MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
JANUARY 5, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Work Session Regarding Key Issues, Such as Location, Financing and use of Current Facilities, to be Considered in Planning for a Future Justice Center.................................................................................. 1
Group #1: Summary of Priorities.................................................................................. 5
Group #2: Summary of Priorities.................................................................................. 6
Group #3: Summary of Priorities.................................................................................. 7
Discussion about Downtown Location.......................................................................... 9
Reuse of the Courthouse........................................................................................... 19
Funding Options: Question of a Joint Facility............................................................... 21
Funding Options: Question of a Legislative Change..................................................... 23
Funding Options: Question of Bonding........................................................................ 25
Purchase of Houses on Capitol Street........................................................................ 26
Vacation/Use of Harrison Street................................................................................ 28
Remaining Issues...................................................................................................... 29
Other................................................................................................................................... 31
Set Next Meeting Date......................................................................................................... 32
Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 5:06 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present were: Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, MECCA Director Ron Berg, Citizen Representative Bob Elliott, Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, County Attorney Janet Lyness, Iowa State Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, District Court Judge Douglas Russell, Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton, and Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston. Staff present: Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant Andy Johnson and Auditor’s Office Recording Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz.
Former University of Iowa Campus Planner and Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) Facilitator Larry Wilson said since the group knows everyone, they will skip introductions. He said the CJCC and the Board of Supervisors hope to achieve three goals tonight: 1. Reach agreement on major issues in order to move the project forward; 2. Where there are differences on major issues, determine what information is needed to move the project forward; and 3. Establish the target parameters, such as the location of the criminal justice center, the general amount of space needed, and the target cost in order to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a design consultant. He said they do not have to decide on all the final answers tonight, but rather an agreement on a general idea at this preliminary stage, realizing that later this work group will be going through more detail in the schematic design.
Wilson said he has a neutral role as the facilitator; he has no agenda. He will try to introduce questions for the CJCC’s consideration. He is not trying to guide the discussion in a particular direction, but rather to assist in covering important issues and get them out on the table, if they do not arise naturally. First the group will divide up by count into three breakout sessions. For the first 15 minutes each group will consider the key issues listed on the handout. After 15 minutes, each group should try to select the top five issues and select one person to present those to the entire group later tonight. The idea is not to have solutions to the issues, but to identify the most important issues for the discussion process. Eventually everything on the list will be discussed, if not tonight, maybe in a future session, if needed.
Wilson said the breakout session should last about 25 minutes. Then, everyone will regroup and one person from each breakout session will report their top priority issues and why they were chosen. After hearing everyone speak about their important issues, CJCC members will vote on the top four or five issues to begin discussions on. People will vote using colored dots. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said a red dot is worth three points, a green dot is worth two, and a yellow dot is worth one point. Wilson said he will go over this with the group again later. A person can put all their dots on one issue if they think it is really important, or spread the dots out over any issues. Wilson said during the dinner break he will tally the dots and rank order the priorities for discussion after the break.
Wilson said there were several questions about space not being included in the space analysis done by Novak Design Group Architect Jim Novak. Wilson said he told Novak that people asked why certain spaces were not included. Wilson said Novak told him that Novak listened to people at the last CJCC Meeting and after that, he made a worksheet with additional spaces added in but has not yet sent the worksheet out. Today, the CJCC and the Board were emailed an addendum to the space analysis report.
Wilson said Novak said he thinks the addendum has everything of significance that has been mentioned to date, and a contingency amount of space to cover some things that might not have been thought of. The important thing is that this is a preliminary report and the people will have another chance to go through the space analysis to hammer out the details. At that time, CJCC members will discuss details of how the spaces fit together and how the spaces fit on the site.
Wilson said the next move is to break out into small group discussions. He said Johnson, Facilities Manager David Kempf, and Wilson will try to answer any questions and make sure that everyone meets their 15 minute time allotment for this portion of the small group discussion. Johnson clarified that everyone will get a copy of the key issues worksheet to take to the discussion. Wilson said everyone should hold onto this worksheet because it is also their ballot, which is where each person will stick their dots.
Rettig asked if people are expected to talk about all the key issues during the breakout sessions. Wilson said yes, the idea is to enrich each other in terms of everyone’s understanding of the issues and to get a feel as to what is important to different people. Then, each group will come up with their top priorities. As each breakout group reports back to the entire group later, Wilson will record the feedback and generate three sets of lists, which is what will be voted on. Sullivan asked if a group can write in something if they think it is more important than all of the things listed. Wilson said the worksheet he is passing out now includes all the key issues that have been voiced so far. He asked the group if there are any major key issues that do not appear on the worksheet.
District Court Judge Doug Russell asked if the work group is assuming that they are talking about one facility for both the proposed jail and the proposed courthouse, and that is not a matter for debate. Wilson said yes, they are assuming that it is one facility. Citizen Representative Bob Elliott asked if there is anything, other than the parking area, over which the County does not have authorization to move ahead on. He said it seems like the County has been waiting all this time to get approval from the Federal government. Wilson said the CJCC has a lot of what ifs, such as what if the County got this or that piece of property. He said for now, to keep this process moving forward, the group should consider the site to be what the County owns now.
Rettig said the County does not have Iowa City City Council approval to vacate Harrison Street, but the County does have informal nods and head shakes that the City Council would not have a problem with that. She asked if the assumption is that vacation is possible. Wilson said the assumption he is going to propose for this session is that the County-owned property is the land: the three houses, the Jail site, and the existing Courthouse land. He said he is also assuming, because Iowa City has seemed to be in a cooperative mood and will work with the County, that for now people should assume the County can have the Harrison Street property. He said the site is the land around the Courthouse, Harrison Street, the three houses, and the existing Jail.
Wilson said he talked to Novak today and reaffirmed that Novak believes the full program for the proposed criminal justice center can be built on that amount of land. If the County ends up getting more land, then the facility can spread out and not have to go up so high, which will reduce costs. The facility can perhaps get better space configuration, because there will be more land to work with. It might allow for more parking on site. He said those things are for future consideration. After the CJCC gets into the schematic design, these kinds of issues can be investigated, such as how much land is actually needed to build a jail and for future expansion, and where to put parking. Those are details that will be fleshed out as the group gets into schematic design.
Wilson said the question about parking today is how much parking is necessary to have on site. There might be three different answers: just enough parking to service the proposed jail and courthouse functions plus visitors, just enough parking to have a few visitor parking spots and a few extra for general or important staff, or enough parking for everybody on site. He said having everybody park on site will require a ramp of some sort. However, there might be ways to provide less parking on site and put the rest of the parking somewhere else, which will be determined later. He said tonight's discussion should focus on the general issue, not the specifics of exactly how many parking stalls.
Sullivan said this group took a vote on this issue several months ago. One key issue that might be missing from the worksheet is "method of funding." Stratton said he thinks that is included in item #12 "additional/alternative funding sources to reduce bonding." Sullivan said #12 assumes bonding, which this group did vote for, but that does not mean everyone agrees with it. Wilson said the group may not have to decide how to fund the project at this time because they do not know for sure what they are trying to fund. Some people said there is an amount they will not exceed, like $50 million. He said what if they all learn that they cannot build a workable criminal justice center for $50 million. Or what if they learn that for $40 million, a first phase of the project can be built that will solve the problems for the next 10 or 15 years, and then there is space for future expansion. Once more information is available and more decisions are made, maybe the parameters of that dollar amount will come out, and then the CJCC can consider funding options. Iowa Bar Association Representative (IBA) James McCarragher asked why the group does not just name #12 "funding." Wilson agreed and said there is a definite prejudice the way he wrote it originally. He asked everyone to change that on their worksheet.
Rettig said she thinks item nine, “project cost public will accept,” should just be "project cost." What the public will accept may be higher or lower than what one is comfortable spending. Item #9 assumes that the County will be willing to do whatever the public will accept. Wilson said that is on there because at least one Board member had suggested a limit the individual would not go beyond. Wilson chose not to identify that limit on the worksheet. He said when the group gets down to discussing that issue, someone might say that they will not know what that number is until the public is surveyed.
Stutsman said the Committee has talked about phasing the justice center and not doing the project all at once. She asked if that would be part of the discussion. Wilson said that is a detail the group cannot resolve until the total cost of the project is known. Generally, the group thinks the County has the amount of space that will make it work. The CJCC can get some general costs, provided by Novak, based on square footage, but no one will really know what the costs are until the process gets into the schematic design phase. When the project gets into the schematic design phase and the group starts talking about the space needed, the group might have to pare back on some of these things in order to get the costs down. It is the role of the hired consultant to work the group through possible scenarios. The list of issues is written with the idea that those types of details will surface during the schematic design phase where everyone will have more input, but after a design consultant would be hired to start the design. Wilson said at that time, the design consultant could do some preliminary design layouts showing how the facility would fit on the site, get agreement on the amount of space needed, and start drafting some pictures of what the facility might look like.
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said he is not clear about whether there is a group commitment to building the facility in the downtown location. He said this issue has clearly been voted on before and he asked how someone can indicate they are not committed to that location. He asked if someone would just not vote on that issue or put one of their top colors on it, since everyone is color coding when voting. Johnson said the small groups are going to be voting on the order the issues are addressed, not what issues are most important. The vote is not necessarily on the priority of the most important overall issue; it is on what the group needs to address first.
Wilson said if the location comes up for the first discussion item and the work group starts discussing it, then the question is if there is someone who does not agree with a downtown location. If there are some people who disagree with the downtown location, then the group needs to find out why, and what it would take to determine if they could change their minds. The group would try to list the issues and later in the week the staff would try to respond to the issues in question. Harney asked if the breakout session is going to be approximately 25 minutes. Wilson said yes. Harney said they need to be sure there are no more than two Supervisors in any one of those groups.
Wilson invited members of the audience to participate in the discussion of the breakout groups. Rettig said she would be happy to have audience members participate in whatever they wanted. Kempf said group one will meet in Conference Room 203B and 203C of the Health and Human Services Building (HHS), group two will meet in the Information Technology Department, and group three will meet in the small conference room.
Recessed at 5:31 p.m.; reconvened at 6:08 p.m.
Sullivan said group #1 decided that the first thing to reaffirm was the location. Then, the group went back and forth between items #2 and #3, but decided item #3, which was what is needed, such as beds and courtrooms, was the second topic to discuss. The third item the group picked was #9, the cost the public will accept. The fourth choice was how will it be funded, and the fifth is when will it be voted upon.
Wilson asked if Sullivan wants to offer any explanations for the reasons behind the choices of group #1. Sullivan said the group felt as though a lot of the other things were not as important. The group has to know the location first before talking about parking. The choices for group #1 rose way above any other choices.
Russell said group #1 wanted to reaffirm things that have been discussed, and thought may have already been decided upon. The group wanted to be sure that, in addition to this being one facility, it would be downtown and next to the Courthouse. Then, the group thought the space needs would be determinative of all of the funding questions and the size questions. So, the group wanted to focus on that. The second priority is a combination of items #2 and #3. The cost the public accepts was a concept of polling and getting some guidance to see if there is a drop-off point. As Sullivan said, this was done with the Conservation referendum, to get some sense of the politics of the matter, and what the County should be looking at as a practical matter. The fourth item on funding was to try and arrive at consensus on the Board about whether it will be bonding only, or whether the County will go off on side tangents. If the side tangents are not really practical, then the County should perhaps just focus on the bonding. The fifth item, which Neuzil brought up, was a very good one. That is the idea that when the County makes a decision about timing of the ballot initiative, then there is a framework for scheduling all of the other tasks and priorities. That is why that item was included in group #1’s top priorities.
Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton said group #2 has the items listed in rank order. The group felt that the Courthouse reuse was a crucial issue. In discussing it, the group felt that there was no way to avoid reusing the Courthouse, save supporting it as another kind of entity. Clearly, it would be much more cost efficient to incorporate the Courthouse into the justice center facility. The group also felt it would be difficult to ignore the Courthouse in the justice center project. Cost was a major condition, such as how much the County could afford, how much the public would be willing to support, and how much Supervisors would be willing to support. In a sense, a lot of the issues are interconnected. However, the circle has to be broken into in some place to say that this is where it is going to start and then go from there. Stratton said cost seems to be a very basic issue, which the County cannot really get away from. They ranked the justice center location, adjacent to the Courthouse or elsewhere, as #3. The group felt there were some possible cost advantages to going elsewhere. However, in terms of supporting things, like downtown renewal and the downtown business community, and in terms of getting political support from various interest groups, this issue has to be decided. The group felt that downtown would be the most desirable location. That is a crucial issue.
Stratton said, for issue #4, the group felt that the County needs to acquire the four houses on Capitol Street that have not been acquired yet. This is going to be key land. If the County does ultimately decide not to use the houses, it would not be land sold at a loss, given what is going on in the south part of town. So, this would also avoid an argument or discussion around redesign. If the County owns it, then the County can design the project to include the land. If the County does not own the land, then that option is taken away.
Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen asked if there was mention of a possible alternative location and what the discussion was surrounding that topic. Stratton said group #2 did not talk about specific locations, but the only pertinent discussion was about whether the County would have a large land area away from the downtown. Then, it would be possible for the facility to spread out, rather than to be built up. It would be cheaper to do that, and future expansion would not be limited. No other sites were discussed.
County Attorney Janet Lyness said group #3 actually combined #1 and #4 for their first priority. The justice center location adjacent to the Courthouse and the Courthouse reuse seem to go together. The group considered reusing the Courthouse and having it downtown were both essential to public support. There were no other plans to reuse the Courthouse. If someone opposes reusing the Courthouse or having the justice center facility downtown, then the CJCC needs to know that before going forward. It is essential for the CJCC to make a decision on that and make it clear that that is where the facility is going to be, so that it is not reconsidered sometime in the future. There was also a study done by University of Iowa Political Science Professor David Redlawsk, which showed that there was support for the justice center facility if the Courthouse was reused and there was no support if the Courthouse was not reused. While it was not a definitive study on everything, there was some indication that the Courthouse reuse would be essential.
Lyness said group #3 did not really rank the options, but another top priority was the space analysis. This is important to make sure that everything the County wants to have included in the justice center is included in the justice center. It could be including treatment alternatives and making sure there are adequate security and safety provisions. The County needs something to show the public what is being done with the justice center. There was a discussion about how the County needs to make sure that any facility that is built is built with the future in mind. For example, the current Jail did not include space for having jail alternative kinds of things, and the current Courthouse was not built with security measures in mind. The County needs to be forward thinking, so the space analysis would be essential.
Lyness said the other issue is #9, the project cost that the public will accept. Group #3 also felt like the issue is not only what the public will accept, but also what the CJCC members will accept. If there is an amount that the public or internal individuals will not accept to go above for the cost of the facility, then it needs to be identified quickly. There is no point in doing the project if the cost is going to be something that can never be attained, so it needs to be clarified.
Lyness said the group also felt the funding issue was important. If the County chooses to go with bonding or a sales tax, then the County needs to make clear that everyone is on board with that. If someone is not on board with that, then the County needs to identify why not, if it is going to change, or are there time frames on it. There is no point in trying to go forward while not knowing if there is going to be support for whatever funding mechanism is chosen. So, if it is bonding, then the County needs to know that people will support bonding. If it is a sales tax, then the County needs to know that everyone will support a sales tax. There needs to be unanimity with whatever is chosen.
Pulkrabek wanted to know if group #3 discussed what could occur if poll results showed that the public would tolerate $50 million. He asked if there is the possibility that other people would not support putting $50 million forward on a bond referendum. Lyness said that is what group #3 wanted to know. If there is a difference between what the public would support versus what someone internally would support, then the County needs to know. There is no point in asking the public if they would support $60 million, if there are people internally that would never agree with going over $40 million. Sullivan said he assumes that Lyness is talking about elected officials when she speaks of internal people. That would be Lyness, Pulkrabek, and the Supervisors. Pulkrabek mentioned that it would be just the Board members. Lyness said the Board members are the ones with the vote. Rettig asked if Pulkrabek and Lyness will support a blank check. Pulkrabek said Lyness and he do not get a vote. He said he wants all ten elected officials on board with the justice center project. He does not think the County can afford to have an elected official working against the project. Everyone needs to be in agreement.
Harney said group #3 did not rank order the key issues. The group felt that those were the top five items that need to be addressed before moving forward. Sullivan said even though group #3's list is not necessarily in priority order, it matches exactly with the first four from group #1. Wilson said there is more continuity than he expected.
Wilson said the individual groups have had a chance to talk over what is important and why. Now, it is time to vote. He said Johnson has handed out a list of all of the key issues. He said each member can vote for anything on the list, not just what has already been identified by the groups. Whatever does not surface to be the top four, five, or six issues will eventually be discussed. A low priority will not kick a topic off the list of key issues, but it will postpone the topic to be discussed later. Elliott asked if a red dot sticker is for an individual’s first choice, green is for the second choice, and yellow is for the third. Wilson said yes, it is a weighted system. Rettig asked if all the dots can be put on one topic. Wilson said yes, a person could do that. He asked the members to hand in their worksheet before going to eat, because the voting will be tallied during the dinner recess.
Recessed at 6:24 p.m.; reconvened at 6:55 p.m. Absent: Stutsman.
Wilson wrote the priorities, as rank ordered by the group, on a chart for everyone to view. He asked if there are any surprises in the outcome of the voting.
Wilson said, to try to simplify the discussion, is anyone against the Courthouse location. Elliot said in his group discussion people agreed that the word "adjacent" is a pretty flexible word. Adjacent means to him, anything within a one or two block area and he is assuming that is what is meant by adjacent. Wilson said the site that is being considered now is land the County already owns. All of what the County owns is considered adjacent and he asked if anyone disagrees with that interpretation. The idea is whether anyone is against using the property the County owns around the Courthouse. Rettig said she is not against it. However, she thinks there is not consensus. She said there is probably not unanimous consensus among the ten elected officials. Wilson said it seems to be unanimous within the elected officials at the current meeting. He asked how a consensus can be reached among all of the elected officials. McCarragher said another way to ask the question is to ask what people have heard that makes someone not think that is a good idea. Rettig said one reason is the high cost, and the land is too valuable. She said she does not share that opinion. Another reason is that it is a bad use of land and should be put on land that is not as valuable.
Wilson said he believes none of the Board or CJCC members present are against it, but there might be other elected officials, not present at the meeting, who would be. Harney said he made the comment that he supports having it in the downtown area. However, if it would not move forward and the County could not get a bond issued, then they would have to reconsider. Wilson said what is being considered is the land the County owns. If the County finds out that something about the land does not work when getting into the design of the facility, then the group has to reconsider it. At this point, the group does not know enough to know that it will not work. Novak has advised that he thinks it will work, based on the information the County has at this time. The question is how to get the additional buy-in from the other elected officials. He asked if the CJCC should hold a meeting with the elected officials.
Neuzil said there have been a few comments about breaking points. He said it would be nice to get reassurance, fairly often, that everyone is still on board. He reminded the group of the reality that each elected official is not going to get their way with everything he or she wants; everyone is going to have to compromise. He thinks that is the best approach for everyone. One thing that has been determined for sure though is that the County cannot pay for the project without voter approval.
Neuzil said that the question of whether everyone wants the justice center facility downtown has probably been voted on three or four times. If the group has to vote on it during every single meeting, then that is fine. Every elected official needs to state their position publicly and then keep the project moving forward.
Whiston asked if anyone thinks that other sites need to be considered before moving forward. Wilson asked if there are any concerns about going forward with the current proposed site. Harney said he does not have any concerns about it. He said he has not heard anyone else say that they have concerns. He does not know who is being talked about that may not be supportive. Wilson said he has not heard anything either. He said he is keeping a tally of Board members that are for or opposed, and he has each down for a yes.
Neuzil said the CJCC was at this point two years ago, and there were Supervisors that started looking at other locations. He said he wants to know if everyone is ready to make downtown the location, again. There is no reason to start exploring other locations if the downtown site is the location to pursue over the next two years. Elliot said he was very interested in the Iowa City Press-Citizen site, but the group voted against it and he says it is time to move on. Neuzil said yes, but that diversion cost about ten months of progress. Elliot asked why it should have cost that much time; he said he does not agree that the diversion cost ten months. Neuzil said it did. Elliott said he does not see anything wrong with considering something, but once a vote is recorded and decisions are made, then people should move on and stop wishing it was something else. He said he is happy that progress is moving on. Sullivan said the CJCC voted before that and after that. There have been about four votes. Wilson said this vote is going to get recorded. Lyness said group #3 talked about how it would be nice to have a checklist of some sort to document when decisions are made. That way, everyone can understand that something has already been decided upon and the CJCC does not have to keep revisiting topics.
Wilson said he is recording the decision that everyone is in agreement with the downtown site. He said he wanted to go back to a question that was raised. The CJCC is not sure of the positions of the elected officials not present at the meeting. Therefore, does the group want to find out, or can they go on without knowing. Neuzil said he thinks the CJCC has to continue to move forward. With Stutsman's absence from the meeting now, which Neuzil said he is unaware of why she is absent, it would be nice to know the County Recorder, County Auditor, and County Treasurer are also on board. The CJCC needs to have agreement from the five Supervisors for the ballot referendum. Wilson said the Committee is going to move forward, but would like to know what the other elected officials think. He asked how to obtain that information.
Pulkrabek said everyone believes that this is the key issue, and now Stutsman has left the meeting. He asked how the group can move beyond this point if they cannot lock down the downtown location of the site, if they cannot definitively say that every elected official at the meeting is committed to it, and if the group cannot ask the other elected officials whether they will commit to it. He said he is suddenly feeling a little frustrated. Wilson proposed that the Committee follow up by directly asking Stutsman, since she is not currently present at the meeting, if she is for or against the downtown location. If she is against it, then what are her reasons. He said her response will be recorded in the meeting notes and at least, that way the Committee will know where all of the Board members stand. It kind of puts Stutsman on the spot, but at least the Committee will know.
Stratton said a lower level of commitment would be to not publicly support it, but not publicly be against it either. Wilson said he is asking a direct question. Sullivan said the five Board members do not get the choice to do Stratton’s suggestion. That choice is an option available to Lyness or Pulkrabek, but the five Board members will be forced to vote. Rettig replied to Stratton by saying that there is a difference. A person can vote to put the question on a ballot, can have a philosophical point of view that the voters have a right to vote on a topic, but still be against it personally. She said Stratton’s question is if a person votes to put it on the ballot and is still personally against it, then is that person still able to stay neutral. Stratton said correct. Rettig said the question is whether this is such a deal breaker that a person would feel the need to talk against it. That is a different question than whether a person would vote to put it on a ballot.
Sullivan said with any of the three major issues, when the public sees the Board of Supervisors divided, that raises questions in their mind and the default position is to be against whatever is proposed. It is really important to be unanimous to avoid instilling any doubt with the public. Stratton said he agrees with that. It would be unfortunate for one elected official to be against it, so the rest of the elected officials have to concede to give what that person wants. Wilson said the premise of tonight's Work Session is to get agreement, or to try to find out the reasons why there is not agreement and address those issues to get agreement.
Russell said the Board members should say yes or no, whether they each support this or not. He said he does not mean whether the Board members answer the question of whether they will vote to put the justice center on the ballot versus whether they support actually building the justice center. The question is whether each Board member is for the justice center project and whether each Board member will support it through the steps that the bond issue is going to take. Rettig asked if Russell can answer the same questions; she asked if Russell will campaign for the justice center. Russell replied that he is limited by his position in what he can do; whenever he is called upon to give information about the Courthouse and the Courthouse needs, he will do so. However, he cannot politic in the way that others can. Rettig said Russell cannot politic on partisan issues, but asked him if he is disallowed from expressing his views on ballot issues. Russell said he feels he is in more of an advisory position than an advocacy position.
Neuzil said he feels Supervisors will be in a similar situation as well, if it is similar to what happened in 2000. That was when Harney and Neuzil were on the ballot at the same time that the jail issue was up, which made it an easy question for the press. Harney and Neuzil both answered that they were in favor of the jail, and both reasoned it was for the safety of inmates and employees. Everyone is going to be asked about the justice center and the political cop out is always to put the issue on the ballot and let the people decide. The next step is the question of whether each elected official is going to support the justice center.
Russell said the Supervisor's five votes are the key votes. It would be very nice if the other elected officials were also supportive in advocating. If it appears that some of the other elected officials are not supportive, then the CJCC should invite those elected officials to one of their meetings to have a chat in the public forum. Russell said he would like to hear the reasons why people may not be supportive and CJCC members can try to change their minds. Alternatively, maybe those individuals will persuade CJCC members to think differently; this should be a public discussion. Neuzil said if there is a Supervisor that is against it, then it would be nice to know early on, because then that Board member could recuse themselves from this whole process. If there is a breaking point where a Board member cannot support this criminal justice project, then he is not sure he wants them participating in any other decisions. Wilson said that is a higher level question than what was being asked at this meeting. He said the question for this meeting was how to move forward, presuming that everyone, all Board members in particular, were in favor of moving forward. If there is any question there, then that is probably the highest level of question to ask.
Wilson asked if there is anyone not in favor of the justice center moving forward as a project. He said he is hearing that everyone is in agreement. When getting into schematic design, if new information comes in, then each person may have to rethink their position, but right now the County has a site that might work based on what is already known. Wilson summarized that the group thinks the County has the total space needed, or is reasonably close. He then asked, on this preliminary basis, is anyone opposed to going forward with the project. He said the second part of that question is whether anyone is against going forward with the downtown Courthouse location. Wilson noted each Supervisor's acknowledgment to move forward with the project at the downtown location.
McCarragher asked how they should go about finding out who is against it. He asked who should be asking that question. If someone is not present at the current meeting, or if someone is an elected official and the CJCC is concerned about them, then there needs to be a procedure to find out what that person thinks. If someone is against it, then the Committee needs to know it and know how to deal with it.
Wilson said he will follow up with Stutsman and get her opinion as if she had been present at the meeting. As far as the other elected officials, the CJCC could invite them to another meeting or could have a delegation talk to them face to face. If there are elected officials opposed, then those people can be brought into a meeting. He asked if anyone is interested in proposing having the Board appoint someone to talk to the other elected officials. Lyness recommended that she, Pulkrabek, and maybe a Board member, talk to the County Treasurer, County Auditor, and County Recorder. Wilson asked Johnson to record this suggestion as an action item.
Pulkrabek said it would be nice to know which Board member will be willing to do that with them. Neuzil said he is on the Public Information and Outreach Subcommittee (Public Information Subcommittee) and would be willing, but also said the CJCC may want to choose the Board Chairperson. Rettig said County Auditor Tom Slockett and County Treasurer Tom Kriz both serve on the Funding and Finance Subcommittee, therefore, their knowledge of what is going on is limited to funding and finance, and to what they read in the newspaper. Neuzil said County Recorder Kim Painter is writing the safety, security, and space analysis with him. Rettig said it depends on who the CJCC wants to send. Wilson said he will list that as an action item for the Board to decide.
Neuzil asked if Pulkrabek and Lyness have a preference. Pulkrabek said it does not matter to him. Rettig said Neuzil just volunteered. Neuzil said that is fine. He said he would like Stutsman to be made aware of what went on in this meeting after the second recess. Johnson asked if Pulkrabek, Lyness, and Neuzil will be following up with Stutsman as well. Neuzil said yes, that would be appropriate.
Wilson said the question is not whether the space analysis is perfect, but if the group thinks that the space is accounted for in the design, understanding a 5% contingency is added in to cover for what may be missing. Neuzil thanked Whiston for pursuing this space needs issue. He asked for an updated list of space needs to ensure that everyone is referencing the same document. Neuzil said he was still hopeful there would have been some prioritization by now. It is not necessary to jot down all needs, but rather needs over the next five years. Then, when a consultant identifies cost points for the project, it will be much easier to decide what to phase in later.
Rettig agreed and said she cannot answer if space is adequate without knowledge of whether the Courthouse will be reused. She said there are certain numbers that she thinks will never pass with the voters and just because items are identified on the space needs list, does not mean the voters will support them. She said Neuzil is right, and asked if some of these needs should be phased in at a later time; what has to be provided immediately, and what can wait another 10 or 15 years to be funded by direct appropriations. Rettig said no matter the location or the size, if the voters do not think this is a worthy project, the discussion is over.
Harney said he agrees to a point. However, when he considers how many courtrooms will be needed, he is concerned about a building being outdated at the outset of the project. He wants to make provisions for future expansion. Neuzil said absolutely. Even if the voters support only a five-year budget, that does not mean the County cannot entertain other funding mechanisms, such as reverse bond referendums, saving money, another tax, or whatever, for future costs.
Russell said Rettig makes a good point about the breaking point on funding being closely intertwined with needs and wants. There is no reason these plans cannot proceed in tandem; each will inform the other and help lead to final decisions. Elliott said he thinks there are two ways to go about this. One way is to ask what the needs are, and to plan for those. The other way is to ask how much the County can afford now, and what they can get for that amount. The first way requires pre-planning for needs. The other way requires guessing what the public will approve now, and building for that.
Wilson said when discussing adequacy of space needs and Novak's space analysis plus the addendum, no one is talking about what will be built; that is yet unknown. The discussion in this preliminary stage pertains to the expected needs. Wilson said it may come to a point where the consultant and the user group disagree about what space is needed, and in this case, the Board of Supervisors will have to make the final decision. This will happen at a later stage. Based upon what is happening with jails across the country and based on the consultant’s broad experience, they will present a realistic recommendation for space needs. If the cost projection is then too high, the consultant will recommend cutting certain spaces that the consultant thinks may be expendable. However, if the user group cannot cut out any space, then the recommendation might be to build the facility in phases.
Wilson said the next consideration will be funding the facility, and determining what the public will support which may be two different things. The public may agree to $30 million and the Board may say that at a minimum, $40 million is necessary. Then the Board will have to decide if $10 million can be raised elsewhere, or if $10 million can be cut in spite of the need. Elliott asked how much total square footage is needed with the current plan. Rettig said 126,512 square feet. Elliott said when multiplying that number by the construction cost per square foot they are talking about a total cost that is at least reasonable to consider at this point. Wilson said that different kinds of space will cost different amounts. Wilson said Novak can categorize different spaces and their associated costs. For example, jail space would cost more than some other spaces and office space would have a different cost, too.
Elliott said that before spending too much time discussing the cost, it might serve everyone well to acknowledge if they are at a cost-effective place now and can move forward. Neuzil said he would like Novak to provide a cost estimate, which includes the revised needs. Wilson said OK, and that they must ask Novak to include an allocation for the site and one for parking, so that it is a complete cost estimate, not just the building facility. Harney asked Wilson if he is expecting a cost estimate for just the shell of the building, because there are so many things that go into the finished building, such as desks. Wilson said he is sure Novak would make allowances for some furniture. Neuzil said Novak has already done that; it is in the report that everyone has.
Rettig said 6,500 square feet have been added and Novak's highest price per square foot was $275. Another consultant in the workgroup she was in said they should estimate $300 per square foot, and in addition to that, there are costs for equipment. The furniture is $3.5 million, the detention equipment is $6.2 million, and so the square footage is only part of the cost discussion. At a base level, 6,500 multiplied by $300 would be the cost per square foot for the space. Then, a multiplying effect could be determined for furniture, in order to come up with a ballpark estimate. Wilson said that is possible, and if Novak is willing, he could do what he has already done, but add in the additional 6,500 square feet.
Sullivan said doing the quick math that Rettig just did, they are probably looking at a total cost of $50 million, which is a good enough estimate for the purposes of today's discussion. Rettig said that is the same number the Finance Committee plugged into the financial analysis four months ago. Wilson asked if Novak's figures in that report include site development and those types of things. Rettig said it includes sidewalks, lawn, and landscaping. Wilson said then they can just ask Novak to update his report with new cost figures, which he thinks Novak would be willing to do. Whiston asked if Novak’s report includes use of the Courthouse. Rettig said yes, the report includes historic restoration and renovation of the existing Courthouse. Wilson said this is a preliminary estimate based on a lot of assumptions Novak is making. Today's question is whether these preliminary facts are good enough to go forward to the schematic design stage where they will be able to get more accurate figures.
Sullivan said he does not expect the report to include the exact cost. He thinks $50 million is going to be a very close estimate and he is ready to more forward with that. Wilson said the CJCC just needs to know if they have a ballpark figure to work with. Rettig said $50 million is too high for her. Sullivan said that is not the issue they are discussing, but rather whether Novak's revised space analysis is adequate. Rettig said she needs information on prioritization and phasing and she does not think they need a high-priced consultant to figure that out.
Whiston said that once a consultant is on board, they may say it is more cost effective to build certain spaces now and other spaces later; this group does not have the expertise to figure that out. She thinks the consultant should make the phasing decisions. Wilson said it is not as easy as some think to figure out space allocations in such a large facility; there are shared spaces and overlapping spaces. Someone with an overview of how it all fits together is very important, because it is not just an assembly of independent spaces. What the group can do at this point is to verify the $50 million guesstimate with Novak and then ask the Board if they are willing to support that amount. If not, then the Supervisors need to state how much they are willing to support. For example, if a Supervisor states that they will only support a $45 million project, when they hire a consultant they will have to say that their preliminary estimate says the County needs a $50 million project, but the consultant needs to find a way to reduce the cost to $45 million.
Pulkrabek said he struggles with prioritizing without knowledge of public opinion. If the public opinion is that no more than $20 million be spent on the facility, then Pulkrabek's priority is going to change. He will say they absolutely have to reuse the existing Jail facility and just add some cell space across the street and possibly add some space to the Courthouse. If they find out the public will tolerate $50 million, then it will be much easier for Pulkrabek to prioritize.
Neuzil asked Pulkrabek to think about this in terms of how many beds and office spaces will be needed now, and in five, ten, and 20 years. He said it will be much easier in three to four months from now, if this is determined now rather than later. Rettig said the answers to those questions are 180 beds now, and 15% more in one year, and 15% more a year later. Sullivan said according to John Neff, the bed need increases by five per year. Pulkrabek said the increase is now at seven beds per year, and three to four years ago it was two and a half beds. Harney said they should move forward with a consultant and make decisions later about whether cuts will be necessary.
Russell said he thinks that is correct. They need some polling data, they need to talk to elected officials, determine what the space needs indicate about the probable cost, and then see who is willing to support what and begin the process of cutting back, redesigning, and phasing. He thinks there will be flexibility among most constituent groups in response to what is possible, but they do need to get started with some consensus on an acceptable ballpark figure.
Elliott said that polling results are good for only about six months after the poll is completed. Neuzil said this is why Group #1 talked about determining an end date. Rettig said she thinks a poll will reveal a ballpark number of how much people would be willing to raise their taxes to support a new justice center. She said, just having been through a bond referendum recently, she has a pretty good sense of public opinion and she knew where their litmus test was; they had a poll which in the end, was about a year and a half old, but it was almost right.
Rettig said if this is going on the ballot in 2012, they could conduct a poll now that will show what voters will tolerate. More sophisticated polls are more costly than anyone here is willing to spend and they really have a short shelf life Wilson said there may be a way to carry this vote forward. One way is for the group to approve the space and location to move forward, but wait until the initial public opinion poll is completed before actually hiring a consultant. That way, a consultant can be presented with a realistic dollar amount. Sullivan agreed completely. Neuzil said the CJCC Planning and Objectives document they all agreed to actually has targeted January 2011 as the month for the Information and Outreach Committee to begin studying the feasibility of using a communications firm.
Neuzil asked CJCC members to take another look at the Planning and Objectives document, including the timeline, and really get back to the business of checking off their lists. If this is what it takes to get people back on track, so be it.
Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden asked what the cost is to the CJCC of not having this information from the public. She thinks they could get a ballpark figure right now of what the public will support. Not having this information is becoming a cost to the CJCC by not letting them move forward. Rettig said that outside of these meetings, she has argued that exact point, but the problem is that if the government pays for the poll, it is a public record and anyone who wants it can have it. She said her advice to anyone who cares, is that a political action committee or an independent body pays for the poll. This is what happened in the Conservation Bond issue, the Trust for Public Land paid for a poll and no one at the County owned it. As co-chair of that campaign, Rettig did receive a summary of the poll.
Neuzil said that is a good question to ask; he thinks they are at a stage where they do need some rough calculations of what they can work with. He asked if the County or an outside organization should conduct the survey, such as the IBA or a new group of citizens in favor of it. Wilson asked Rettig for the name of the survey she referred to. Rettig said it was just a preliminary public opinion poll. Wilson suggested an action item stating that the Board of Supervisors will appoint someone to pursue inquiring about and managing such a preliminary survey. Rettig disagreed; she is not opposed to paying for it but does not think the Board of Supervisors should conduct a public opinion poll.
Wilson said he was not suggesting the Board conduct the poll, just that they appoint someone to be in charge of contacting someone. Sullivan said part of the issue is that the Conservation Bond initiative to which Rettig is referring had a constituency and so a lot of people donated $25 and $50. The Jail and Courthouse have a very small constituency. Logsden said she thinks they have a motivated constituency. Sullivan said they need to raise $10 thousand to $15 thousand dollars and he does not see that happening.
Rettig replied that the CJCC is an extension of the Board of Supervisors and their task is to figure out what type of project is needed and to put it on the ballot for the public to decide. It is a totally different matter who is the political action committee and who is going to campaign for it. The last time there was a bond initiative, elected officials and County employees were told not to take a position on it period. From Rettig's point of view, this was a point of contention about what the ethics law actually says. The law actually says that a governing body can pass a resolution supporting a bond initiative, so in the Conservation Bond issue, the Board could have passed a resolution. The law says in that situation, public dollars cannot be used to advocate, but individuals can exercise their freedom of speech and do whatever they want. She thinks that public opinion polls actually address advocacy, which is why she thinks it is a bad idea for the Supervisors to conduct a poll.
Wilson summarized that the first priority is to determine the location of the Courthouse. The second priority is the adequacy of Novak's space analysis report. He thinks he has heard that group members are all satisfied with it at this preliminary stage but they do want Novak to have all the space identified and to update the cost estimate accordingly. With that, the next priority seems to be the project cost to the public, which group members are mired in now. Wilson summarized that he thinks they need to gather preliminary public opinion and asked how to go about do that. He would like to assign this task to someone.
Neuzil said the Public Information Subcommittee is assigned to study the feasibility of using a communications firm, and an action step should be to determine if this should be funded by the County or an outside entity. Whiston said it seems to her that if the IBA does not want to pay for it, she does not think there is another group that will likely pay. Therefore, they either start from scratch to organize a group which would take at least six months, or the County pays for it. Whiston said they need to remain transparent throughout this whole process; they need to avoid creating any perception that information is being withheld. Rettig said that is not what she meant; what she meant is that a poll moves to advocacy. A poll is not studying space needs, designing a facility and putting it to the voters. A poll gives political information and she does not think the government should be in that business.
Whiston said the government is in the business of building something the government is responsible for providing, a jail and a courthouse. Part of the information gathering and decision making process is to find out what the voters will support. Rettig said that may be Whiston's opinion, but Rettig's opinion is people do not want Rettig to spend their tax dollars to figure out how to raise taxes. She said that is a political move, not a government role, but she is just one vote. If four other Supervisors want to spend money on a poll, they can do that.
Neuzil said the question then is if the majority of the Board votes to spend the money on a poll, would Rettig, or another supervisor, still continue to support this project. Rettig said sure.
Wilson suggested asking the Public Information Subcommittee to find out the cost for a quick preliminary public opinion survey. Sullivan and Rettig said that cost would be $10 thousand to $15 thousand. Wilson said OK, then, see if a private entity can be retained. If they cannot, that may just leave the County to pay for it, but at least they would have exhausted other preferable sources. Rettig said if a political group cannot fund $10 thousand to $15 thousand for a survey, they will never be able to fund a campaign. Over $30 thousand was spent on the Conservation Bond issue and their opponents probably spent double that.
Whiston disagreed. She said there has been a Conservation Movement for decades in this country. There is no such constituency already organized to build courthouses and jails other than perhaps the Bar Association. Rettig said Whiston is arguing her point, it still cost them $30 thousand to win the Conservation Bond referendum by 140 votes. Whiston said, but there are courthouses and jails in every county in the country. She suggested the Public Information Subcommittee find out if there are private funding sources interested in the survey.
Harney said he does not think it is a big issue whether the County or someone else does the survey. Neuzil said the Public Information Subcommittee will take on that charge and report back to the CJCC. Pulkrabek asked if a private company and the County share the cost of the survey, would it be a public document. Neuzil and Sullivan said yes, that would be a public document. Rettig said she thinks it depends upon the questions in the survey.
Wilson said right now, the discussion is about some preliminary decisions to move forward with the project. He thinks there is agreement on the space analysis, updated with the action items discussed, and he thinks he is hearing that a preliminary survey could be done quickly to provide a preliminary indicator at this point. If a private group will not fund the survey, is it important enough to spend County funds on it. In the meantime, the question to be answered is whether they should proceed with the schematic design phase before a survey is complete. He thinks the answer is no. Rettig agreed. She said the last time voters were polled on this issue, they said no to a $20 million Bond referendum on a proposed justice center.
Wilson asked Johnson to record that the CJCC has agreed to move forward with the space and the location, but they need some idea of what the voters will support. The Public Information Subcommittee agreed to work out how to proceed with that. In the meantime, they will not proceed with schematic design until they have some idea of what the voters will support.
Russell said that is agreeable. He said the Board has to be careful because there is a difference between gathering data to help make informed decisions and leading the public toward the desired outcome of the survey. He said he thinks the survey needs to lead the public toward the CJCC's goal. Rettig said she agrees with Russell and that is what she meant when she said voters are persuadable.
Wilson summarized that all Supervisors except Stutsman have agreed to the space analysis and that item #9, "cost the public will accept" is to be determined. He said Johnson has also recorded which action items to pursue to help determine what cost the public will support and one of those steps is to ask Novak to lay out a plan of action.
Wilson asked if anyone is against reuse of the Courthouse. Neuzil said he is against reuse of the Courthouse for anything other than administration. He said he would not want a prisoner to enter the old Courthouse anymore. Lyness said she would disagree with Neuzil. She said the County will have to do enough renovation that it could be safe to bring prisoners in the Courthouse. She said she would not make that as a prohibition, but it has to be counted in the calculation. It may turn out that it is not good to try to bring inmates over to the current Courthouse, because there may be an easier way to do it. However, it may work out fine, depending on the design of the building. Rettig said she would also disagree with Neuzil. If there was a building with a secure entrance and the front entrance is no longer used, then she does not want the courtrooms to be turned into offices or to be ceremonial. There are different levels of security for different prisoners, inmates, or trials that could still occur there because they do not need high security.
Neuzil clarified that he does not want prisoners in the existing Courthouse. Lyness asked if he meant he does not want prisoners housed there. Neuzil said no; he does not want a court hearing with accused prisoners, wearing prisoner colors, walking in the Courthouse from the Jail. Lyness asked why not. Neuzil said if that is going to be done, millions of dollars will have to be spent to secure the existing facility. He said he thought the idea with the justice center was to separate prisoners from the public. Lyness said that depends on how the justice center is designed. Neuzil asked how it could be designed.
Lyness said it depends on how the entrance is made. If the entrance is made through what is currently the break room and courtroom 1A, or through the bottom floor where the County Attorney’s Office is, then there would be ways to have a back entrance and a front entrance. Neuzil asked if there is a way to have another elevator. Lyness said it depends on what the design is. She said the discussion does not need to get into the specifics of that right now. Like Rettig said, there are inmates that can be brought into the Courthouse that do not pose a huge security risk. Neuzil said he keeps hearing about how the costs associated with updating the existing Courthouse to maximum secure levels and he asked why anyone would want those inmates in the old building. Lyness said it depends.
Wilson said the discussion should stay more generic at this point. Neuzil said Wilson asked the question about reuse of the Courthouse. Rettig asked Neuzil if separating inmates from the public is a deal breaker. She asked what if Pulkrabek, Lyness, the judges, and attorneys say that if a secure entrance is properly designed, prisoners can be moved from the Jail into the old Courthouse and up to the second floor, and it is only going to be done with certain people. In the rest of the Courthouse, there are prisoners that are minimum risk. She asked if they can still use the courtrooms.
Wilson suggested restating the question to say does everyone support reuse of the Courthouse if the uses fit into the building and it can be done in a safe and secure way. Neuzil said thank you. Harney said he agrees with what Wilson said. However, it is up to the designer. Neuzil said he is looking at it realistically. If the group wants to take the existing Courthouse and renovate it into courtrooms, then they should get out their wallets.
Wilson said the meeting is behind on schedule. If going by the original schedule, then there are about 40 minutes left. Rettig asked if Russell could speak on the topic, because she is curious what he has to say. Russell said the group’s approach is the right one. He said he wants the Courthouse to be reused, and determining how it will be used will be a part of the design and funding process. Everyone agrees that one of the premier reasons for this whole process is to have a secure facility. He said the County has plenty of civil cases also, so all of the courtrooms will be able to be used. It may work out that the cheapest alternative is to have the criminal cases in the newer part of the justice center and the civil cases in the older part.
Elliott said there is a great deal of danger in public facilities from people other than those incarcerated or standing trial. Rettig said in theory, people would be brought in through a secure entrance. McCarragher said the most important point is that the CJCC is looking at safety and security. He said Neuzil makes a good point. When the facility is built, the County has to make sure to do so in a safe and secure manner. It could mean putting everything into the new building, which may or may not make sense, because different things can be done in a new building that cannot be done in the old building. The final schematics need to be governed by safety and security, which Neuzil is looking at. It is easier to have offices in an area which can be secured and has little traffic, then in a place where people are shuffling through. He said he agrees with Neuzil to say that courtrooms need to be in a space that is consolidated, that has high traffic, and where the County can build something in to make it more secure.
Rettig said the Funding and Grants Subcommittee came up with the idea that there are other options on the bond referendum and that is a joint facility with cities. If a joint facility is done, with multiple municipalities, then the voters have to get to 50%, as opposed to 60%. Since that was uncovered by Johnson and Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne, because it was how Scott County funded their justice center, there has been no discussion on whether to have the CJCC and Board Members consider that an option. The City of Iowa City wants to move their fire department or police department out of City Hall. She asked, if the City did that, and the timing was right, then would Johnson County be interested in a joint facility.
Wilson said there are two potential ramifications of that. First, it is going to take time to get that sort of an agreement. Second, it is going to mean more space. Then, the justice center may enlarge itself to the point where it is not going to fit on the site. Sullivan said he is against a joint facility for a few reasons. First, it sets back the timeframe. Second, there are a number of people who voted against the last jail referendum, in part, because the voters felt Iowa City Police were arresting too many people. Although that attitude has lessened, there is still some out there. Neuzil said he still thinks that the police arrest too many people. Sullivan said third, the County has not had great luck when working with the Iowa City on various projects. He said he cannot imagine going down that path.
Rettig said she is not advocating for it. The Funding and Grants Subcommittee was charged with finding other options, and Claiborne and Johnson came up with this option. If the group does not want to pursue it anymore, then the option needs to be moved off the table. Pulkrabek said he is prepared to move it off the table. It is too difficult and would upset the timing. He said he is not sure if he could convince someone living in Swisher that part of their taxes are not going toward building a new facility for the Iowa City Police. That is a huge hurdle. The County already has a difficult hurdle trying to get information out to help people understand the need for a justice center. He said he does not want to complicate it anymore.
Neuzil agreed with Pulkrabek and said he is going to throw something wild and crazy out for thought. If they start getting feedback that residents do not have a lot of desire to put money into a justice center, and the County starts thinking about potential alternatives, then the County starts thinking about the priorities of the Courthouse, the Jail, and the Sheriff’s Office; potentially those are three separate things in different locations. Then, the question is if the County should work with the Iowa City and the Sheriff to share a building somewhere else. As far as today's discussion, he said he agrees with everything said so far. Even though it is attractive to look at combining these services and facilities and needing a 50% favorable vote, rather than a bond issue, which requires a 60% favorable vote, Pulkrabek is right, because it is complicated to get Iowa City in on the project without muddying the water.
Rettig said she is neutral on the issue. She said she would be willing to consider it, but the City has not formally approached the County. In general, despite the most recent experiences, she is in favor of joint projects. She said she believes in regional government. Sullivan said someone has to be in charge. Rettig said she understands. Sullivan said one person has to be the buyer and one person has to be the seller. That is not the arrangement now, which makes it difficult. Now, there is co-ownership. Neuzil said there are space problems. If the University of Iowa (UI) said the County can have their section of the parking lot, so that it surrounds everything, then the County is looking at the ability to have enough space to combine a whole justice center that would include the Iowa City Police Department, the fire trucks, and Ambulance. Rettig added that it could include the UI Public Safety. By saying neutral, that does not mean it cannot be taken off of the table. If everyone else says they are done and it has been talked about enough, then she will put the idea to rest.
Wilson asked if anyone would be interested in a compromise position, inviting another entity to buy into the project. Sullivan said he is afraid that going down that path will take the County’s eye off of the ball. Lyness said Iowa City City Council Member and CJCC Member Connie Champion, has served on this committee for years. If Iowa City was interested in such a venture, Lyness thinks Champion would have said something by now. Lyness said she agrees with Sullivan; exploring this is wasting even more time. Wilson asked Johnson to note that there is consensus that the justice center be a County project.
Harney said he understands what Pulkrabek is saying, but if Iowa City is willing to put money into it and pay for their space, then he is not opposed to it. Things could be shared, such as records keeping, fingerprinting, and booking, if the city will pay their way. If not, then the County would need to go another route. Wilson asked how to resolve this issue. Harney said at one time, the County discussed this with Iowa City and even though Iowa City was interested, the County did not pursue anything further since planning had not advanced thus far. If it will not work, then it will not work. However, the County needs to reach out to make the offer. Wilson said if Harney thinks they need to reach out to Iowa City, his suggestion is to set a timeframe for action. Sullivan said now, all of a sudden, the County does not control the timeframe anymore. Now, Iowa City controls the timeframe. Harney said no. Sullivan said the County would be waiting on someone else. It is five years passed time to move forward and he does not want to see another thing delay this.
Elliott said he does not think asking the question has anything to do with the timeframe. The CJCC would have to know the answer by a certain time, and up until that time, everything is open. He said Pulkrabek raised the most crucial point; unless Iowa City is ready to put quite a bit of money into it, then he does not see any reason to ask County residents to do something for Iowa City. Sullivan said there are a lot of reasons not to pursue this. It is taking the eye off of the ball and this is another Iowa City Press-Citizen moment. He asked the CJCC not to do that. The group should move forward. Elliott said during the Press-Citizen moment Sullivan kept saying that everything else was held up, but it should not have been held up. The County moves forward; there is a point of no return. The County can keep considering things until the timeline comes to the point of no return. Sullivan said he has told everyone many times to move forward, but it did not happen.
Wilson said there might be a way to not hold up the timeline, if the group wants to pursue this option. Sullivan said he does not think the CJCC is capable of doing that. He said the group has not demonstrated that the group can do that. Exploring the option would be a costly distraction and a bad move. Whiston said she thinks the CJCC is at that place. If the County is going to open the project up to having the Jail, or anything else in it, then all of the space needs is a moot point. Sullivan said because all of a sudden Iowa City has different needs and wants. Whitson said the County would either start over with a completely new project, or go ahead with what they have worked on to date.
Harney asked if the consensus is to not include Iowa City. McCarragher said such a joint venture is going to create real space problems in an area where space is already a concern. He said that now, the CJCC is not even sure if the vote taken a few hours ago at this meeting is going to be any good. Elliott said he disagrees, but the consensus is to not consider the option, so the group should move on. Rettig said she was just about to say that. Right now, everyone is speaking against it and two people are neutral; no one is speaking for the option. Wilson said it is recorded in the annals of time that the justice center is a County project. Rettig said a decision is made on whether to pursue it, and the CJCC needs to move on. Wilson said for what it is worth, Novak and Neumann Monson Architects both think that it would serve the purpose well to have a bigger site. If the County keeps whittling away and adds more facility, then it gets worse.
Rettig said the group is going to have to return to the bonding question later. Rettig said the other option was to pursue some legislative change for sales tax. Before the election, she had talked to District 39 State Senator Joe Bolkcom, who is the Chairperson for the Iowa Senate Ways and Means Committee. She asked if there is any way to pursue a legislative change to allow the County to access sales tax revenue, even after the current sales tax, which was passed by Iowa City and other entities, went off. She said Bolkcom said he can never say never about the Iowa Legislature, but he cannot imagine that would ever happen. There is no willingness in the Iowa Legislature to expand the ability of the sales tax, at this point. That was when the Democrats were in control of the Iowa Legislature and the Governor’s Office. So, the only person who Rettig could consider to be an expert on the topic said it would probably never happen. Now, there has been an election in between. She said the CJCC needs to make a decision about whether to pursue a sales tax change, but she has been told up front that it is probably never going to happen. She said she trusts Bolkcom on the issue when he said it is probably never going to happen.
Harney said he disagrees with Rettig. He said he does not know what Rettig’s conversation was with Bolkcom. He said he has had conversations with Bolkcom, who said he is willing to bring a bill forward. The chances of it moving forward are probably slim, but it may very well come forward. Rettig said that is exactly what she just said. Harney said he is not saying the County should or should not pursue it. He said his take is that if there are options besides a sole property tax, then the County should look at it. He said he is not crazy about telling taxpayers there would be a cost for this on property taxes.
Wilson said if the County wants to pursue that option, then it could take quite a bit of time and could hold things up. He asked if they need to move on that right now. Harney said he is not saying that the County needs to pursue it at all. He said he is saying the County needs to let the Legislator go for it. When the County is ready to do something, they will either bond for it or do a combination, if it is available. If a bond is all that is available then that is what the County does.
Neuzil asked if, as far as process goes, the Board and CJCC want to continue to move forward with the idea of bonding for the justice center project. That is the ultimate question. He asked if there are other opportunities for funding. The County could do a reverse bond on some of it. There is also Legislative change to allow for projects of the same nature to be from a General Fund expenditure to a General Purpose expenditure under the General Supplemental Fund, which would give the County the ability to do what the County did with the Joint Emergency Communication Center (JECC). One of the Board’s legislative priorities is to make the Courthouse an essential County purpose for security. The Board has voted on this previously. It was a three-to-two vote. He said he and Harney voted against the bonding part. He said he did so more procedurally. He asked if there is a breaking point of where a Board member is not voting for the justice center if it is a bond issue.
Rettig said the reverse is true. She believes a sales tax is regressive and disproportionately affects the poor. A sales tax is not an appropriate way to fund essential County services. She said she is on record as saying that about the Conservation issue in her role at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. She repeated that Bolkcom told her a legislative change would be unlikely to ever pass. She said Bolkcom did not mean that he would not sponsor the bill, but said it would be unlikely to pass. She said she does not believe a sales tax is an appropriate way to fund this project.
Neuzil said he is not interested in making that kind of decision. He is more interested in pursuing a bond right now. Sullivan said there might be a couple different questions to ask. The first question would be if there is anyone who would vote against a bond. Harney said he would vote against a bond if the group is not going to consider anything else. If however, only a bond is available at the time, then he would vote for the bond. He said it would be foolish to say they are going to bond no matter what other funding mechanisms might be available. Wilson asked about the idea of supporting a bond after all other funding alternatives have been exhausted. Harney said he has no problem with that. He just does not want to rule out something else.
Russell suggesting saying they will pursue the justice center project, assuming it is a bond issue, and pursue other leads that do not slow the timeline down. Harney said that is what Neuzil said, and he has the same idea. If other funding is available to furnish the building, or to do other things with the Courthouse, then the County should pursue those options. Harney said the County should not necessarily do a bond if other money out there. Sullivan said he does not think anyone is opposing a situation where the County might get a Federal grant. No one is going to turn down a Federal grant. Rettig said no one is going to turn down stimulus money either. Sullivan said there are two big funding options: one that is available to the County and one that is not, but the group is discussing it anyway. He asked how the group feels about each option. Wilson asked if the group can agree to a bond and any other funding sources, as long as obtaining those funding sources will not delay the timeline. He asked if that was what Russell said. Russell said it is.
Sullivan said he agrees with Rettig in terms of the sales tax; he is philosophically opposed to it. If someone is philosophically opposed to bonding, then there is a "No" vote no matter what. The fact of the matter is that there is no other way this project will get done. The County is not going to get legislative changes. Wilson said he has not heard from anyone that is philosophically opposed to bonding so far. Rettig said she happens to believe, philosophically, that the legislature should give the County more tools than property tax. Sales tax is really regressive, but property tax is regressive also. She said she believes there should be a local option income tax. That is her philosophical point of view, but the reality is that the County only has one option. The County taxes for it and saves up to pay for it. She said the County can bond $1.2 million on the project; she would vote for that. However, Pulkrabek did not seem to think he could build a jail for $1.2 million. So, the only other option is to go to the voters for a bond.
Wilson said there might be some other options. For example, the Board may want to keep the bonding lower, so the Board will pay for the Courthouse renovation over time, like they did for the HHS. Rettig said yes, and that would be true with a phasing plan also. Wilson said if no one is against the idea of bonding, and the question is only a matter of how much bonding, when the project gets into the design process and the costs are determined, they can start looking at shifting the load.
Sullivan asked Harney to clarify what he means when he says he wants to pursue all other options. Russell said it means that the group does not want to slow down the process of focusing on a bond measure to fund the justice center. If other things become available, such as a legislative change, then the County will take advantage of that. The group may support it, may advocate for it, and may talk to Bolkcom about it, but the CJCC will not let it take the project down a separate path. The County is going to bond for the project, unless someone comes up with something else, and the group is going to keep ears and minds open to other sources. Russell said maybe the Republican National Committee will give the County a grant. He said no one ever knows. If the other things, such as what Harney is advocating, lessen the burden on the taxpayers and make it easier for the elected officials to present the project to the taxpayers, then the County will take advantage of those things. However, the group has to proceed as though the project is going to be a bond measure only, because that is what they believe is available now.
Wilson asked if there is any disagreement. Wilson said he is not hearing any disagreement. Neuzil said he has no disagreement. Wilson said the group will check in with Stutsman on the question.
Sullivan said the money for the houses is in the County budget already. Lyness said she needs to pursue it. Sullivan said the budgeted amount of money should cover the cost to purchase the houses. If someone does not want to sell, then the County can technically just take the houses.
Neuzil asked if Lyness has enough direction regarding the potential for condemnation. He asked if the Board has done enough to identify the topic as an essential purpose for the County. Wilson asked Neuzil to clarify what he is asking about. Neuzil said, if the County has to go through the condemnation process for acquiring the additional four houses, then has the Board of Supervisors given Lyness enough legal authority to be able to say that those houses are something the Board has identified as property that the County needs for the justice center project. Lyness said she would like a little more direction, but she does have sufficient authority to work on the purchase of the homes. She said she can start with that. If she needs more language from the Board, then she will come back to the Board to get it.
Rettig said Kriz volunteered to help Lyness with the process. Pulkrabek said the only reason Lyness would need to come back to the Board on this matter is if the homeowner would not voluntarily sell and the County gets to a stalemate in negotiations. Rettig said the Board would have to vote on purchasing it. The Board authorized the spending already, but Lyness would have to come to the Board for a vote to purchase it. Pulkrabek said that brings him to another question. He asked the Board, as this process is being done, if Lyness negotiates a purchase price within the amount of money funded, then will the four Board members vote in favor of the purchase. Rettig said as far as she is concerned, the Board already decided that when putting it in the budget. The Board authorized the bond for it. Pulkrabek said he understands that.
Neuzil said the Board needs to know if there is a sufficient amount of money available or not. He asked if the recent sale of the Iowa City Community School District Central Administration Office building to the University of Iowa has some impact, or if there will be a reassessment. Looking at the land values from the school district's building to the bank across the street, which the University is looking at buying, the Board may have to look at the budget again. Lyness said she is going to have to check with Johnson or Claiborne and the Auditor’s Office, because she thinks the Board allocated the money for not only the purchase of the houses, but also something with Ambulance.
Sullivan said yes, the Board can divide that any way that the Board wants. Rettig said the Board has not bonded anything. Sullivan said the assessed value of the four houses was about $888,000, as of four or five months ago. The County has $1.2 million available, which could be divided up in any way. Neuzil said he thinks it was downsized a little bit. Rettig said the County has been self-funding the project already. There is a new budget coming.
Wilson asked if Neuzil said the County should pursue the purchase of the properties if the properties are within the allocated funds. Neuzil said no, he is suggesting another action step to include the Board reevaluating the budget, so that if there are additional dollars needed, they can make those changes. Sullivan said even if a new assessment is 15% above the current assessment, the County has the money to do it. Rettig asked if that is not going to be sufficient money, then can the Board put more money in, because the Board is about to do another budget. Neuzil said one of the Board’s tasks was to identify some additional things that are not in the current budget. It will be discussed at the Budget Meeting scheduled for January 6, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. It is on his list.
Harney said the only thing about the properties is that he does not want the owners to try to get an exorbitant amount of money. He said the County needs to look at a reasonable price. The deal with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is contingent upon the trade of that property for the north portion of the GSA property. The County needs to weigh that out. He asked if the County needs to have those in line and ready if the GSA says yes. That could be one year from now or five years from now. That option needs to be kept open.
Rettig said the County needs the properties regardless, because the property value is not going to go down. In five years, if the County plots the area out, has a vote, and knows the land is not going to be needed, then the County can sell the land. Neuzil said the potential for some short term parking needs might be argument enough for why those pieces of property are needed. Sullivan said the County cannot get held hostage by a property owner because the County has the right to take that property via condemnation. The owner will be compensated according to an amount set by a Board appointed group of people who determine the just compensation. An owner cannot get $2 million for one of those houses. It might be a little more than the County would like to spend, but it has to be reasonable.
Neuzil said he wants to make sure that the County has estimated enough when it comes to details like moving expenses, and keep in mind the Board may have to tweak the budget. Harney said he thinks that is up to the person making the deal with the property owners. There are huge tax breaks for individuals that accept an agreeable exchange of property under the threat of condemnation, but that is up to the negotiator to make those decisions. Neuzil said an action step is to ask if Lyness has a sufficient committee to get this process going. Lyness said yes. She said she has already talked with Pulkrabek. Rettig said now Kriz is also willing to help.
Wilson asked if Johnson has the action item written down. Johnson said he thinks so. Neuzil said it is identified as a task for the Facilities Subcommittee in the Planning and Objectives document.
Wilson said Iowa City Planning and Community Development Director Jeff Davidson indicated that before Iowa City can take serious action on vacating Harrison Street, he needs some sort of plan to justify it. Rettig said she would like an action item with this topic. She said Champion and Davidson know, but they may not be with the City forever. Rettig said maybe someone should bring the new City Manger up to speed on the justice center concept and conversation, including the vacation of Harrison Street. Wilson said that person would relay that the County knows it will need Harrison Street but does not know when that is. Rettig said yes.
Russell asked if the discussions could include obtaining the information that the Board needs to know about, how long the vacation process takes and what steps need to be taken to complete the process when the time comes. Wilson said it usually takes six to nine months. Sullivan said Kempf is familiar with the process because the County had to do it for the HHS. Kempf said Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell took care of that. Wilson said someone might first explain to Davidson and the new City Manager that the preliminary indications from Novak are that the Harrison Street vacation is going to be needed. The County is not sure of the layout, but the County needs the entire site.
Rettig asked how long the vacation process will take once the City agrees to it. She said someone needs to volunteer to talk with the City Manager. Wilson said a couple road vacations that he worked on for the UI took a year and a half, but he thinks this the County process will take less time.
Neuzil said the action step is to start the process for the Harrison Street vacation. There are two ways to look at it. One way is to have the Facilities Subcommittee do it. To complicate it even more, there will be an issue with parking regulations if the County does not build enough parking to meet City requirements; the County may need a waiver. There is probably a fairly significant list of things to start thinking about. Rettig said the County needs to welcome new Iowa City City Manager Tom Markus, and also to explain the County's problems; they are not just parking regulations at the proposed justice center site, but there may need to be parking in the Iowa City lots. There is some indication that can be done, but Markus may not know that. Whoever goes to talk to him should introduce all of the topics.
Neuzil said the Facilities Subcommittee would be the most appropriate group to present the CJCC point of view. The Board of Supervisors has a liaison process, and even though there are not any Iowa City liaisons, there are Iowa City Fringe Area liaisons. Sullivan said he has talked with Davidson about the vacation at some length, and he would be willing to invite Davidson and Markus to participate in a meeting with the CJCC representatives. The group agreed on sending Kempf and Sullivan to visit with Iowa City.
Wilson said the remaining topics are Jail reuse, amount of parking, and the schematic design of how the building will look. Sullivan said Jail design is something the group is not up to the task of knowing. The group needs someone that knows buildings to look at the existing Jail and to explain if it could be reused, what it could be reused for, and how much it would cost. No one in this group has the expertise. Wilson said the Jail design could be part of the consultant’s challenge, or if the group has a burning desire, then someone could be hired just to look at Jail design. It would probably be more efficient and less costly to blend it into the schematic design process. Sullivan agreed.
Rettig said she is going to confuse the topic slightly. She thinks there is a way to reutilize the Jail that may be less expensive than $50 million. She suggested putting a taller building next to the Jail that ties into the building and a skywalk extending to something else that is across the street, that is like the HHS, sitting in a couple of the houses and into the street leading up to the break room entrance, is that something that gets them down the road that is less expensive than digging into the hill. She said she knows that boring into a hill and building up multiple stories is more expensive than something like this. Wilson agreed. Rettig said she would want to know that there is no way to reutilize the Jail into the new facility as topic number one, that it may be way too expensive. Then topic number two, can the Jail be reutilized without punching through a skywalk. She asked if it could be a Civil Division, Jail Alternatives, or County Attorney's space. She is not tagging anyone in particular, but just wants to know that, too. If what she found out is that there is no way people would vote for something over a certain dollar amount, but yet that space could be reused, though inconvenient and less than perfect, she would want to be able to consider that. Neuzil added that the use could be for storage, kitchen and laundry space. Sullivan said, while he doesn't disagree, these are things that a professional will decide.
Neuzil said most important is the piece of land, he is really hesitant on getting rid of the Jail without securing the GSA property; he does not want to land lock the County buildings. At least this would give future Boards of Supervisors something to work with. Wilson said several questions have been raised. One is, are there any space needs which should be allocated for, that would reasonably fit into the existing Jail. The other question is if those spaces will fit, is it worth the cost. The third question raised is if both these options work, could the County get more money for it from the UI and therefore lessen the burden on the Jail in a different way.
Rettig responded to the land banking issue raised earlier, she said the County should keep the land for future use. Neuzil said if the property becomes so valuable that footings could be installed for vertical construction, so be it. He just does not want to lose sight of the site and get land locked. Sullivan said if the property is that valuable, they should probably just raze the building and build anew.
Wilson asked, if it is not feasible to use it for Jail functions, are there other County functions that would fit in for the purpose of keeping the building in use until the land is needed. He thinks all those questions could be addressed under the following heading: "We would like to reuse the Jail if feasible." Then during the schematic design phase, the consultant will inform them if it can be used for Jail purposes in a sensible way and if it is cost-effective. If not, he asked does it then make sense to move another County office into the building. If that does not make sense, then should they sell it or tear it down and use it for parking. There would be options. Neuzil said he would like to just have the piece of property for future use.
Harney said realistically, it would end up being the Sheriff's Office as well as investigations. The Jail would still be separate and no matter what, it will cost to remodel.
Wilson asked the CJCC and the Board members if they have reached an agreement to reuse the Jail, if it is feasible. Pulkrabek and Sullivan said they want to be open to that. Harney said the language he would use is "if it is in the County's best interest." Wilson said okay, they are open to reuse the Jail. The other issues remaining are amount of parking, schematic design, public assurance that all other Jail alternatives have been considered and timing of the placing the question on the ballot.
Neuzil added one other issue, some kind of furthering of the GSA discussion. Rettig said two congressional offices have volunteered to help, but they have not pursued that. Wilson said they should add that to their action items. Neuzil said the action item should read "Continue to pursue acquisition of the GSA property." Neuzil asked who is on the committee to work with the GSA. Wilson said he thinks they are in a standoff at the moment. Harney said no, the GSA is considering the options and it is going through their review process. Neuzil said that they need to plan some steps to follow through with this. Pulkrabek asked if any Board members are going on the Chamber trip to Washington D.C. Neuzil said Harney is going. Pulkrabek said he thinks that is an opportunity to keep this GSA discussion alive. In addition to that, he thinks Board members should try to talk to the Federal delegation about this and remind them to keep it on their radar. Pulkrabek suggested an action item to read "Prepare talking points for the D.C. Chamber trip."
Rettig said she is booked to go to the NACo meeting in March, 2011. Neuzil restated that he does not want this discussion to die for lack of following through. Pulkrabek said he and Lyness met with a staff member from Senator Harkin's office and they can certainly follow up with that contact. He said this kind of regular follow-up over the next three months: he and Lyness this month with Senator Harkin's office, Harney next month when he is in Washington D.C., and Stutsman and Rettig the following month at NACo, is what will keep the discussion alive. Neuzil said he will say the same thing in a nicer way. The UI has been acquiring a lot of property around that area and it would be nice for the County to acquire this GSA property before the UI takes it.
Russell thanked the Board of Supervisors for putting this meeting together. He thinks it has been very useful.
Neuzil asked where they go from here. It would be nice to know what the tasks people should follow through with. Rettig said the Planning and Objectives document timeline should be updated. Neuzil said, by the end of July 2011, a plan was supposed to be in place so that the CJCC knew what they want on the ballot. That is not realistic so the timeline needs to be updated. Rettig said there was a discussion that they were unlikely to be putting it on the ballot in 2011, and they need to make that a final decision.
Neuzil said he and McCarragher can update the document to indicate what has been completed and what remains. Rettig asked directly, is there anyone sitting at the table who thinks they are voting on it this year. CJCC members conveyed their answer with head shakes and Rettig said the consensus is the earliest it would be on the ballot is in 2012. Wilson said, as far as this group is concerned, they get the minutes and action items in order, poll Stutsman to know her position, and then send the minutes out for review. Then at the next meeting, they will agree on the minutes and move forward. They will decide whether they want to deal with any remaining issues.
Elliott asked the Supervisors to consider reporting on an action plan with a timeline at the next meeting.
Rettig thanked Wilson for his expertise and the group applauded him. Harney said a lot of work went into Wilson's effort and the Board appreciates all he has done.
Harney said the next CJCC Meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2011, at 4:30 p.m.
Adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
/s/Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary