,000 he personally thinks it is money well spent. That is why the recommendation has come to the Board to hire someone to look at this. He said there is no doubt McCarragher is correct that it would be more efficient to have one facility downtown, unfortunately $13 million is a lot of money.
Kempf said originally they had the Novak Design Group determine if something could fit in the Press-Citizen location and that is what they did which is where the 350 bed facility came from. If they choose to move forward with having this evaluation done, they are not going to be designing the facility. They are going to be comparing blocks of space and assigning a dollar value to those blocks so they can look at the same size blocks of space downtown as they look at separating them out. Then they will have to try and quantify some of those operational expenses. Kempf said he absolutely agrees with McCarragher that there are a lot of things they cannot put a price on. The question becomes what is significant savings. Is it $5 million or is it $10 million and how long do they eat up those savings in 5, 10, or 15 years of operating. He asked if it is truly a savings on a 50 year facility. He said for $10,000 to $15,000 they are not going to get a designed facility in two different locations but what they are going to get is an apples to apples comparison on blocks of space, numbers of beds, and program space at each of the locations.
County Recorder Kim Painter said what she is hearing from Pulkrabek is that he perceives the possibility of two things happening at once. One would be exploring and firming up what the cost looks like at the Press-Citizen site and the other would be taking part of the $10,000 to $15,000 or a different allocation of dollars and re-exploring the proposal that came from the Durrant Group. Everyone has described this to her as a Cadillac proposal that gives everybody everything they wanted exactly the way they wanted it and they could knock that into shape. She said the County does not do projects that way and it behooves them to get a realistic look at the combined site downtown or they could end up comparing two very different things. They could potentially lose the great advantages of a combined site and not realize they could have kept all those advantages and perhaps had some amazing cost savings if they had just gone back, reexamined it and reconfigured it somehow. She said McCarragher made that point very well but she just wanted to reiterate it also.
County Attorney Janet Lyness said while attending a Facilities Subcommittee meeting she expressed many of the same things McCarragher mentioned in that many of the things are going to be intangibles. When they try to do an apples to apples comparison by how much it will cost to build and maintain the facilities, they may not consider everything that should be considered for the future. She thinks the question right now is where they want to put their money. Do they want to put $10,000 to $15,000 looking at that site or would they rather put that money into looking at what they can do with the site that the Board has already approved. She said as Kempf stated what they are going to get is a comparison of spaces and it will not look at those intangible things. The Durrant Group did not look at how the current Courthouse could be reused and the numbers did not include what the County currently owns.
Neuzil said back in 2000 the vote to put a jail on Melrose Avenue was defeated. The County hired State Public Policy Group (SPPG) to get together for a number of meetings. They found individuals against the jail and individuals in favor of the jail which was a very community oriented process. For about three years, from that report and on, they identified a number of priorities. Those priorities included combining the facilities into a Justice Center. They also received buy-in that they should pursue more alternatives and treatments, should determine the size and location for a Justice Center, determine the cost of housing inmates, and create a coordinating council which is called the Justice Center Coordinating Committee. Neuzil said from approximately 2004 on they started the process of bringing together the Justice Center Coordinating Committee. That committee has been looking at all the different things they have been talking about. In particular they hired Durrant Group and they have all approved the fact that the best alternative was to create a joint facility to combine the needs of the Courthouse with the needs of the Jail into one facility. Space and location analysis determined that the best use was to build a facility next to the Courthouse located in downtown Iowa City. This would allow the potential of using both the Courthouse and potentially the existing Jail. They have been able to take a little more time with this process because they have been working to get community buy-in, to get unanimous support from everyone involved, and they have accomplished all of those things. In addition, they have had exceptional leadership from the Sheriff’s Department when it comes to the management of the existing inmates to help keep those costs down for the short-term knowing that eventually they are going to have to have a facility that houses the inmates rather than ship them somewhere else.
Neuzil said there has also been exceptional leadership from the County Attorney’s Office and from the Clerk of Court in cooperation with the Sheriff’s Office to deal with the Courthouse security issue. He said up to this point he thought everyone was working together on a goal and agreeing to that. He said that at this point, there is some dissent which is why he is concerned about the process because the process has been at least for over six years that they were going to have a Justice Center. Everything they have been doing and everything they have been talking about has been a joint justice facility. He said that to invest dollars to potentially look at separating the facility without community dialogue would take a step backwards. He suggested they go through that process before they look at spending money looking at a different location and splitting the two projects apart. Neuzil said he is very concerned about this proposal because it does not include community involvement as a part of it and he is concerned about losing what he thinks has been a collective community effort up to this point. He thinks one of the failures of the 2000 election was a split amongst elected officials. It would be very difficult to get the community to pass an important project for the community without unanimous support from at least all of the County elected officials. He would like to see the dollars they are talking about used to continue to move forward on a joint facility. They have already determined the space and location and now need to look at what the County can afford and what they can do with either putting the facility on the existing Courthouse property or next to the Courthouse property.
Sullivan said he shares the same concerns that Neuzil mentioned. He said he wants to focus on a couple of things. He said that the Board has been told from the very beginning that a joint facility is the best way to go. There are a lot of situations in County government where they do not necessarily buy the best. There are a lot of situations where they decide they want to spend a certain amount of money because they want quality. He said he is frustrated by the $13 million number being thrown out there and that this is all for the taxpayers. He said that if they want to just do this for the taxpayers, nothing will be built. The cheapest option right now is to continue to send inmates to Marshall County. When they talk about a joint justice facility what they have been talking about is not what is the cheapest but what is best for this community.
Sullivan said he is much less worried about the $13 million than he is about doing what is best for the people of Johnson County. If they are only going to consider $13 million he could point out many things they do not necessarily need. One example is the Courthouse, and for some reason the Courthouse is a sacred cow but they can separate the facilities. He said that maybe the cheapest thing is not to use the Courthouse, maybe the cheapest thing is to board it up. People will argue they cannot do that but he would ask why not, if it is just about money. If all they are talking about is money then the Courthouse is a white elephant and they do not need it. He said it is not all about money and there are other considerations. What he is at a loss to understand is how they pick and choose what the other considerations are. He said the Board was told that the joint facility was the best way to go. They have been going in that direction and now all of a sudden they are asked to change that course because of money, and yet they are only willing to look at money in a couple of situations and not in all situations. He said he does not think that makes any sense.
Sullivan said Elliott mentioned that this is a unique opportunity but he is not sure that it is. He asked about the old National Guard Armory site or the County Farm. He said that there will probably be a building for sale in another two years and do they stop everything then and investigate that building. He said they had the public involved in this project and they said this is something they would support. If the majority of the Board decides to change then he thinks they need to start fresh because the public needs to be involved. He said he is not interested in circumventing the public will.
Meyers said he agrees with Sullivan that this is not all about money but at the same time they have to figure out how to finance the project. He said they will have to go to the voters for funding and in order to do that they have to show them they have exhausted all of the possibilities that were available. He said that it may turn out that when two sites are compared to one site there may not be enough savings to justify it. He said he was one of the individuals who attended the site visit to the Press-Citizen property and he thought everyone on the tour was amazed, when they walked through the front door, how easily great portions of that building would lend itself to a jail. There is already a complete office space in place and large two story empty spaces where presses were kept. He said he thinks, for $10,000 or $15,000, they owe it to the taxpayers to at least take a look at it and if it comes out that they will save $1 million, that’s one thing. If it comes out that they will save $13 million or more, then it is a small side step to be sure they have covered all of the bases. When they go to the voters to ask for money, this is one thing that will not be thrown back.
Meyers said he agrees one site downtown is the ideal situation and if a double site or single site equal approximately the same amount of money then there is no decision there. Obviously they would take the downtown location. He said he thinks they need to keep the Courthouse in the mix somehow because it is an existing structure. The historic aspect of the Courthouse adds to the interest in utilizing the property. He said that the Press-Citizen property just popped up; they did not go out looking for it. He said he thinks it is worth taking a look at it, not getting hugely involved in a lot of design work, but take a look to see if this is even remotely an option. If it is not, then drop the idea and move on. Unfortunately, a lot of this is going to come down to money. There are a lot of people who say they want a new Jail and think it is a great idea. When they consider that it might be a $500 per year addition to their tax bill, they are not so sure it is a great idea. They need to show the taxpayer they have exhausted all of the possibilities.
Stutsman agreed with Meyers. She said that if she has learned anything from this whole process of trying to address the Jail issue it is that she has a responsibility as an elected official and policy maker to be sure she has all the information before she makes a decision. She said she does not feel she has all of that information. She asked what she should tell the taxpayer who asks why they are not considering the Press-Citizen building. What she can answer right now is that some people wanted it to stay downtown. She said she cannot say, without a doubt, that it would cost more money. She feels as an elected official she needs to have that information and investing $10,000 to $15,000 is the only way they are going to get all information they need. One good thing about this process is they are getting more focused. She said she is in favor of opening the process up to the public again because a lot of things have changed, including consideration of a different site.
Sullivan asked if they are open to not using the existing Courthouse. Stutsman said she does not know. Sullivan said that is an expensive proposition. Stutsman said that is one thing she wants to know too. She said that they keep talking about the Courthouse but they do not talk about what it is going to cost to bring that Courthouse up to the standards that they want for a Courthouse facility and continue to maintain that facility. Sullivan said his issue is they look at the Courthouse but not other concerns and asked where they are drawing the line. He said he understands Meyers’ comments, but asked why not look again at the County Farm, moving the whole facility out to the Press-Citizen, or have them talk again about the old National Guard Armory, if it is just a Jail. He said he just does not know at what point they will ever make a decision.
Meyers said they have already looked at the County Farm. Neuzil said the County Farm was being considered as a Justice Center. Meyers agreed and said if only the Jail is moved out there they are talking about site development and an entirely new building. The difference he sees with the Press-Citizen site is there is a large building sitting there that needs to be adapted to a Jail. He said he was really surprised when he walked in there how adaptable it looked to this purpose. Sullivan said they would still have to buy the Press-Citizen where as the County Farm is owned by the County and they would just have to build. Meyers said then they toss in the question about what to do with the old Jail. Sullivan agreed and said they will be able to question this until the end of time. At some point the Board is charged with moving forward.
Neuzil said they continue to talk about apples to apples but they have not had an accurate location and space analysis since they all voted to have a Justice Center at the downtown location. He said they are comparing the Press-Citizen as a potential Jail location with the $60 to $80 million price tag, which everyone has determined is not an accurate description of what they even want. Four months ago they were ready to go forward with taking the location, they all determined as the best choice to have a joint facility downtown, and now they should be starting the process of determining what they can afford at that location. Instead, no one has even talked about that. He said he is curious if the Justice Center Coordinating Subcommittee on Facilities talked about making that investment for the Justice Center. He asked if the committee has talked about that as a possibility. He said it seems if they are going to do an accurate apples to apples, they would want to at least have both done and likely at the same time.
Stutsman asked if part of this study is to get a more accurate number on the $60 to $80 million. Neuzil said no, this is $10,000 to $15,000 to look at the Press-Citizen and determine if it is the best location for a jail facility. Harney said the Press-Citizen property came up for sale and it is a unique facility. One reason is that it is a 43,000 square foot facility. It has a free span office area for 23,000 square feet and 21,000 square feet in the production area that can be adapted and retrofitted very easily into a jail facility. It has tall ceilings that would allow for the addition of two or three levels and approximately 300 beds which could be accomplished without building a building. The building sits on nearly 11 acres of property which is somewhat of an island. It is accessible to the State Patrol from Interstate 80, Coralville, and North Liberty. It is on a bus route and located on a main highway.
Harney said they had Durrant Group do a study on five or six locations before the Press-Citizen property became available and they all came back to the facility downtown. He said McCarragher pointed out all the positive facts about keeping the facility downtown and that is what the study showed. However after that, the Press-Citizen property came up, the building is there and it is a good location with nearly 11 acres. It could include the Court system as well if that is what the Board wanted to do. The dollars for the study would be to compare what they can do with downtown Iowa City versus utilizing the Press-Citizen facility. If they do the Jail and Justice Center downtown compared to doing it at the Press-Citizen location and if there is not much of a cost difference, such as a million dollars taken over 15 or 20 years, then the downtown location is the best location. If it is $15 to $20 million then the best location is at the Press-Citizen because they have to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayers and to the community.
Harney said he has had discussions with a major player in the downtown area about utilizing the Courthouse for something else. The comment was, they do not need another high maintenance facility. They would participate in occupying the space but they certainly would not want to purchase it. He said there are so many advantages to taking a look at the Press-Citizen. If it comes out that there is not much difference that is fine because he supports the combined facility downtown, however, it is going to take a lot more in acquiring parking space, more construction costs, and overall he does not see that as being fiscally responsible. He does not think they are backing up a step they are just looking at what is available out there and what would be in the best interest of the community. Right now the County is spending over a million dollars transporting prisoners. Harney said it is best to have the Judges, Clerk of Court, County Attorney, and Sheriff in the same facility when transporting prisoners in and out of the Courthouse for safety. There are, however, some things that could be built into a facility that would equal that, but it will take more personnel. If they spend a little bit of money and weigh the options to get an equal comparison, they will be able to move forward.
Sullivan said he is still frustrated how this proposal is presented in terms of fiscal responsibility. He said they can look at this so many different ways. The most fiscally responsible thing to do, if that is all they care about, is nothing. They decided they needed to do something because they thought it was the best thing, not the cheapest thing, but the best thing for Johnson County. If they are going to play the card of being worried about the taxpayer and that is the bottom line then the conversation is over. Building something does not make sense. There is no way anyone can show, from a strictly financial point of view, why they should precede with the proposal. Harney said it is beyond strictly financial but the financial aspect is a huge issue because he is a taxpayer like everyone else. He said he is looking at the services the Sheriff has to provide to the community. There are safety and transportation issues at the Jail and the operation of that facility would be better if it is within the community rather than transporting prisoners to another County. Sullivan asked Harney how much he is willing to pay for that. Harney said he wants to do what is most fiscally responsible for everyone in the community and the Board has to do that.
Sullivan said he does not think that is true. Harney said it does come down to dollars as well as safety and private services. Sullivan asked what their price point is. Harney said as the Chair of this committee for many years, the vote went down for when they first wanted to build a new Jail at the County Farm. By that vote, the public was saying the Board needs to look at other alternatives and they do not want a new jail until the Board has done all they can to keep people out of jail. The system has done an excellent job of addressing that concern. He said it is to the point they have to do something and in his opinion they need to take a look at the two locations, get a comparison of them, and move forward. Sullivan asked Harney why it is at that point. He said now they are calling everything into question. He was told the best location is downtown and the best option is to have a joint facility. He said that now maybe it does not have to be that way and maybe there is a cost concern. He said he does not know what to question and what not to question. If the Board is going to do whatever is best for the taxpayers then he does not see any point in changing things or spending $15,000, and they can quit having meetings. But if they are going to put a price on it, he at least wants people to acknowledge that it is not just about costs.
Harney asked Sullivan why he is against getting a comparison between the facility downtown and the Press-Citizen. Sullivan replied they have already been down that road and they made a decision that the downtown location is best. He said if they are going to do a comparison then they need to start the process all over again. If they are going to look for what is the cheapest, they are going to find that doing nothing is the cheapest. Harney said they are not necessarily looking at the cheapest but what is most useful to the community. Sullivan said he was told that a joint facility would be most useful to the community.
Clerk of Court Lodema Berkley said she represents the Clerk of Court Office, the Judges, and the whole Courthouse along with the public. She said approximately a week ago, if any of the Board members had been in the Courthouse, they would have seen the necessity for a new Courthouse, whether it is a jail or a courthouse. Due to space issues, they held a pre-trial on the second floor outside of her office. They can talk about the public needs but they are not giving the defendants what they need. They had no privacy. They could not speak to their lawyers in private because there was no place for them. She said there were approximately 75 people standing outside her office. Berkley said the issue is they need to have a facility but heard Meyers talk about a jail and not what is involved at the Press-Citizen for the court system. She said that she is not saying they do not need a new jail and she is not saying that Pulkrabek’s needs are better or worse than anyone else's needs but asked what the Press-Citizen facility holds for the court system. She asked how many courtrooms and offices will be provided. If the Board is going to look at something they need to remember the public agreed on a joint center and the Board needs to follow through on that. As the public hears them talk about stopping and starting all over again to look at the differences in this and they have to either maintain a joint system or start over again, they might as well stop having meetings because her best interests do not seem to be addressed.
Meyers said he is a strong advocate for doing something at the Courthouse. He said he has been over there and he knows how crowded it is. He is not thinking in terms of going over and just concentrating on a jail site at the Press-Citizen and ignoring what is going on at the Courthouse. To him they go hand-in-hand toward some sort of improvement. Berkley said she appreciates Meyers' comments because that was a question she had during his earlier statements. Meyers said he has been telling people for quite a while now that the Jail is not the highest issue at the moment, it is the Courthouse. Berkley said they have a restroom that has been down for several weeks and was one of the new ones built several years ago. She asked what the expense is going to be to this building. When they talk about spending $10,000 to $15,000, some people do not think that is very much money, however, with the floods the public is going to think twice about it. She said people come into her office asking Judge's opinions and her opinion on the issue. They have envelopes stored under their desks because they have no additional room available. She said Kempf has been good about asking to move files to a different location, however, it will not work to go one day a month to pick up files.
Berkley said Lyness could walk into her office and say she needs a file now because the Judge wants to see it. The way they have their files set now, they can get the file. If they decide to move files, they would not be able to get the file until the end of the month. There is more than just the building to consider, it is also the files. Right now there is no money anywhere. They need to consider what the public is going to agree on and maybe they need to scale down the proposal. She said she is a strong advocate for the Court system and the Judges and she will continue to work as a team player, however, she urges the Board to continue calling it a justice center.
casie stopped here
Kempf said Meyers and Berkley are right. In all the meetings, when they talked about separating the Courthouse and Jail, it was clear that the Courthouse had to be addressed. He said he does not think there has ever been a discussion that they were just looking at building a Jail. Historical restoration is approximately $225 to $250 per square foot. There is approximately 27,000 square feet and it would cost approximately $6 million to restore the existing Courthouse. He said they are not talking about identifying exactly what this facility will cost but rather they are identifying blocks of space. At the Press-Citizen property they would be identifying the cost of blocks of space and retrofitting an existing facility. At the Courthouse they would be identifying blocks of space based on new construction and renovation. The renovation of the Courthouse in either scenario would take place because the Courthouse would be reused in both situations. Kempf said Sullivan makes an excellent point regarding his question of where do they start and where do they stop questioning if there is something better out there. He said he thinks the best possible thing for the County to do, for a 50 year project, is to have a joint facility downtown. However, he has had people come to him and ask where the numbers are coming from. He said he has a good idea where his numbers come from but it all rolls out to what is significant savings and at what point do they move forward. If this is a project they want to break ground on in three years, they need to pick a place and they need to move forward now.
Harney asked Kempf if the renovation costs he mentioned were strictly for remodeling the Courthouse and not adding any new space. Kempf said yes. He added the discussion has been all along that they are going to maintain the Courthouse in one form or another. They are talking about a Courthouse and an annex of Court functions. It would involve reprogramming the space and to do the renovations necessary, the $6 million is based on information he received from someone who is on the National Historic Preservation Board in Cedar Rapids. No one has ever suggested the County not use the existing Courthouse. He said Sullivan is right, if they want to look at the cheapest option, they should board up the Courthouse and move on. No one has said to him not to move the Jail out of the downtown area. Virtually everyone he has talked to has expressed a desire to keep the Courthouse downtown.
Harney said the point he wanted to make was it will take approximately $6 million to remodel the Courthouse but they will still need to put additional space there somewhere for Court Services if they are going to separate those. Kempf agreed and said when they are assessing the blocks of space that will take into account the renovation costs of the Courthouse. If they need a total of 60,000 square feet of court space, 27,000 square feet of that is going to be the existing Courthouse. The other space may only cost $200 per square feet. They will look at that based on national averages and assign a dollar amount accordingly. There will not be an accurate cost determined until they go through the programming and design phase of the project. Neuzil said it appears there are at least three members of the Board who want to move forward to place this on a future agenda to make that expenditure. He said they probably need more accurate numbers for the allocation. Members of the Board agreed.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson reported that the next Key Issues Meeting is August 26, 2009 and there is a full agenda.
Neuzil asked if there are applicants to serve on the Civil Service Commission. Johnson replied there are no new applicants. He said Douglas Vance has been serving and is willing to be reappointed. It is a two year appointment with a requirement that it be a bipartisan board and Vance is a Democrat which meets this requirement.
Meyers attended a site visit at United Action for Youth with Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia.
Sullivan attended a Livable Community for Successful Aging Committee meeting, liaison meetings with Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak and with Johnson, and attended the recent Strategic Planning Meeting. He also attended a healthcare forum with State of Iowa Senator Joe Bolkcom, the Lone Tree Fall Festival, and noted the beginning of the school year for Iowa City and Clear Creek Amana.
Stutsman attended liaison meetings with Dvorak, Johnson, County Engineer Greg Parker, and Information Technology Director Jean Schultz. Stutsman also attended the MECCA Board of Directors Meeting, and the Iowa State Fair.
Harney attended the Emergency Communication Policy Board meeting, the Coralville Chamber Roundtable, a liaison meeting with Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek, and a site visit with Correia at the Arc of Southeast Iowa.
Neuzil attended a Unified Cost Report Meeting with the Iowa Medicaid Enterprise Office, the State Fair, and had liaison meetings with Schultz and Medical Examiner Administrator Mike Hensch. He also met with the Sutliff Bridge Authority group. Neuzil will hold a Listening Post Friday, August 28, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center.
Adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
By John Deeth, Recording Secretary