MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report on Activities of Justice Center Coordinating Committee Coordinator........................ 1
Report from Alternatives and Treatments Subcommittee...................................................... 2
Report from Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee..................................................... 2
Report from Facilities Subcommittee.................................................................................... 4
Additional Comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members................. 8
Set Next Meeting Date.......................................................................................................... 8
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Chairperson Harney called the joint meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 4:30 p.m. Members present were: Supervisors Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan; County Attorney Janet Lyness; County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek; Iowa City Representative Connie Champion; Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen; MECCA Director Steve Estes; Judge Douglas Russell; Bar Association Representative Jim McCarraghar; and Citizen Representatives: Professor Emeritus John Stratton and Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden; absent: Public Defender John Robertson, and Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston. Also present: Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliott.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Coordinator Bob Elliott said he thinks the subcommittees are now moving forward and becoming more active. The Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee met earlier this week, and the Facilities Subcommittee will be meeting next week. Elliott said he is not sure whether he is still needed in the position of Coordinator since the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) has been reconstituted with a member of the Board of Supervisors on each subcommittee. He just thought he would raise the issue because there hasn’t been much work for him to do. Elliott said he is willing to continue in the position if he can be of help, however the Board can let him know if it is now an extraneous position. In the latter case, he would like to continue to be a member of the CJCC. Harney said he is unsure of the proper time for the Board to discuss that issue. Stutsman said it may need to be put on a Key Issues Meeting agenda. Neuzil said the Board will again take a look at the job description. Harney said Elliott has done a good job of keeping up with the minutes of the meetings and similar tasks.
MECCA Director Steve Estes read the following information from the October 2009 report: MECCA staff attended 31 initial courtroom hearings, 48 assessments were requested and 47 were completed, 22 assessments were completed on the weekend, and one Spanish evaluation was completed with an interpreter. The one individual not seen was due to illness. Three of the evaluations came at the request of the Public Defender and were counted under the Jail contract. The one evaluation that was completed by the Spanish interpreter resulted in expediting that person’s release from Jail. There are ten MECCA Counselors that are trained to provide assessments at the Jail in order to ensure daily coverage.
Sullivan said there is a new Supervisor, and she may not be aware of the roles of all of the CJCC members. Harney asked each person in attendance to state their name and the organization with which they are affiliated, and they did so.
County Attorney Janet Lyness said CJCC members should be aware that Drug Court and other Department of Correctional Services (DCS) programs could be affected by State budget cuts. They are hoping to keep the Drug Court going. Neuzil asked what percentage of the Drug Court funding comes from the State. Lyness responded that it was all new money that came from the State, but it was funneled through DCS. Harney said he hopes funding for that program is not cut.
Neuzil said the subcommittee primarily focused on creating a letter of response to the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding the acquisition of the GSA property. The letter would not only follow up on a number of questions that a representative of the GSA had previously asked, but would also formally state that the County is interested in the property. Neuzil said Lyness has been working on a letter and thinks discussion of the letter will probably be the focus of today’s meeting.
Lyness said she accidentally went to the wrong subcommittee meeting on November 2, 2009. She thought it was the Facilities Subcommittee meeting, but it was actually the Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee meeting. She brought up the issue of the letter, however, and they discussed it at the meeting. She said she has 15 copies of the letter Harney received from a GSA Representative and copies of a possible letter of response. Lyness said she wrote a letter for the Board to consider at their Informal meeting a couple of weeks ago, however she had not seen the letter received by Harney and subsequently realized that her letter was too generic. The letter currently being handed out includes a more detailed answer to the questions previously raised by the GSA. Although it is not extremely specific, it will hopefully facilitate continuation of the previous conversation between the County and the GSA regarding acquisition of the property.
Lyness said it seemed like the GSA was primarily concerned with three topics in their letter to Harney. One was acquisition and whether the County would be purchasing the property outright, leasing it, or exchanging other property for it. She said she responded that the County would like to purchase the property outright, however, they are willing to consider a long-term lease if the terms were long enough to justify building a multi-million dollar building on the property. She also wrote that the County is still pursuing the acquisition of property to exchange for the lot. The message is basically that the County wants the property and is willing to work with them to acquire it.
Lyness said the second issue was regarding the issue of parking and how the County would accommodate the GSA’s parking needs during construction and after. Lyness said the response involved the County somehow obtaining at least 150 parking spaces within two blocks of the current Federal Lot for use by GSA employees and tenants of the Federal Building. She said the County would probably approach the City of Iowa City about acquiring some spaces in one or more of the nearby parking ramps for use during the construction phase. Following construction, they could use part of the current GSA lot to accommodate the parking needs of GSA employees.
Lyness said there was another question regarding maintenance of any parking facility. She indicated in the letter that it is a negotiable point. If the GSA wouldn’t have to pay any maintenance and they would be provided parking, she would expect them to take those factors into account in determining the price of the property. She said she didn’t state it in the letter in those words.
Lyness said the third question involved the timing and funding of the project. She .indicated in the letter that the County doesn't anticipate having a sufficient plan in place for 12-18 months. Depending on the decision regarding how to fund the project, a related ballot measure would probably be put before Johnson County voters within two years. The letter provides some timeframes and an idea of what the County is considering. It does not involve a lot of specifics but will hopefully encourage continuation of discussions between the County and the GSA.
Harney said he thinks the letter is a good starting point and that Lyness did a very good job on it. He took the liberty to speak to City Assessor Dennis Baldridge regarding the value of the GSA property in comparison to other properties within the downtown area. He did so to get an idea of the amount they would need to be offered for purchase of the property. However, it would be a different story if the lot was shared. Harney said Baldridge used the property located at 551 S. Linn Street for one comparison. It is the lot where St. Pat’s Church was previously located, and it was sold for $750,000 to a firm out of Minneapolis. The second comparison property is located at 435 S. Linn and includes the St. Pat’s parking lot and their community center located on the property. It sold for $3,050,000. Harney said to determine the actual cost of the space of that property, $500,000 should be deducted from that amount for the cost of the building. The third comparison was the Happy Joe’s property at 225 S. Gilbert, which sold for $350,000. The total of the three properties less the $500,000 is $3,650,000. The average cost per square foot is $49.40. Harney said the GSA lot includes 76,800 square feet of space. Therefore, the estimated value of that property is $3,793,920. Harney said Baldridge estimates that amount to be the approximate value of the property, however, it may be higher when the diminished availability of similar, downtown parcels is taken into account. Harney said Baldridge told him that is an estimate, and it could be worth anywhere between that amount and $4.5 million. Harney said he was told the City of Iowa City got a bargain on the property they purchased.
Harney asked if anyone has had a chance to read the letter that Lyness put together. Judge Douglas Russell said the first paragraph mentions that the Justice Center would provide a new jail and new courtroom space. He suggested that it be reworded to ‘new courthouse’. That is really what they are talking about, and the additional courtroom space would actually be whatever is left in the old Courthouse. Russell said he would really like to highlight that this would be the new, central courthouse facility and that the old courthouse is more likely to include office space and support services for the courts.
Harney said he doesn’t think the letter needs to be formally approved by the Board. He thinks it can be approved at this meeting and signed by the Board Chairperson. Neuzil agreed and said he is fine with that. Harney said they were originally going to send the letter through the subcommittees, but he thinks it should come from the Board since they will be the representatives in the property issue anyway. Sullivan said the letter should be put on Board letterhead. Stutsman asked if Harney wants a motion to approve it. Harney said yes. Stutsman made a motion to authorize the Board Chairperson to send the letter to the GSA. Professor Emeritus John Stratton seconded the motion. Neuzil commented that his name is spelled incorrectly in the letter and asked that it be corrected. The motion was unanimously approved. Lyness said she would make the changes.
Harney said the Facilities Subcommittee has not met due to being unable to find a date prior to this meeting that would work for all members. The subcommittee is scheduled to meet on November 9, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. Harney said he and Facilities Manager David Kempf talked to Novak Design Group Founder James Novak about obtaining accurate numbers regarding space needs. Harney said that Novak told Kempf and himself that Novak would be willing to determine space needs for each department in about a month from now and at a negotiable price, if desired. Harney said Novak told them the estimates would be very accurate, could include some space for potential expansion and, the amount of space they need to operate the justice center regardless of where it is located. Harney thinks that is what CJCC members have been looking for, and Novak is scheduled to give a presentation to the Facilities Subcommittee at their meeting on November 9, 2009. Harney said Novak told him he is also willing to give the presentation at the December CJCC meeting if they would like him to do so. Harney thinks the information is needed and will provide a good base to start from.
Iowa City Representative Connie Champion asked if that information was sought for the drawings that were previously done. Harney said no, the drawings, which really just represented a concept, were based on the numbers identified in the previous study. No one was comfortable with those numbers. Harney said Novak can obtain accurate numbers that can be used no matter where the justice center will be located. Rettig commented that the Durrant Group study was just done at a cost of $50,000. She said the study was presented on September 2, 2008 and she asked if those questions were asked before the Durrant study was paid for. Harney said they paid to have that study done, and then people in the County Attorney’s Office and others said the numbers were not accurate. They’ve had long conversations about the legality of potential actions due to not having received the desired product.
Harney said that Novak described the Durrant study as a good feasibility study but not an accurate space needs study, which is what is needed. Harney said Novak told him the space needs study is fairly simple to put together, and he could have it ready in about a month. He said Novak plans to present a space needs study he has done in the past to the subcommittee. Harney said Novak is willing to do the study for less money than he previously requested because he would like to see the project move along.
Neuzil said it would be helpful for Novak to identify potential phasing of the project. Rather than a $65 million to $80 million project, it would be nice to know if they can start with a $25 million to $30 million project and phase in some other things after the initial costs are paid off. He would also like an accurate cost estimate. If an updated study is done, he would like it to address those things.
Harney said he thinks they are talking about two different things. He said Novak would only be looking at the space needed. Neuzil asked if it would address the amount of space currently needed or the amount of space needed five or ten years from now. Harney said Novak says he can easily plug those numbers in. Neuzil said he thinks there needs to be direction fairly early on to determine the size of the building needed. They need to look at how long into the future the space will be able to accommodate their needs. He thinks they may be asking residents to support a facility that will only meet their needs for the next five or ten years. Stutsman said she thinks they will go through the same process that they did for the Health and Human Services (HHS) Building. They will determine today’s needs, make projections for the future, and pull the numbers together. Harney said that is what Novak stated as well. Novak told Harney he will determine their current space needs, their projected space needs, and costs for making accommodations for future additions. Harney is not going to criticize or question Novak's methods until he has seen the presentation and knows what is actually being offered. He restated that Novak will be making that presentation to the Facilities Subcommittee on November 9, 2009. If the Subcommittee members feel it is worthy, they can bring it back to the CJCC.
Sullivan said one potential difference between this project and the HHS Building is that the HHS Building includes room for future expansion. The Board members are proud of that because lack of space for expansion has been a problem with public buildings in the community. The County may not be able to afford to do that for the justice center since additional space is somewhat of a luxury. Sullivan said they should not choose an option that will leave them landlocked and prevent future expansion. Sullivan thinks there should be potential for relatively easy future expansion if they choose an incremental option. Otherwise, they will be making a mistake. Champion agreed and said five to 10 years is a very short time. She thinks they should consider at least 25 years. Neuzil said his point is that they may not be able to consider 25 years at this time if the associated price tag is $65 million. Champion said they should consider how they would be able to expand to allow enough space for the next 25 years. Stutsman agreed. Harney said he thinks what Neuzil is saying is true. After Novak lets them know how much space they will need, they could choose to do the courthouse section first. They could subsequently move the Sheriff’s Department and Jail three to four years later.
Elliott said he understood Sullivan to be saying that they need to ensure that there is a sufficient foundation for future expansion, whether it is outward or upward. Harney said foundation and space. Sullivan and Stutsman agreed. Elliott said there have been problems with a couple of civic buildings for which there was not enough money to initially ensure a solid foundation, and now they can’t expand. Sullivan said the Jail is one of those buildings. Stutsman said the Linn County Detention Center is another case in point. It was initially built with a plan for future expansion, however, as things have evolved, they don’t need that expansion. Stutsman thinks they should build for today with the possibility of future expansion.
Elliott asked if the Board has the final say in determining square footage. Harney said the Board has the final say, but he thinks it would be negligent not to consider a professional’s recommendations regarding the amount of square footage needed for individual departments. Elliott asked if the Board has the authority to say they don’t think a particular department needs as much space. Harney said yes. Sullivan said he knows there was previously talk of Polk County potentially being sued due to lack of space there. The County rented additional space in response to the talk, and there was no lawsuit. Sullivan said there is an obligation in the Code regarding space, but he thinks there is a question of who determines adequate space. Neuzil said the Board will have the final say regarding language on the ballot and hopefully, they will all agree on the proposed plan. He said ultimately, the voters will make the decision.
Stutsman asked if they will be approving the subcommittee to review the issue during this meeting. Harney said no, he is just informing them that Novak is going to give a presentation to the subcommittee. If the subcommittee members like the ideas presented, they will bring it to the next CJCC meeting, and if they don’t like it, they will say they should do something else. Stratton said he would like to emphasize that it is necessary to obtain an assessment of what is needed. He is fearful that they will get in a position of working backwards. He doesn’t want the requests for the building based on the amount of money they think they can obtain. Stratton said he thinks they should start out with a determination of what they need and then see how much of it they can afford.
Stratton said he worked on the last Jail, and he thinks it went through three votes and was cut down to the point of being almost outdated at the time it was opened. He would hate to see that happen again. Harney again stated that Novak described the first study as a good feasibility study but not a needs study. Rettig said consultants and studies are only as good as the questions and parameters given to them. She doesn’t want to say the Durrant Study resulted in wasted money, but it certainly didn’t provide the information needed to move forward. She would be hesitant to do additional studies if they are not sure they are asking the right questions. Rettig said Neuzil’s point about phasing is well taken. If there needs to be one more study regarding space needs and phasing, then there should be one more study. However, they should not rush into a study without first determining all of the questions they want answered.
Harney said he thinks they are confusing an evaluation of the County’s space needs with a study. The information regarding space needs can be used for future projections. It is not a study per se, which was done previously and felt to be a failure. Harney said future expansion plans could be addressed when an architect is hired to create a design. The design would be based on the County’s desires regarding areas for expansion and show how it could be done. The work by Novak would simply provide information regarding the amount of space needed. They could subsequently make decisions regarding the type of facility and its location.
Neuzil said there were two components of the Durrant Study. It involved both space and location analyses. Although the study may not have addressed all the County’s space needs, it did key in on the value of the location. Neuzil thinks they have been discussing the issue of location for the past year. There is a lot of value in the Durrant Study, and they should open it up. He said he thinks the committee will find that it is fairly useful and can be built upon. Neuzil said it would obviously require updating and some corrections would need to be made, but there is value in the study. Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden said part of the Durrant Study involved meeting with each County department head. Neuzil agreed. Harney said it seemed like there was some inaccurate information, however. Neuzil said he is certainly comfortable with the Facilities Subcommittee members meeting with the consultant. They should start moving forward.
Sullivan said he is not a subcommittee member but he has attended the last two meetings. He wants to let people know that he recently tried to determine a rough estimate of square footage and cost. He doesn’t have any experience in this area, but he wanted to do something. A number of people provided him with input and corrected his numbers, and University of Iowa Facilities Representative Larry Wilson was very helpful. Sullivan doesn’t intend for the result to be accurate, but he thinks it can serve as a starting point for discussion.
Neuzil said Kempf plans to coordinate a meeting with Rettig to update her on facilities related issues.
Elliott said Executive Assistant Andy Johnson gave him a report from their meeting last month, which they neglected to send out. They will try to distribute the report for this meeting significantly faster.
McCarraghar said they also talked about an outline of items that has been reviewed by subcommittee members regarding things that should be considered in evaluating having separate facilities versus a joint facility. They are also considering the addition of new members and discussed which segments of the community they would like to have represented on the subcommittee to help bring the project to the attention of the community. McCarraghar said actions that were important the last time the Jail issue was brought to the community for consideration were highlighted. The Subcommittee members would like to ensure that previous concerns are addressed the next time around.
Harney said things are not getting any better in terms of budgets. There will be huge cuts in the Sixth Judicial District, and that will affect the County in terms of the Hope House and similar programs. It looks like they have backed off on some of those layoffs, but County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek may be able to give Committee members an idea of what is going on within the Sheriff’s Department. Harney thinks the Department recently had an all-time record of transports. Pulkrabek said they recently hit a new record high with 199 inmates. Otherwise, their transportation costs are continuing to climb along with the numbers. Their normal average is 140 to 150 inmates, but they have recently seen a spike. Professor Emeritus John Neff is working to update data tables the Sheriff’s Office has used in the past.
Harney said the next meeting has been rescheduled to December 9, 2009. Neuzil said he doesn’t think December 9 works for Pulkrabek. Pulkrabek asked if the December 2, 2009 meeting was rescheduled because of the conflict with the Johnson County Council of Governments meeting that same day. Neuzil said yes, and asked Pulkrabek if he is comfortable with a CJCC meeting being held without him present. Pulkrabek said yes. The committee agreed to schedule the next meeting on December 9, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary