MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 27, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:10 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
Stutsman: Open the informal session and move down to items 5 and 6, business from Mike Foster, Director of Senior Dining, and this is regarding the Fiscal Year 2001 Nutrition request for proposals to the Heritage Agency on Aging. This is a regular review that we have every year. The Senior Dining program submits a contract or request for proposal to the Heritage Agency on Aging. The Board of Supervisors needs to review that initial request so that they can begin contract negotiations. The request needs to be up in Cedar Rapids tomorrow so that’s why we are kind of moving it ahead to have action on informal and then formalize it on the formal part of the meeting. So there really isn’t a lot of discussion that needs to take place at this time, it’s just basically authorizing the chairperson to sign that RFP so that it can be sent out to Cedar Rapids. Mike is not here. He probably won’t be here because this is his busy time as far as the Senior Dining program. He is busy getting meals ready to be served and to be delivered.
Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: He has submitted a letter.
Stutsman: Right, and that should all be included in your packet. If there are no comments, let’s move down to item C, and that is the same situation except this has to do with Lisa Dewey and the SEATS department. SEATS does provide transportation for Senior Dining Program and so this is a proposal for reimbursement for those services, and I think, basically, it’s the same contract that was submitted last year, the same request for a proposal. So if there are no comments, I’d like to recess the informal.
Recessed to formal meeting of January 27, 2000 at 9:12 a.m.; reconvened at 9:14 a.m.
JAIL OVERCROWDING STUDY COMMITTEE: UPDATE OF JAIL SPACE NEEDS
Stutsman: I’d like to call to order the informal meeting and the second item on the agenda is business from Lora Shramek. We are going to move Lora’s item to the last part of the agenda just before we go into Executive Session so she doesn’t have to sit up here for the whole meeting. So I’d like to move then on to the third item on the informal meeting and that is business from the Jail Overcrowding Study Committee and that is regarding the update on the jail space needs. I know we have several members of that committee with us this morning. I don’t know who is going to take the lead in presenting that report.
Jail Overcrowding Study Committee Chair Peter Hayek: Give us a second, if you would please.
Stutsman: OK, sure, no problem. I’ll let you introduce your Committee, Mr. Hayek, if that’s OK?
Hayek: I do want to, if I may, introduce the members of the Committee who are present this morning. Tim Ruth is here, Bob Kemp, Joanne Stoner.
Stutsman: Can we have people stand?
Hayek: I’m sorry, sure. Tim, Bob Kemp, Joanne Stoner, Leonard Roberts, Donna Voke and Marilyn Wright. We’ve got a quorum.
Stutsman: Right. Thank you.
Hayek: What we’ve done is met since October, bi-weekly, and as charged by the Board, reviewed a multitude of material, listened to many, many experts, people with various expertise in jail procedures, jail facilities. What we have done is passed unanimously, all 12 members of the Committee, those who are present and those people who I’ve talked to who were not present for the last meeting, were in agreement passing the approval of the report that you have in front of you. What I would like to do rather than reading word for word is basically cover the highlights of our report and recommendation to the Board. As you know, the current facility was built in 1981. It was originally built to house 46 inmates. The Sheriff was able to double bunk individual cells under the then current regulations of the Department of Corrections to increase the facility to house 92 inmates. So the total inmate facilities available are 92 at this time for that facility. The jail population has more than tripled from 1981 from an average daily population of 25.4 inmates in 1981 to an average daily population of 94.1 inmates during the first 3 quarters of 1999. In other words, an average daily population in excess of the number of beds to accommodate them. In fact, we have had as many as 127 inmates at one time. The Committee has found no evidence that future inmate populations will increase at any lesser rate. Bill Garnos of CSG Consultants believes that the capacity requirements for a Johnson County Jail Facility will be 255 inmates by the year 2019. In addition to the current and future insufficient inmate housing problem at the current facility, Mr. Garnos also believes that the current facility provides inadequate space for intake and release of inmates, inadequate space for inmate programs, activities and support services. There is a lack of visibility into the inmate housing areas which creates a dangerous situation for deputies working within the jail as well as potential danger for the inmates themselves. By the way, Norm Osland is here too and I didn’t introduce him. He’s the Vice Chair. Sorry about that Norm. The State of Iowa Department of Corrections has oversight responsibilities with regard to county jails, and the Iowa Administrative Code for the Corrections Department sets forth minimum inmate housing requirements for county jails. If those requirements are exceeded, the Department of Correction may require that the Sheriff outsource inmate housing to other counties. The daily cost for each inmate at this time approximates $65 per bed for outsourcing those inmates, per inmate. That does not include the cost of transporting those inmates back and forth from the Johnson County Courthouse to Benton County, to Black Hawk County or where ever else those people have to be outsourced to. The Committee has concluded that the current jail facility is inadequate at this moment to house current inmate requirements and your Committee has found no evidence that would be contrary to Mr. Garnos’ projection of a capacity requirement for Johnson County of 255 beds by the year 2019. The Committee believes that in making its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, not only should we be recommending a fix for the current problem, as well as the problem to the year 2019, but we also must address the probable requirements many, many years thereafter. We certainly do not want to find ourselves in the same situation we are now in the year 2019. The options that we are facing are as follows. The first option is to expand the existing facility. As you know, the current jail facility is bounded by Capital Street on the east, the abandoned Harrison Street right-of-way on the north, and property belonging to the University of Iowa to the west and south. The University of Iowa owns the abandoned right-of-way to the north as well as property to the north of that. All of Mr. Doberstein’s options, Mr. Dobberstein, of course, is our consultant from Newman-Munson, all of his options for expanding the existing jail facility involve acquisition of additional property to the north and or to the west. As you know there is a brand new University building to the south, and the University is talking about further expansion south of Burlington Street which would include a new University facility to the west of the jail. The Chair of this Committee and County Attorney Pat White met with Doug True, Vice President of Finance and University Services at the University Of Iowa. Mr. True pointed out that the University of Iowa has been and continues to be in the buying mode with regard to real estate and not in the selling mode. As the University has already designated the property west of the jail facility as a new building site, the only alternative Johnson County would have with regard to expanding the existing jail site is to acquire the University property to the north. Even if the County were able to acquire the property to the north, however, there would still only be enough land to support a facility of approximately 240 beds. That would be a facility that would satisfy capacity requirements for roughly the next 19 years. The County would then be faced with the necessity of building another new facility elsewhere. The second option is to establish a separate minimum security, work-release facility and continue to use the existing jail. A third option would be to construct a satellite facility, such as an annex, with similar functions as the present jail, but continue to use the existing facility as well. The Committee agrees with Mr. Garnos that the existing facility is no longer adequate to satisfy and efficiently serve as a primary jail facility. We have also learned that a flexible hard bed soft bed concept or design with a capacity for future expansion at a single site would have a potential for long-term savings on staffing, infrastructure and land acquisition costs. Which leads us to option 4. Option 4 is to construct a new, comprehensive facility at a new site. Johnson County, as you know, owns significant tracts of undeveloped land in the northwest quadrant and southwest quadrant at the intersection of Highway 218 and Melrose Avenue. The Committee believes that there is sufficient land available and utilities present to serve a new jail. Such a location would provide quick and easy access to Highway 218 for patrol officers responding to calls throughout the County. Building a new facility on a large tract of land would allow for future jail expansion when the need arises, and the Committee fully expects that there will be a future inmate population which will require an expanded facility over the 250 bed capacity. Based upon the information we received, we believe that it would take at least twice the number of jail personnel to operate an expanded jail on the existing site than personnel needed in a newly designed facility. New jail design concepts include central control centers with a clear view at all times of all prisoners in a particular cell block. The present facility was not designed that way, and any expansion would still require cumbersome and labor-intensive supervision. Members of the Board, we then talked with, among other people, Tom Kriz, the Treasurer of Johnson County about funding options for a new facility and that is also outlined briefly in the report. Conclusions and recommendations. This Committee believes that it has examined the facts sufficiently to recommend the following. Number one, determine if the County is interested in retaining ownership of the current facility and if not, sell the existing facility to a third party. Number 2, develop a request for proposal for a comprehensive jail design and site plan for a new facility at a new site to include a correctional facility space needs study. Number 3, the request for proposal should emphasize a flexible plan for a multi-use facility for all levels of prisoners, male and female, with a comprehensive look at function, intake, work-release, medical and mental health assessment, prisoner visibility, programs and activities, personnel safety, support services and site analysis. Number 4, the RFP, request for proposal, should outline construction costs, construction timeline, initial projected staffing costs, potential for expansion, and funding mechanisms for the same. In conclusion, some hard lessons have been learned since the existing facility was built. We, the tax payers of Johnson County, cannot afford to make the same mistakes. We urge you to seek specialized, in depth consultation for the areas listed above. Jail conditions in Johnson County will not improve with time, nor will they become less expensive to deal with. That is the substance of our report, members of the Board. I want to say that we have unanimously also decided to recommend that you all consider keeping our Committee intact for the purposes that you may find in the future you would like to address issues by the members of the Committee. Also for the purposes of educating the public to the problems that we have discovered during our process for the last 4 months. I can say Norm and I have already gotten 2 invitations to speak to service clubs in the County, and we anticipate having more of those and we will, all of us, will share in bringing to the attention of the public the problem we have. Having a new jail facility is not a nice thing to have, but it is a necessary requirement that we have under State law because of the number of inmates that we have to deal with in Johnson County. I think the public obviously needs to become aware of that. This isn’t a nice to have facility, this is a necessary facility that we have to have. We’d be happy to answer any questions that you all have. Also, if you’d like, we would like to help if you would like us to, to develop a request for proposal that we were talking about, or whatever other functions that we can serve to help the Board deal with the problems that we do have in Johnson County at this time.
Stutsman: Pete, on behalf of the Board, and I know I speak for all of the Board, I really would thank the Committee for all the work that they did in this. I know that they worked hard. I didn’t attend any of the meetings, but I heard feedback that it was a hard-working committee and a good-working committee. So, I really do appreciate all your work. Comments from the Board.
Jordahl: This is going to be a tough act to follow. I guess I would like to speak eagerly of your proposal to stick with it. It seems like this report says let’s take the next step and I want to say I fully support that.
Hayek: Thank you. We will if you charge us to we’ll take on any issues you’d like to present to us and help in any way we can. Norm?
Jail Overcrowding Study Committee Vice-Chair Norm Osland: We just want to re-emphasize that as a result of our effort we have just brought in an awful lot of people to talk to us. Judge Gerard and the corrections people, so we’ve had a lot of input into this thing. It just isn’t something that we thought it would be nice to see a pretty jail out somewhere on a piece of property. We’ve really researched this, and I think, Sally, you just can’t say enough about the Committee we had. It’s been a fun committee and I sure know a lot more about jails than I ever thought I would know and fortunately it’s been from the outside.
Stutsman: That’s good.
Osland: Again, not only has our Committee been helpful and all of the people we’ve called on for help, from Mr. White and all of those people, but Sheriff Carpenter and Dave Wagner and his staff. They have just been outstanding in helping us put this together and helping us understand the issues. Just from a layman’s point of view, and I think Pete will agree this and our Committee will agree with this, they are running a really good show up there with what they have to work with, and I personally don’t want to spend any time there. So it’s been fun, and on behalf of the Committee and myself, personally, I would be anxious to work with the Board. Public education will be a major issue in this thing, and I think we’ve got some ideas about how we can do that and we stand ready to help you, as Pete said, in whatever we can do.
Hayek: Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to present to you this morning.
Duffy: Great report.
Hayek: Thank you, sir.
Stutsman: We have, at the end of the meeting, a time for public discussion, so I think we will hold off on public discussion until that time. Thank you again, Pete, and we will certainly let the Committee know where we go from here.
Hayek: Thank you.
Stutsman: Thank you.
VIDEO CENTER OWNER/OPERATOR ANDY SMALL: PROPOSAL FOR VIDEOTAPING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS
Stutsman: Business from the County Computer Committee regarding the report, recommendation for funding GIS for Fiscal Year 2001 and forecast for the following 4 years.
Jordahl: Yes, I don’t know how many of us/them are here. I asked Carol to contact some folks. Mike and I were at the subcommittee meeting and the County Computer meeting and so would be prepared to speak to this even in the absence of other committee members.
Stutsman: Do you want to wait until we have other representatives here?
Jordahl: I would like to give them an opportunity to participate in the presentation.
Stutsman: Deana, would you contact those other people for us. Thank you very much.
Jordahl: I think Carol did go out and do that a few minutes ago.
Stutsman: Did she? OK.
Jordahl: I don’t know. They’re not, some seem to be here yet.
Stutsman: Why don’t we move on to item 7 and that’s business from Andy Small, Owner, Producer for the video center regarding proposal for videotaping the Board of Supervisors meeting. We have a proposal in our packet concerning Andy’s cost for moving to the informal and formal meetings that will be combined. Andy, do you want to go through this? It’s pretty well spelled out. I don’t know if there’s anything that you wanted to add.
Video Center Owner/Producer Andy Small: The only thing was that Carol mentioned that I’ve always renewed the contract in September, which doesn’t seem to coincide with your Fiscal Year.
Stutsman: Yes.
Small: So I was just going to say that I’m not sure when the fiscal year is, but that I would like to be in the fiscal year so it would just make it easier for budgeting purposes. I don’t foresee, I mean it almost seems like there’s very little room to even change the meeting at this point. It seems like really everything is pretty much covered, except for, maybe a third camera there at all meetings. Besides that, I don’t foresee any changes for quite a long time.
Stutsman: OK.
Small: The increase in the actual costs really doesn’t so much reflect the increase in the time that the meetings are going to last, which is probably going to be pretty considerable, it’s more that for every 2 hours I need to purchase an additional 5 video tapes for distribution. So if a meeting were to go 5 hours, that would be additional, like 10 tapes. So it’s really the cost increase is more for materials than time. I’m still, I’ve done this for 5 years, and the first year meetings were half an hour or less, every meeting, and I still remember that, so I’m still sort of paying my dues for those first couple of years. I don’t foresee any major changes whatsoever. You know, just the same coverage. I just would love to have, know a starting and stopping in case there’s something major. In case you guys want to go live or in case you do end up getting to a point where you’re streaming video or just, you know, there are a lot of things that could happen, and just a time frame. More than anything else. So I believe that it was July, so I would renew from now to July, or now to the following July. It’s up to you guys.
Stutsman: Our budget process takes place from December to January. So it seems like it would be consistent to have your contract be a part of our budget discussion. So probably it would be better maybe to have it run from February to February, after we’ve gone through…
Jordahl: We could discuss it in January, but then have it effective July first.
Stutsman: Yes, but it still would go…
Jordahl: Does that make sense?
Small: However it’s most convenient to you.
Stutsman: We would need to have a proposal submitted, you know, to be considered in that budget process. But I’m thinking part of our problem is that we change, you know, we have changed this contract. But I imagine, or this proposal. It’s not really in a contract format. Maybe that’s what we need to start to need to move towards is having amore formal contract with the provision in there that if there are changes, you know, that we can contact you, you know within 2 weeks and make some changes in things.
Small: Sure.
Stutsman: To recap, we had been paying $215 dollars for each live meeting. Well, the $185 for the formal meetings that we televised on Thursdays, and then $215 for the one evening meeting that was televised live on Thursday evenings, the second Thursday of the month. Now we’re going to the combined informal and formal, we’re televising both the informal and formal, and that cost will be $225.
Small: Right.
Stutsman: That will include also the Thursday evening meeting at that cost.
Small: Exactly.
Stutsman: So it is somewhat, not a huge increase, but it is a little bit of an increase.
Small: Right.
Stutsman: So we just need to make sure that we’re all on the same page and that we agreed to these costs and that, you know we let Andy know so he knows where he’s at.
Small: If it doesn’t stay like that, if after this 3 month trial period you decide that it’s just too much, the meetings are too long or there’s too much of a gap between the informal and the formal. There is a provision in here that says that if we do go back to the other schedule, then the price drops back to 185 per meeting and then 215 for the live meeting.
Stutsman: OK.
Small: It just would be quite a bit less time, and this meeting and last meeting aren’t the best representations of the time, but the next 2 and a half months of meetings, I think everyone will have a feel for, you know if it turns out to be 2 o’clock in the afternoon, or noon every time. So things can change.
Stutsman: We’re not planning on that, Andy.
Jordahl: You can’t go by the way I ran meetings, you know. Don’t be frightened by that. For members of the public watching this, I don’t foresee any 5 hour meetings under Sally’s guidance.
Stutsman: Well, if we have things to discuss, we have things to discuss.
Lehman: We’ll have to write in a lunch provision.
Small: There could be a lot more controversy. Every year there’s more controversy among your meetings.
Stutsman: More interest in issues that are brought up. The other thing is that you do have an additional charge for special meetings, and I think you’ve outlined that in another letter to the Board. The budget meeting that we are planning to televise will be $150 and the public hearing on the Building Code will be 185, just because there’s probably, you know, the budget meeting usually lasts maybe a little over an hour. We’re anticipating a lot more coverage, or length of coverage for the Building Code meeting.
Small: The Building Code meeting, any idea? I mean, I’ve asked Carol and she says could be 2, could be 3, could be less, could be more. Does anyone? No idea?
Stutsman: No idea.
Thompson: Never know.
Small: Could go all night, too.
Stutsman: Could.
Small: OK.
Jordahl: If no one shows up, why we’ll just kind of fold up our tents and go home, but I kind of doubt that.
Stutsman: Are there any other questions or any other things that we need to clarify? So this contract, or this proposal that we’re discussing now will go into effect immediately, or retroactive for when we…
Small: No, from this point onward.
Stutsman: Alright. Then we’ll have another approval of that contract come January first, is that how we’re going to, or July first?
Thompson: It looks like he’s proposing for the rest of this fiscal year, and then for Fiscal Year 2001.
Stutsman: OK.
Thompson: So it will go through June…
Small: It was from January to January.
Jordahl: Yes, it’s…
Thompson: A fiscal year goes from July first to June 30th.
Small: I’m sorry.
Stutsman: That’s what’s confusing about, you know, trying to coincide the timing with all this.
Small: You can cross off the fiscal, if you’d like. That’s no problem.
Jordahl: Where does it say that?
Thompson: So you want it to be from January to December.
Small: Sure. Whatever is convenient. I’m flexible. Sounds like that might be easiest.
Thompson: It’s easier to do the fiscal year.
Lehman: We’d rather do our fiscal year, from July 1 to…
Stutsman: Why don’t we let Carol work out the details on how we do this. I think we’re all pretty clear on agreement with what’s being proposed, it’s just that we need to work out the details of when this will start.
Small: So then it would go from last, from now to July.
Thompson: Now to June 30th.
Small: June 30th.
Thompson: And then from July first to June 30th of 2000.
Small: OK.
Jordahl: I think really what we’ve got here is we’ve got a 3 month experimental period for this combined meeting, you’re resubmitting your proposal for the current contract which is in place to raise the price for these combined meetings and then we can have you and Carol deal about what a new contract looks like for a new period.
Small: So then I would resubmit in June.
Duffy: For fiscal year.
Thompson: We can talk with Carol about that.
Small: OK.
Stutsman: Yes, we’ll work out those details so that we’re all clear where we’re at, and this will be on for formal approval next Thursday, because that’s going to be our normal standard. We’ll discuss things today and then have them on the formal for final approval a week later.
Small: So then this contract, just so I know, will then go until the fiscal year begins.
Stutsman: Right, and then we’ll probably, as a matter of formality, put it back on so that we can start a cycle that will be an annual.
Small: Perfect.
Stutsman: So we’ll all know where we’re at.
Small: OK.
Stutsman: I think we’ve had a pretty informal arrangement. I think now we’re moving to a more formal arrangement and it’s just going to be a transition to get that in place.
Small: Great.
Stutsman: OK.
Small: Alright. Thank you very much.
Stutsman: Thanks, Andy. Carol…
League of Women Voters Representative Carol Spaziani: The tape distribution, I just wondered about North Liberty Public Access.
Small: They receive it live now. It broadcasts from the Government Access Channel, so they receive it Thursday, they receive it this evening, as well as Sunday and, there might even be one other broadcast of it. But they are now connected to Iowa City Public Access.
Spaziani: So they don’t need a tape.
Small: So I don’t have to send them a tape. That’s why that’s not on here.
Lehman: We don’t get Andy in front of the camera much. I hope he was in focus.
Stutsman: Yes.
Small: Well actually it was just my back there.
Stutsman: Why don’t we move on to item 8. No, it looks like everybody is here for the GIS, so Jonathan if you want to take the lead on that discussion.
Jordahl: Thank you.