MINUTES OF THE JOINT INFORMAL MEETING OF JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
MARCH 2, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report from Alternatives and Treatments Sub-Committee......................................................... 1
Follow Up and Update on Key Issues Regarding a Future Justice Center, Including Location, Financing and Use of Current Facilities, Discussed at January 5th Meeting of the Committee............................................. 5
Report from Public Information/Outreach SubCommittee........................................................ 14
Report from Funding/Grants SubCommittee............................................................................ 15
Report from Facilities SubCommittee..................................................................................... 15
Set Next Meeting Date......................................................................................................... 15
Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 4:33 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, and Rod Sullivan; absent: Sally Stutsman.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present were: County Attorney Janet Lyness, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Judge Doug Russell, Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion, Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton, Citizen Representative Bob Elliott, Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, MECCA Director Ron Berg, and University of Iowa Campus Planner Larry Wilson; absent: Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston, Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, and Attorney John Robertson. Staff present: Facilities Manager David Kempf, Executive Assistant Andy Johnson, and Auditor’s Office Recording Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz.
County Attorney Janet Lyness said she has Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) updates from January and February 2011. She said MECCA staff attended initial appearances on 27 days, and there was one weather related closure. Staff conducted and completed 36 assessments, made 14 recommendations for extended outpatient treatment, six recommendations for intensive outpatient treatment, one recommendation for continuing care, and no recommendations for residential or relapse prevention. She said MECCA staff met with but needed further assessment for five individuals, and did 15 assessments on weekends, one of which was referred by the public defender and another referred by a presiding judge. None of the individuals needed an interpreter. MECCA completed 46 assessments in January 2011, completing all assessments that were requested. Lyness said 46 assessments is a fairly high number, though she thinks the highest amount was in September 2010 with over 50 assessments. That program is going very well.
Lyness said, in regards to the cuts to the Mental Health/Disability Services (MH/DS) budget, one of the programs that came out of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) originally was the Jail Alternatives Program, which is one of the non-mandatory services provided by the County. If funding is not going to be available for something like that, she thinks the CJCC needs to evaluate that. When the Jail bond issue previously failed, one of the things the community pointed to was the need for more mental health treatment and assessment services, and the Jail Alternatives Program grew out of that concern. If the Jail Alternatives Program is not in place, it may be a large barrier to receiving public support for a new justice center, since that is a major component of treatment. She thinks all CJCC members need to be thinking about how that program is going to be funded if MH/DS is not funding it.
Rettig said she does not know if everyone else knows this, but the County is facing a $2.5 million shortfall in MH/DS state funding with an inability to infuse local dollars because those have been tapped out since 1996. The Mental Health Planning Council had several meetings, because if the State funding does not come through, the County will have a $2.5 million cut and they will end the next fiscal year with $1.00 in the bank, having used all of the reserves. A percentage of people in Jail Alternatives are not MH/DS clients and there was a recommendation that some of the funding come from the County Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Office. Rettig said she is committed to having a Jail Alternatives Program; she is just not sure how it should be funded. She is curious what CJCC members think. Lyness said she does not have any response at this time but would look at the County Attorney’s budget. They do not have money sitting around to fund that right now.
Iowa City City Council Member Connie Champion asked if the Supervisors are certain about the $2.5 million budget cut. Rettig said in 1996, under Governor Terry Branstad's previous administration, a cap was placed on what local government could fund into MH/DS. Johnson County's cap was set at $3.1 million. In return, the Legislature was going to put an extra $6 million per year into MH/DS, to backfill what local government could no longer do. That occurred in the first three years but has not happened since then. In addition, the remainder of FY11 and the duration of FY12 will have 0% allowable growth. In order to maintain the current level of service in Johnson County they have to use all their reserves. Not only will Johnson County use all of its reserves, but it will be $2.5 million in the hole and will not be allowed to use any other tax proceeds for this funding, or to move funds around. What the Board does know now, and what they have been told to prepare for would be a $2.5 million deficit in the MH/DS budget, and the County has to find cuts to do that.
Rettig said the Legislature may come through with something else in the next two months, but the County certainly does not think they will come through with all of the funds. Johnson County is in better shape than Linn County, because Johnson County actually has reserves. Sullivan said Polk County is in even worse shape and Rettig agreed. She said this is what is prompting this discussion. The Jail Alternatives Program is a small part of this problem, because it is only $170,000. Harney said the Jail Alternatives Program was supplemented last year through stimulus funds, which are not available this year.
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said the Jail Alternatives Program was viewed by most of the Supervisors at the time it was created as a public mandate to bring the mental health diversion program. He knows it has evolved to being named as the Jail Alternatives Program, but it is not the only jail alternative that the County funds. He always refers to it as the Mental Health Diversion Program and this program already has been cut. The original plan was for three people to staff this program, but with the staff transitions, one position was eliminated. In his opinion, the program has taken its cut by one third, and he would hate to see it eliminated. He absolutely believes it was one of several mandates by the voters. If the Jail Alternatives Program is eliminated, he believes the chances decrease that a bond referendum for a justice center would pass. Johnson County received statewide recognition for the Jail Alternatives Program and if the County can no longer provide this program to deal with the fact that jails are the number one mental health care center, it will be a travesty.
Harney said he does not disagree with what Pulkrabek said, but at the same time when the Jail Alternatives Program was put into place the MH/DS director had sufficient funds to fund the program. He thinks this is something the County has to reevaluate, because the County cannot put any more funds back into it. Perhaps they could backfill the program another way and pick up the difference through the County Attorney's or County Sheriff's Offices.
Pulkrabek said if the Board decides earmark money for Jail Alternatives Program employees in the Sheriff's Office budget, he will not say no, because he is a huge supporter of the program. He is pretty sure if a Jail Alternatives Program employee became an employee of the Sheriff's Office or the County Attorney's Office, there would be some difficulties in having full access to the MH/DS system and information. There may be a little bit of a problem there. The Sheriff's Office typically returns money every year, especially salary money, and it is because there are so many unknowns. The Sheriff's Office scrimps on overtime, especially at the management level, telling their employees to use flex time as much as possible. He is not opposed to the Board taking salary money that the Sheriff's Office returns at the end of the fiscal year and funneling it into the Jail Alternatives Program.
Neuzil said that money would come from the FY11 budget, not the FY12 budget, so that would not necessarily work. Currently, the proposal from the MH/DS Planning Council is to cut by 50% the funding portion from MH/DS for the Jail Alternatives Program. The County needs to find $85,445 to cut. Collectively, the Planning Council's recommendations were to identify where this money could be found in budgets from other County departments. The problem is that the Board is passing the FY2012 County Budget tonight, March 2, 2011. If they need to find $85,445 to reallocate, they will all have to examine each program to determine what can be cut. If they are able to secure the half of the funding through the MH/DS program, that at least funds the program for the first half of FY12, July 1 through December 31, 2011.
Neuzil said some of the other recommendations from the Planning Council include looking at grants. The County is interested in funding a grant writer, so this could be a top priority for that individual. Another recommendation is to evaluate other service program, particularly in the area of substance abuse. He still thinks this is an individual that would remain an MH/DS employee because as long as at least half of the program is funded through MH/DS since at least 50% of the clients are identified with mental health issues, that employee would stay within MH/DS. They will have to discuss whether the County can provide a full Jail Alternatives program, a half program, or something different. Ultimately the County spends $170,890 on the Jail Alternatives Program, and they get a lot of mileage out of it, not only for what it does for the good of the community, but because it is a major accomplishment of the County. Unfortunately, the timing could not be worse.
Citizen Representative Bob Elliott asked if there is a point in time when the Board certifies the budget. He asked if that will be tonight. Neuzil said pretty much. Elliott asked if the Board can move dollars around but not raise the total budget. Sullivan confirmed. Rettig said the Sheriff's Office and the Attorney's Office are good at managing their budgets, and usually return money to the Board. She asked if there is the capability to do this through amendments later. Sullivan said yes. Rettig said she wants everyone to reaffirm that the County is sold on this program, and want it funded even if it is not fully funded by MH/DS dollars. If 50% of the Jail Alternatives Program clients have mental health issues, and 50% have alcohol and substance abuse issues, it makes sense to fund it through two different departments. However, she would like direction from the CJCC as to how the Board should pay for it.
Champion said she thinks most of the JCCC members would say it is imperative to continue the Jail Alternatives Program. There would be much community criticism if the program was cut. Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen concurred with that. She said the service the Jail Alternatives Program staff provides to their clientele is invaluable. It keeps people out of jail, and she thinks if the program is cut, there will be consequences such as increased incarceration rates, increased number of violent offenses, and an increase in homelessness. There are a lot of preventative services offered by the Jail Alternatives Program that have been very helpful to the probation officers and clients the Department of Corrections works with. Allen said she thinks it is worth the effort to keep this great program going. There are a large number of people with mental health issues in Johnson County that flock to Iowa City for the services provided.
Neuzil said he thinks Allen brings up a good point. He said $2.5 million is going to have a huge impact, particularly in the area of mental health, and will cause an influx of inmates at the Jail, especially if they cannot come up with some funding to help with medications. He thinks that with some creativity, the Board, the Sheriff's Office, and the Attorney's Office can identify some funding. Off the top of his head he could probably come up with ten different ways to come up with $85,445. They are assuming that half of the Jail Alternatives Program funding would still be funded by MH/DS, but that is not even guaranteed at this point. He said Rettig has a good point, this begins with the CJCC making a recommendation and he would suggest that this Committee would consider doing that. That could happen at the next CJCC Meeting.
Elliott said he thinks it would be helpful if the Board, Lyness, or someone else would provide an appropriate recommendation for the Committee to advance. There is some knowledge particular to Sheriff's Office staff and Attorney's Office staff that the members of this Committee do not know, including the services available and how much they cost. He would appreciate some of the officials coming up with a suggested recommendation for the CJCC to discuss and submit.
Sullivan said he thinks Pulkrabek is absolutely right. A justice center will not happen without the existence of the Jail Alternatives Program. The program was one of the two or three biggest issues in the 2000 election. The public could not have been clearer that they wanted jail alternatives programming. The County is currently providing jail alternatives programming and if they stop doing so, they kiss goodbye the chances of a new justice center facility. He thinks it is that simple. He thinks the Board would be crazy to do anything other than find a way to fund the Jail Alternatives Program. He does not know how much of an official recommendation they need to figure out a way to get this done. Obviously the State has put the County in a difficult position concerning the budget, and the County will probably have to use their reserves, but he thinks it is necessary that they fund this program. Harney agreed. One way or another, the Board has to come up with the funding and maintain this program because it is advantageous to everyone in many ways. He is not so sure that the Board needs a recommendation from the CJCC.
Rettig said in a way, the Board already got a recommendation. She heard everyone agree and saw every head nod. Harney said he thinks it is up to the Board to come up with the funding and work with Lyness and Pulkrabek to do so.
Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton said, if the Board wants to formalize this, he would recommend that the CJCC send a message to the Board that they feel this is appropriate action to come up with $85,000 to fund the Jail Alternatives Program. Lyness said it is not really on the agenda, but she could take that as a suggestion for the Jail Alternatives Committee, if that is OK. Sullivan said he thinks everyone got the message. Pulkrabek said there is nobody speaking against this, so that ought to be a clear message in itself.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said he provided everyone with a handout including a chart that is a summary of what was discussed at the January 2011 CJCC Meeting. The Novak Design Group (Novak) submitted additional information to add to the Space Needs Study. This included adding some library and recreation space. There is a sheet which provides a summary of what has been added as well as the proposed square footage. A new pie chart of the justice center program overview appears at the end of the first section. There are also revised pie charts at the end of the courts section and the jail division. There are two new pages at the end of the packet that detail the library and exercise space. The summary page lists the capital construction costs analysis. The aforementioned changes are additions to the original Novak Report.
Rettig said if she is reading this right, the new changes increase the project cost by a little less than $1.4 million. Johnson confirmed. He said the grand total of the capital construction was originally $47,248,428, and with the revisions it is $48,803,822.
Former UI Campus Planner and CJCC Facilitator Larry Wilson said it is his understanding that these changes and additions to the Novak Report include all of the spaces that Architect James A. Novak (J. Novak) has encountered as requested by different committees and groups. This should satisfy everyone's general space needs. There may be closets or other spaces left out because J. Novak is using bulk figures, but J. Novak feels confident that he has covered everybody's wishes regarding space. Wilson said this revision covers everything for the next 20 years. As they go forward in designing this justice center, the drawing will be refined and the details will be figured out, but at this point it is bulk space. This gives the CJCC a reasonable, beginning cost estimate for the justice center.
Wilson said that the review items listed on the summary sheet from the January 5, 2011, CJCC Work Session Meeting should not be anything new. They covered these items at the Work Session, and according to his notes there was consensus on these items, but they wanted to be sure that everyone was on the same page and sure as to what they were agreeing to. He thought they would review this list and asked everyone to either speak up or hold their peace; he hopes that by the end there will be confirmed agreement or identified issues that need further examination.
Wilson said they will begin with item one, the topic of which is "project." He believes there was consensus that "there is a need to move forward with planning for a justice center to address space needs at both the Jail and the Courthouse." He would like to say that this item has a consensus agreement unless he hears differently. Iowa Bar Association Representative James McCarragher asked if they can add language that the planning will address "safety, security, and space needs." Wilson said OK. Rettig agreed. Wilson said that makes it clearer for everybody. He asked if there is any dissent with the addition of that language. Hearing no dissent, Wilson said there is consensus for this item.
Wilson said they will move on to item two, the topic of which is "location." The CJCC members have talked about the need for more land, but the fact is that the County does not have it. There has been a good indication that they can make the justice center work within the land the County owns, plus additional land on Harrison Street. At the January 2011 meeting, he believes they all agreed to move forward with that in mind. He said there is agreement on this item.
Wilson said they have already talked a little bit about item three, the topic of which is the "Novak Study." The Novak Study has been updated and he believes it includes every space that had been previously left out. He asked if this seems good enough to move forward with now. Neuzil said regarding location, the work group got together and had an opportunity to meet with almost all of the elected officials, so they are very close to having that done. In terms of the Novak Study, his concern is that the timeline may not work as anticipated, so he wonders if they can identify ten year needs, 15 year needs, and 20 year needs. This way they can prioritize the items that could meet the current needs and then look at what would be needed in 15 or 20 years. Wilson said that can be a complex issue. He asked if those questions can be addressed separately after they finish going through this list. Neuzil agreed. He has some suggestions on how to deal with the prioritization. He will mark this item as having a consensus of yes regarding overall space needs.
Wilson said the topic of the next item is "amount of bond referendum." They had previously discussed that "there is a need to determine the amount the public would support." He thinks they had consensus that the Outreach Committee would work on how that might be funded. Perhaps there will be a report from them at this current meeting. He asked if this meets everyone's expectations regarding conducting a survey of voters to set the amount they might want to bond for. He thinks this is a key item, because it will tell them the maximum amount the County can spend on the justice center, or it will tell them that they will have to get money from elsewhere to do what they need to do. It will set a ceiling, at least for the public.
Rettig said the concept is fine, but she thinks it is worded strangely. It is not that the public "would" support it, but that they "may" support it. It is kind of a range regarding where the ballpark figure is. She does not think anyone could guarantee that the public "would" support it. It is really the ultimate amount that would have a very good chance of the public supporting it. Maybe the word "may", can replace the word "would" in that sentence.
Wilson asked if Rettig is referring to the last three lines of the action step where it says "…until they have information about how much the public may ultimately support." Rettig said yes. She said also under the discussion section of the handout, she would change the word “would” to “may" and read the sentence as follows: "There is a need to determine the amount the public may support." Wilson asked if that word change gets the document to the point where CJCC members can agree. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson moved on to item number five, the topic of which is "timing of the bond referendum." He said a time has not been set, but the CJCC said the project will not be on the 2011 ballot. He asked if there is consensus on that. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson said the next topic is "renovation of the Courthouse." The Committee was supportive of renovating the Courthouse if the uses could fit in the space in safe and secure ways. He said this is what McCarragher was talking about earlier. He asked if that sounds reasonable. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Champion asked if there has been any discussion of tearing the Courthouse down. Wilson said no. McCarragher said there has been some discussion, but it was indicated that tearing down the Courthouse would not occur. He does not think this project could go forward if that happens. Wilson said he has heard that it would have to be a pretty bad financial situation in order to tear down the Courthouse. He thinks the cost of renovating it would have to be extremely high before anyone would consider tearing it down. He said J. Novak does not think it will come to that; renovating the Courthouse will still be beneficial. However, that has not yet been explored thoroughly. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson said they will move on to item number five, the topic of which is "funding." He said the CJCC talked about the possibility of joining with the City of Iowa City (Iowa City). There were some people in favor of this and some people against it. His understanding was that CJCC members agreed that it would be OK to pursue a joint funding effort if it did not hold up the project. The CJCC would continue forward with the project, and in parallel they can work with Iowa City. He asked if that seems fair. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson moved on to the next item, the topic of which is "funding 2." The Committee agreed to go forward with the assumption that the project would be funded by bonding, but that they need to be open to other possibilities for additional funding. They would go forward with bonding to keep the project moving forward, but would also try to find other ways to support it, if possible. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson moved on to the next item, the topic of which is "land acquisition." He said the County Treasurer and County Attorney will proceed with the purchase of the houses on Capitol Street, which he thinks is occurring. Lyness said yes, she has conferred with Kriz that the County would have money to purchase the properties. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson moved on to the next item, the topic of which is "land acquisition 2. Acquisition of the General Services Administration (GSA) property is desirable, but the CJCC decided they did not want to slow up the project to wait on the property. However, they will continue to pursuing that. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson moved on to the next item, the topic of which is "reuse of the Jail." He thinks many people want to reuse the Jail, because it is a politically acceptable thing. Others were concerned that it might cost too much, some that perhaps the County should sell the Jail to the University of Iowa, and still others who thought the land should be saved for future use. He thinks some of those issues can be worked out more effectively during the design stage. Until then, Wilson’s understanding is that CJCC members have agreed they would like to reuse the Jail. This topic was marked with a consensus of yes.
Wilson said the following three items were not covered: the amount of on-site and off-site parking to be provided, schematic design of how the building will look, and public assurance that all viable jail alternatives have been considered. It is his opinion that those three items are things that initially need to be covered. The first two will be better covered during the schematic design phase when they better know what the building will look like and what kind of parking is needed. The public assurance of jail alternatives is going on anyway. He suggested that the CJCC does not need to consider those remaining three topics right now.
Wilson said he thinks there is consensus on the fundamental items needed to move forward. He asked committee members to look at the document that was just handed out entitled "Overview of Novak Report Costs." He said he put together some ideas to discuss of how they look at the space prioritizations, what might be postponed until the future, and how phasing might work.
Wilson said he would like to have a reality check first. Based on Novak’s space analysis, the building will cost around $43.8 million. He said anyone wishing to follow along can refer to page 96 of the recent handout, the one with the cost estimate. There is also the parking ramp cost of $5,025,804. That is listed separately because it is not certain that a ramp will be built; they may use another alternative. A lot of that might be determined by how much money the County has available and the total cost of the project.
Wilson said if they do decide to do both parts of the project, the total project cost is estimated to be around $48.8 million. Typically, design consultant fees run at about 7.5% of the total building cost. That means $3,115,000 would become due before they ever start construction, or at least most of it would be due before starting the project. The schematic design cost is 15%, or $467,000, of the total design fee. Design development (20% of design cost) is when the schematic preliminary design is refined, and by the end of design development, they will be pretty much settled on what the building will look like, what the spaces are, and the size. Then, they start getting into the details. Wilson said once the design development phase is completed, the actual construction documents will be created. These are the official documents that the building will be constructed from and these documents will cost 40%, or about $1,250,000 of the total design fee. After that, will be a bidding and negotiation stage, which costs about 5% of the total design fee. Throughout the construction the design firm will need to oversee what is going on, at a cost of about 20%, or $623,028, of the total design fee.
Wilson said the point of this is that this is quite a commitment. Once they begin the schematic design phase, then they have already committed to coming up with about $500,000 to pay the consultant. Harney asked for clarification of who would be paid the design fees. Wilson said if they hired a design firm to go from cradle to grave, it would cost roughly $3 million, which would be broken down into the phases he just discussed. As with the designer completed schematic design, they would want some money at that stage, and so on and so forth.
Pulkrabek asked if the contract administration fee includes the cost of a construction manager to oversee this project since it is so large. Wilson said no, that is extra. He said in this project that might be a viable alternative. That is an additional service. The architect provides design overview, but is not there on a daily basis overseeing the costs, making sure everything is ordered on time, and those kinds of details.
Pulkrabek asked how much that would add to the cost. Wilson said he would guess 5%. Pulkrabek asked if that is 5% of the $48 million. Facilities Manager David Kempf said it could cost up to that much. Wilson said it would probably be 5% of a fee on top of the $3 million. Champion asked, if they hire a project manager, which she thinks is a must, do they have to also have the architect present. Wilson said typically they want an architect to carry on throughout the entire process to make sure the building ends up looking like they want it to. Champion asked if the project manager would do that. Wilson said no, the project manager manages the flow of the project and not the design of it. Sullivan added that a project manager coordinates the work schedules of the subcontractors, so they do not have electricians show up, but not be able to work, because somebody did not do something else first. Wilson said an architect would work out problems. For example, if duct work is running through the middle of a conference room the architect would work on relocating it.
Rettig said 5% is $1.86 million; she asked if it would be that high. Wilson said he would not think so, but he is not sure. They would need to get a fee estimate and he thinks the estimate would be around $600,000. Kempf said he has talked to a couple of different firms and they were all in the 3% to 6% range. The fee depends in part on the services and what the County’s expectations are, which can include having multiple people on site daily. Kempf said some firms suggest that construction management is brought on during the schematic phase, because they know the construction processes potentially better than architects do. That is where design firms think they can save money for their clients.
Champion asked if major construction companies have project managers. Wilson said yes, but they manage projects from a profitability point of view and construction timing. A project management firm has special skills in managing the overall budget for the customer and not for the developer/firm. By and large, they are at a higher level of expertise and are working for the County as a client. They are not looking at what makes the most money for the construction firm, but what makes the most sense for the client. A project management firm also has a higher level of oversight, in terms of project flow and will tell the contractor if they are behind schedule and try to get them to pick up the pace.
Champion said she guesses she cannot find any way to save that $500,000. Rettig said it will be higher than $500,000. Champion said she knows. Wilson said not necessarily. His personal opinion is the County should at least interview a couple of firms to see if they can be convinced there would be a savings. Rettig said yes, but from a budgeting standpoint they should build that in, while in reality, they hope that a project manager will lower the cost of the project. Wilson said, when they get into the design phase, the design consultant can help the Board resolve these cost issues as part of the overall cost.
Wilson asked where they will go from here on the space analysis. He said they have a lot of space and do not know how they will play that off against how much money they might have, they do not know how much can be spent on the Jail, whether it will fit, how much they can spend on the Courthouse or whether it will fit, what will be done about parking, what has to be phased for the future so they can do what they need to do now, or what it is they need to do now. He thinks all of these answers will come during a design phase, after they have hired a consultant. This is a complex project that they really need to get into the details to weigh the pros and cons of these tradeoffs.
Wilson said there are at least three ways the CJCC can go forward. One is the CJCC can try and do it themselves. However, looking at page 96 of the document, they will see that the potential savings only adds up to $1,714,000, which is not much when they are trying to reduce the overall budget. He asked if they will leave off the Courthouse to save $6.2 million and do that through a separate funding source. In order to look at other options they almost need to know what each option will cost and how that plays against the cost of other options. He thinks it is really hard for the CJCC to do that prioritization.
Wilson said he suggests the CJCC do one of two things. Send out a Request for Proposal (RFP) and tell the design firm in the RFP that they only want to go through the schematic design phase until they know that the bonding issue is settled. If it dies there, then the contract dies there too. To do that, it will cost roughly $500,000 up front for the design fee. That is a lot of money, so he is suggesting another possibility.
Wilson said there is a pre-schematic or preliminary design way to do it. He said that is the way J. Novak said they handled the Hiawatha City Hall. He refined things just enough to get a reasonable accurate cost, get the spaces refined, came up with a pre-design of what the building would look like, and prepared a brochure to distribute for bonding. That is what he is calling a pre-schematic design; it is not to the refined level of a schematic design.
Wilson said there are a couple ways to do that. They could hire a firm, such as Novak, to just do that. Then, after the bonding issue is settled, put out for an RFP for a design consultant. The problem with this approach is that the firm who does the original sketches to get the bonding may not be the firm that designs it and it might change significantly in appearance. That may or may not be a problem.
Wilson said another way might be to go ahead and go out with an RFP but add another phase in there. Instead of going to schematic design it would go from pre-schematic, schematic, design development, and so forth. They would get a price for that pre-phase, which he thinks will be in the $100,000 to $150,000 range rather than the $400,000 range. The difference there is the firm that does the pre-schematic will be the firm that actually does the design, so there is more continuity for the public, which Wilson thinks is an advantage.
Wilson said his suggestion would be to complete the survey on what the public may support in terms of bonding. That will give the CJCC a target amount. Then he would send out an RFP for a consultant with the pre-schematic design as a first step. It would not go beyond that until the bond issue is resolved. The contract would die if somehow the project dies. As soon as they get an RFP, and a consultant hired, and get into the design, then they can address the timing of the bond issue. While this is happening, the County should continue to pursue the GSA property, look for funding alternatives, resolve whether Iowa City will participate, and continue to look for alternatives for incarceration.
McCarragher referenced page 96 of the handout and said he has a question about saving the $6.2 million estimated for "Historic Restoration and Renovation of Existing Courthouse” (line 1). Then, two lines down is "Courthouse Components (excluding existing courthouse space)". McCarragher asked where the $6 million is saved, is it in the "historic restoration." Wilson said he is not clear what part of the document McCarragher is referencing. McCarragher said he is looking at the Capital Construction Cost Analysis, page 96 of 98 in the handout of the Johnson County Justice Center from Novak. He tried to figure out where the $6 million is saved. Wilson said it is the first line; he essentially removed the first line "Historic Restoration and Renovation of Existing Courthouse. McCarragher said OK. Wilson said they will either eliminate it or do it through some other funding source, so it is not part of the bond issue.
McCarragher asked if additional money would be necessary in the third item on page 96, where it says "Courthouse Components." Rettig said they have the original Courthouse and then there will be a need for more space. So, renovating the original 25,000 square feet of the Courthouse costs $6.2 million, but the additional space they need, another 22,000 square feet, will cost $4.5 million. She said Wilson’s point is that if the Courthouse renovation is funded another way, $6.2 million can be subtracted from the overall cost, which they are actually already doing. Rettig said between this fiscal year and next fiscal year, all the tuck pointing will be completed. The County will have spent $1 million on the renovation already, so they had not intended to do this based on this recommendation; they had already started down this path. Rettig said that Kempf would have preferred that they rolled it into the big project, but the tuck pointing was so far gone that if they did not get moving on it, it was going to be a lot worse. They are spending that money in a different funding source already. Wilson said that is absolutely correct.
Neuzil said based on Wilson’s preliminary recommendations, that is something the Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee can at least incorporate within the timeline they created. There is a draft that is just getting started. Neuzil said he can send the draft to Wilson for his feedback and then have the document ready for the meeting scheduled in April 2011.
Champion asked when the Board of Supervisors will make a decision on going forward with that preliminary design or a pre-schematic design because she thinks it is important to get something rolling. That will be very positive step when people have a picture to look at. Rettig said in about 30 minutes the Board is holding a public hearing on the County’s budget, which includes $100,000 on a justice center study and another $250,000 on justice center property acquisition. In theory, the Board has already put the money in place once they vote on the budget.
Wilson said he thinks the County could begin composing the RFP now. He thinks the missing element is the target cost amount which is important, whether it is $30 million or $50 million, and the bond issue. They could leave that section blank and insert it later.
Sullivan said they are running short on time now, but they have to talk about the money. He really thinks at the April CJCC meeting they should talk about nothing but the money. There are two shots in 2012, a June county-wide election and a November General Election. If they want to have it in June 2012, they have to get this information in the next three or four months. If this is not on the April 2011 agenda, then they are going to have to kiss another two year cycle goodbye. They really cannot be talking about anything else but getting some data on what the public will support, crunching that data, and then going with it.
Neuzil said one of the things resulting from the meeting with the other elected officials was a conversation with County Auditor Tom Slockett. He did remind the Board that June 2012 is not an eligible election for a bond referendum because it is a primary, but that the November General Election is. He said Slockett also mentioned the potential for a special election. For any date that is eligible for a special election, the cost would be roughly $80,000. The other option is having it in a General Election where there are 75,000 people voting.
Sullivan said he knows the Board is concerned about the money, but they are going to run out of time. If they do not act in April 2011, he thinks they are doomed and they might as well tell people this bond referendum will not happen until 2014 at the earliest, which he thinks is a real mistake.
Wilson said it will take two or three months to complete the survey, one or two months to hire a consultant, four to six months to do the pre-schematic, so they are pushing a year. Neuzil said nailing down the timeline set is going to be a good reality check. Sullivan said he thinks the April 2011 CJCC Meeting agenda should include a recommendation to the Board that they can hopefully place on the Supervisor's Informal Meeting and then Formal Meeting agendas. He thinks the Board should vote on the RFP by the middle of April 2011.
Rettig said the County would not have the money until July 1, 2011. Sullivan said the County would not necessarily have to pay them then either. Kempf said it is going to be a process to develop the RFP, get it out, and have submittals come back. Sullivan said whoever the County hires will have to be told they will not be paid until July 1, 2011. Kempf said they probably would not be in a position to have a bill submitted to the County much before July 1, 2011. Neuzil said that is something the Board will have to iron out in regards to trying to get a survey in or not.
Sullivan said he does not think anything Wilson has talked about is wrong. He just thinks there is a component that is missing to all of it, which is what the bottom line is. They have to have that number before they can really get going. Harney said he thinks the CJCC can have this discussion at the meeting scheduled for April 2011.
Kempf thanked Wilson for the amount of work he has put into this planning process.
Neuzil said the Public Information/Outreach Subcommittee is keeping on track with updating this timeline. He wants people to keep an eye on Senate Study Bill 1062. This is a bill that he knows McCarragher has also been following closely. It is starting to get some legs, particularly because of the courthouse situation in Polk County. The idea is to identify courthouses and courthouse improvements under the General Supplemental Fund of county government as an essential county purpose. This means that the County will not have a cap on that portion of the County budget. There is the potential, if the Iowa Legislature would make the Courthouse or Courthouse improvements an essential County purpose, they could fund it similar to how they are funding the Joint Emergency Communications Center, which just recently was an essential county purpose.
Pulkrabek reported on the latest information on Jail transportation. He said Johnson County has negotiated yet another deal with a new county, so effective at the end of the current week, the majority of Johnson County’s prisoners will be going to Muscatine County. They have built a new addition and hired staff. The Sheriff’s Office has negotiated not only the lowest flat fee available, but that fee will also include Muscatine County providing some transportation for Johnson County and will also include medical charges. This contract is going to be a significant savings, and though it does not necessarily help the cause to justify a new building here because he is driving down the costs again, it is the right thing to do from a taxpayer’s perspective, and from the human side of it. The proximity of Muscatine County will hopefully enable more attorneys meet with their clients, and more family members to visit with the incarcerated. Pulkrabek said the County will still be housing a few prisoners in Washington County.
Rettig said the Funding/Grants Subcommittee does not have anything to add until they get some numbers.
Rettig said Tiffin Mayor Royce Phillips is present, and while she does not intend to obligate him, she did say Phillips had volunteered to serve on a committee and may be open to joining the CJCC. She suggested visiting with him after tonight's meeting and thanked Phillips for his presence.
Harney said the Facilities Subcommittee has not actually met, but he has had a conversation with GSA Public Buildings Service Portfolio Management Director Kevin Rothmier who said GSA has not done much at all. He said Rothemier said GSA’s next steps are to conduct a boundary survey, proof the legal description, and get a third party appraisal for the property.
The next CJCC Meeting is scheduled for April 6, 2011 at 3:00 p.m.
Adjourned at 5:43 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on March 28, 2011 at 3:00 p.m.