Cain: For those of you who have the booklets there are some pictures in there. I apologize, I have more booklets here particularly for the press. I’ll give them out again. The booklets have the budget in them and I just didn’t want anybody to go to the last page, which could happen, then all this good stuff that we’ve been talking about doesn’t have a chance to, let’s say, have it’s day. I believe the next page is the budget, is that right?

Stutsman: Yes there are a couple of other pictures from Crandon, Ashland.

Cain: This is a preliminary budget and it’s based upon our history and understanding of buildings of this type. I’ll go through some of the qualifiers in a minute. Bottom line, I think that’s what everybody wants to go to right away, then we’ll build the number. Right now, the number we’re proposing for what we’ve been seeing here is $20,282,000, project cost. When we’re done here, I think where we are looking for a number, is such a number that would be part of the referendum. So that the number that is discussed and built, in our discussions here, becomes the referendum number. That there are no, let’s say, so called hidden costs that may be somewhere else. We’re going to need some help of the Committee and we’ve worked with the Sheriff on 2 occasions to put this number together. There may be some issues here, some policy issues etc, that we will point out. But we’ll need some direction and dialogue to make sure that it’s either in this budget or not. But, with that in mind, let’s talk about how the budget is put together. As I mentioned, this is a preliminary budget. It’s based upon diagrams such as this and the square footage numbers that we’ve talked about today. The methodology and approach we’ve used many, many times over projects exactly like this. We have an excellent track record for establishing budgets that are attainable. Not too much, and not too little. We feel very comfortable with these numbers. There are some contingency dollars associated with them and I’ll point them out as we go along. Item A is the site development budget. Let me qualify one thing first. A and B are bricks and mortar numbers. They summarize to a construction budget of $16,536,000. That’s a bricks and mortar number. If somebody asks what’s the project cost, bricks and mortar budgeted at $16.5. There are, in this other cost category, almost $3.4 million dollars worth of other related costs that make up this project. Many, many times there is confusion when people talk about budgets and we should qualify that right from the beginning so everybody understands it. There are construction budgets and there are project budgets. Project budgets go to referendum. We can’t take a construction budget to referendum because there are all the other costs associated with the project. Site development, $450,000, and provides for the grating that we talked about, provides for any utility extensions that are necessary to the site and on the site. All the parking and the drives the landscaping that we’ve been talking about in concept, $450,000 bricks and mortar. The building construction budget, the building that sits on the site is $16,086,000. The 3 components that make it up include the Jail, $11,240,000, Sheriff’s Department roughly $4,000,000, then the other components, the lobby, the courtroom and the Civil Defense. I will point out a bit of a detail here. I hope I don’t confuse you all. I had mentioned before that, in this square foot number, the other down here, this maintenance facility support included space for boilers, air handling equipment etc, was included in this number of square feet. I clarified and changed that here, so that the mechanical spaces that are attributed to the jail or the Sheriff’s Department or the other, the lobby, court room, and Civil Defense, are included in their numbers. We talk about construction budgets. If you took the Sheriff’s Department, as it is, air handling equipment and a portion of the boiler number, it’s $4,052,000. There aren’t other monies in a different line item that make up that Sheriff’s Department. Is my explanation clear?

Jordahl: The square footage that you quote on kind of the first page in here, 12,827 for other, is actually a smaller number?

Cain: Is actually a smaller number, yes. If you, one, were to try to take the number and then the square footage and try to come up with a cost per square footage didn’t do that deliberately. We can talk about unit cost if we want to get to that kind of detail. But suffice to say, the jail costs more money than the Sheriff’s Department does. Jails such as this on a per square foot basis… Some areas are a $100 a square foot, some areas are $170 a square foot just by the nature of the construction, the security level, security glazing equipment, etc. That’s the construction budget at roughly $16,000,000. For a total building construction, for a total construction of $16.5. There’s a long list of other costs and we’ll go through those and they’ve been budgeted as well. Some are small numbers. Some are quite large. Topography and utility survey $3,000. Saw investigation report, $3,000. Site acquisition is zero.

Duffy: I’ve got a question.

Cain: Yes?

Duffy: Because I happen to know that, that property is valuable, if we were to sell it…

Cain: Yes it is, the past market value.

Duffy: The same thing is so with that interstate there. That’s why I asked how many acres. So, I think some figure should be included in there, what that land is worth.

Cain: It’s an important number, but it’s not a number that you should total to reach your total bonding requirement. You won’t need that money to bond…

Duffy: I understand that, but still.

Jordahl: But in terms of, I know what Charlie’s point is.

Duffy: That’s a little misleading.

Jordahl: One arguments been made is if we could sell that land out there we could turn around and buy some land some place else and the cost is kind of a wash, because of the high value of that land is what he’s saying.

Cain: Yes and that’s a correct statement.

Jordahl: The advantage of our already owning this land is not in the dollar cost but it is in the process cost. We wouldn’t have to condemn land or we wouldn’t have to go through a process of acquiring it. We already own this land. But, in terms of the dollars, we’re not quite sure what the comparison is.

Stutsman: But, I think for our purposes here, I think it’s correct the way it’s put down, because there is not cost to acquire a property here. If we’re talking about just strictly what it’s going to cost the taxpayers to build there, there is all different kinds of ways to look at it. But, I think it’s appropriate that this is zero for right now.

Duffy: I’ll agree with that, too. But, still that land is the taxpayers land.

Lehman: There should be an inventory value assigned to it somewhere, but not in this cost.

Duffy: Yes. It should be some place.

Jordahl: It’s not part of the cost. But, we are using it up. In that sense it’s a cost.

Duffy: I’m not so sure it isn’t part of the cost.

Jordahl: Yes, that’s where… We got a valuable thing now that we would be using.

Cain: I think that’s an important dialogue when you talk about comparing one site against another. That becomes a very important number to know. Relative to the bonding of this project, you are not acquiring any property in this proposal.

Dobberstein: It’s up to you guys. You may need to spend the money to get it appraised, because that will come up.

Jordahl: It should.

Cain: Architectural engineering fees, $1,128,000. Printing state review fees and miscellaneous reimbursables, $120,000. Soils and material testing during construction is $10,000. Moveable furniture and furnishings is budgeted at $300,000. We talked about this, this morning. The furniture that is in the jail, the beds, the tables, are in the construction budget numbers. This is the budget principally for the Sheriff’s Department. Moveable furniture and furnishings, tables, desks, chairs, possibly computers, etc. Electrical utility fee, $0. Natural gas utility fee, $0. We believe the utilities will provide that. Moving costs, we’ve set aside some money, not a lot, $5,000 to assist in the Sheriff’s Department move. We are budgeting $600,000 for a new 3 position dispatch radio equipment. This is the 911 communications center. This would be a brand new installation. If we are able to reuse portions of what you currently have here, this number would come down. The televisiting at $150,000 is that capability from multiple positions to be able to communicate from the Jail facility back to the Courthouse. The telephone system for the building is budgeted at $100,000. There are many different ways that phone system can be put in and dollars associated with that. We set aside $100,000. Voice and data cabling is $30,000, that’s inside the building. Start-up jail supplies, we’ve set aside $100,000. The Sheriff and the process of this project would do well to try to put a budget number together. Those are uniforms and training and all the various things associated with a new building. Fiber optic connection to the Courthouse, we’ve put $0 at this point. That may be a separate issue in the need for fiber optics and the cost of that. The telecommunication consultant fee if one were to be hired by the County to assist in some of these telephone electronic issues, or if the County has somebody on staff they could save that money. The bonding authority fee is $350,000 and we have included that in the budget. Construction manager and project manager we’re noting as $0. The County doesn’t really have a history of using a construction management approach on projects like this. We’ve noted those as being $0. Then, there is a construction contingency of 5%. That’s on the bottom. We are carrying, in the total project, approximately 10% for contingency money. That’s very common for a type of a project exactly like this at the phase that we are in. 5% of that is here at the bottom. There is another 5% in this construction budget. Typically, what would happen is, as the design and planning continue that 5% in the construction budget might well be used or it might be given back to the project. But, at a very minimum, at the point in time that the project would go out to bid, we really have to be carrying 5% for unknowns during the course of the project, during the construction phase. That gets us down to the bottom line. There are 2 numbers that would reduce this number here without changing anything in the bricks and mortar and these other budget numbers. One has to do with sales tax rebate. Johnson County, as a governmental agency, through the bidding process and the procurement of materials, can purchase those materials directly. Contractor taking control of them and you can avoid sales tax on the material side of the construction. That could be a number anywhere from $300,000 to a half a million dollars for this project. Some calculations would have to be made to validate what that number is. The second number that could lower this down depending upon at what point and at what amount bonds are secured for the project, interest will accrue to the County. The money comes in draws, the AE over the referendum passes in the fall. Shortly thereafter, you will continue working with our team putting the building together. There are some draws that are taken from the $20.2 million that takes us through next year. But, at its most, it will be 80% of the $1.128 million. The bulk of this money comes in the form of the construction budget. That will come in the form of draws over that 18-22 month period that it takes to build a building.

Jordahl: I think I just lost you there. It will be 80% of this budget. What’s the it?

Cain: Oh, OK. I’m getting into some details, maybe too much. Tony, do you want to answer the question? Maybe you have something in mind that will completely change all of this.

Jordahl: What’s the it?

Jail Project Financial Advisor Tony Roetlin: One of the resources you’ll have after the financing method is approved by the voters and executed is investment of those funds. Were the County to borrow $20 million, you would invest the funds in treasuries or bank c.d.’s or some instrument bearing interest. Those monies would also be available depending on when the County withdrew the funds to pay project costs. In other words, if you invested $20 million at 5% and didn’t spend anything for a year, you would have somewhere in the neighborhood of a million dollars at the end of the year. Those costs will be available to deferred project (inaudible) revenues, interest earnings will be available to (inaudible) project costs. One key factor in how much of that is available will be when borrowing occurs to get the funds and when draws are made to pay construction costs. What we can do as we get further down the line is develop a projected draw schedule and then you’ll have a pretty good idea of what those earnings would be.

Jordahl: It’s my understanding that there may be some limitation on those earnings placed by the federal government?

Roetlin: In general, tax exempt bonding cannot be done for arbitrage groups. Arbitrage is a term to do tax coding. Federal tax code limits, in the amount of interest earnings you can keep are from tax exempt proceed investment. There is a calculation we do when the funds are borrowed. It comes up with the tax code defined cost of borrowing. If you were to earn 6% on those investments, you would have to rebate back 1% to the federal government. You would get to keep 5%. Basically you’re allowed to earn at the rate you borrowed. There are several exceptions to that general rule that involve when you spend the money, how much you borrow.

Jordahl: We basically can’t make money but we can not have to lose the amount that we’re borrowing it at as we issue the bonds by the amount that we don’t have to spend.

Roetlin: Exactly. The tax code just doesn’t allow our little money machine to keep making money.

Jail Steering Committee Member Dave Maupin: But, you can keep making money. You make the 5%, you’re paying 5% on the bond, you can get 5% back. You can’t just make more than 5%.

Jordahl: Right.

Maupin: Or you would borrow $20 million at 5% and put out a 7 and keep it going for the rest of your lives.

Jordahl: That sounds like a good idea to me.

Maupin: It is. That’s why you can’t do it.

Stutsman: I have been asked for a short break. I wonder if this would be a good time to take it or if there are some other points that, Carol did you…

Carol De Prosse: Yes. Could I just ask a quick question?

Stutsman: Sure.

DeProsse: My name is Carol DeProsse from Lone Tree. I’m just missing something in your graph here that you perhaps explained. But, I get $19,932 not $20,282. That’s a difference of $350,000. I just wondered why there is something (inaudible).

Cain: We added the $300,000 at the end of the day yesterday.

DeProsse: I get $19,932. I was looking for $350,000 to bring in some change.

Cain: While we’re taking a break we’re going to get a calculator and we’re going to make sure we’ve got the numbers right.

Stutsman: All right. Why don’t we take a short break because it sounds like something that needs something that needs done.

DeProsse: (Inaudible) says that’s equivalent to the bonding authority fee but it needs to be included in that figure.

Cain: We’ll calculate that and come back.

Stutsman: OK. Why don’t we take a 5-minute break, then.

Recessed at 2:10 p.m.; reconvened at 2:16 p.m.

Stutsman: Back in session then. John, if you want to continue.

Cain: I appreciate the mathematician in the back. She pointed out a glaring mistake on the map on one number. How we got there I won’t explain but I apologize for it. But, the $350,000 bonding authority fee was not added into this number here.

Stutsman: OK.

Cain: So what on the board and on your handout is $3,396,000 should read $3,746,000.

Stutsman: OK. Good.

Cain: But does not change the bottom line of $20,282,000.

Stutsman: OK. I don’t know if it’s important or not, but I think Channel 9 was here earlier.

Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: I’ll take care of it.

Stutsman: OK. Thank you.

Cain: I apologize on any inconvenience that might create. Essentially, that is a long summary of the building, it’s concept and it’s budget. We want to go back to a discussion that began last week about the downtown sites. There were some questions that were raised as to the feasibility of being in and building downtown. We want to do that in a couple of ways. We’ve brought a few little scalable models that will help to illustrate the feasibility of that. We also want to talk about some conceptual budget issues that may emerge out of that discussion. If I try to orient you to this board right here, I apologize, I don’t know all the street names in downtown Iowa City. In fact, I don’t know if I know any of them. But, the Courthouse is right here. North is up. Dwight, help me, this street.

Dobberstein: Court Street.

Jordahl: Pretty imaginative the way we’ve named these things really.

Cain: Yes, it is. First Street.

Stutsman: Yes. Good try.

Cain: This is Capital Street here.

Jordahl: It goes guess where.

Cain: This is Harrison.

Dobberstein: I think this is Prentiss.

Cain: OK. But, this of course is the Courthouse site. This is a present law enforcement site. These are the parking lots that surround those 2 and the other parking lot across the street and behind the houses. If we were to take the program that has been discussed in numbers and in concept here and apply it to this site in a more carefully thought out way, more careful than what we had presented last time, we would propose this as that possible concept. Let me do it in a sequence that they would occur in construction and that might be the easiest thing to do. The Jail, the 256 beds and all of its support looks like a piece that is about that size and it’s this green and orange part of the boards that you have been looking at and it sits like this. The 3 pods, the jail support that you saw before in the green, there is some area that is captured by the floor above or the 2 floors that are above. This is a multi-story building now. It becomes what was that is now this because of limited site size. We are capturing some space on the first floor. But we feel we need that for future expansion, that when, and if, this jail were ever to expand and given limitations and sites that are available in the downtown area, we would fill that space or it would be filled in the future. That becomes a footprint that looks like that. It can sit on a number of sites. Perhaps the most straightforward site might be this, which is behind the Courthouse, across the street, to the north of the Sheriff’s Department and on the block and it will fit. It avoids any utility relocation that might exist in the street, though the street is currently been abandoned. It could be pushed closer to the law enforcement center and that’s certainly a possibility. Where might it also fit? It fits behind the Courthouse, but it’s very tight.

Stutsman: What would that mean, fitting it behind the Courthouse? Would that mean major?

Cain: It would mean taking the hill away. Major regrading of that whole part of the hill. The hill goes away essentially. You’d be right behind the Courthouse. You’d be right up against, almost up against the back of the Courthouse.

Stutsman: Nobody’s done any soil borings, but I was under the understanding that that was a limestone hill and what impact, once you start taking away that hill does that have on a 100 year old Courthouse.

Cain: A structural engineer would have to help us with that answer. There would be considerable costs if that in fact is a solid stone. There would be considerable costs in the removal of that stone. The alternative would be to build the building and put it up on stilts so it’s above that stonework. Last week it was suggested that the building might sit and ride across the street. It can fit. The houses would have to be acquired. The land would have to be secured.

Lehman: The street would go under it?

Cain: We’d be on stilts and this building would have to be above that or we’d have to set the support area, which has to have on-grade access someplace, and the building sitting atop that. That would be an incredibly expensive building to construct and very inefficient. There are some inherent inefficiencies in building a multistory building as we describe right here, when compared to a single level building. But, to do some of the gymnastics that I’m talking about structurally would be very expensive. This could sit back over here. In all of these discussions, there is the issue of availability of the land. Can it be acquired? I’m not talking today. I’m not raising that question. I think that’s a policy issue, an availability issue that the County is wrestling with. We’re pointing out just the physical ramifications of one site, as opposed to another. That could sit right here if it fit. But, let me finish this. That’s just the Jail itself. There is space available, that if in the present law enforcement center, in construction phasing, the referendum passes in the fall, a good portion of next year is spent doing design work and construction documents. Sometime in the fall ground is broken and a couple of years later, approximately, this building is completed. The Jail now moves into this building here and, as a 2nd phase to this total project, the upper level of this building, the law enforcement center is completely gutted. That, with the 1st floor of the building, becomes the Sheriff’s Department. The program requirements that we’ve set out in developing the building project, can fit into the first and 2nd floors. The whole building, that is currently called the law enforcement center. There is no question that there is some economies of operation when a Sheriff’s Department is all on one floor. There is no question that there is some economies when a Sheriff’s Department is contiguous to a jail. There are training spaces, there are locker spaces, etc, that are shared mutually by both the jail and the Sheriff’s Department or the jail staff and the non-jail Sheriff staff. There are instances of emergency where having additional staff on site in closest proximity become important. But, from an operations and can it be done point of view, this can be done.

Jordahl: What about parking?

Cain: Parking is a major issue here because parking is very tight down here. Parking would take up, the parking that we need, essentially take up the same footprint as this building here, maybe slightly less. But, we are talking about that kind of parking that we would be providing on the remote site or on the Melrose Street site. Does some of that parking, the visitor-parking end up on the street? Possible it does, but the Sheriff has staff vehicles that need to be on site. We also have the 50-vehicle garage that a portion of which resides presently on a site down here that might be retained. There’s some economies and some efficiencies in having that contiguous to the Sheriff’s Department and where that locates we have not studied that. But, that is also a land acquisition issue.

Jordahl: Is vertical parking a consideration? In other words, not stacking the cars on their ends but building a parking ramp essentially above the jail facility?

Cain: We would not build that above the Jail. What we would propose is that a basement space would be built or in the excavation of the foundation or the foundations of this building that a basement be created and the vehicles be put into that. Now, when we talk about budgets, keep in mind that on the Melrose site, we’re talking about on grade surface parking. For a large number of the cars, other than the 50 that are inside the garage. Here we would be talking about putting everything in the garage. So, there is going to be a significant cost differential in that parking or meeting the parking requirements.

Jordahl: Could we put the garage on-grade on this site and put the building above grade?

Cain: You mean on this site here?

Jordahl: Put it on top of the parking. Yes.

Cain: Then put this on top?

Jordahl: Yes. I’m just talking, just playing with blocks here.

Cain: Yes. That’s exactly what we are doing and that’s sort of the beauty of having the blocks so you can play with them in that respect.

Stutsman: But these blocks are for what is currently proposed.

Cain: Yes.

Stutsman: There would be no room for expansion.

Cain: No room for expansion and given the potential reality that only a portion of this land would be available, future expansion could only go in one direction and that would be vertically.

Stutsman: Is that possible with City zoning, though?

Cain: I apologize. We have not looked at the City zoning. But, this becomes, without the parking, becomes a 5-story building and I would think that the zoning would more than accommodate a 5-story building.

Jail Steering Committee Chairperson Pete Hayek: I think we could get around that issue with the City.

Stutsman: OK.

Hayek: The major problem is we didn’t want to block any view to the Courthouse. Even with 5 stories we probably don’t do that.

Stutsman: Still, the idea doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But, is it at all possible to close Harrison Street altogether and build, just like they did with the Holiday Inn? I guess that is something we have to ask the City. Well, what’s that street in front of the jail? Is that Harrison? Am I confused?

Jordahl: That’s Capital coming down south there.

Dobberstein: This is Harrison and it’s already closed.

Jordahl: Yes that’s vacated or whatever.

Lehman: But, there is utilities.

Stutsman: I guess I was thinking of Capital. Close Capital between…

Hayek: Between the Courthouse and the stacked jail.

County Sheriff Bob Carpenter: My understanding is, and I might be wrong, is that they were, the University, would like to see those apartments taken down because they wanted a clear shot of the Capital Building up Capital. Those apartments in time will be gone.

Stutsman: OK.

Carpenter: That’s what I’ve heard. So, I don’t know.

Jordahl: It makes sense they’d like to have a view of their Capital, too.

Hayek: If you did something like that, then for future expansion, you’d have to spend the money now for the footings that are needed for the add on.

Cain: Yes you would.

Hayek: You still don’t have parking there. We’d have to be thinking about the first level.

Cain: Or excavating out and putting parking in the basement.

Jordahl: Does it make sense to have the parking be a kind of a skeleton of an ultimate expansion at the jail? In other words, you could build a parking ramp that could then be filled in with jail cells later.

Cain: That can be done. I’m not sure I would recommend it.

Stutsman: You’d still have to have the parking.

Cain: You’d still have to have the parking and a parking lot is not a jail. It’s the same concrete floors, but just the layout of the housing area, particularly the 2-level configuration would be very difficult. One would be compromised. You can’t imagine this kind of thing, the walls all being taken out and trying to park cars in it. You literally have to design it as a Jail and then take the walls out and put parking in its place.

Jordahl: I’ve been in cylindrical ramps, think of Marina Towers in Chicago. They do that.

Cain: Not efficient as parking lot layouts.

Thompson: In this discussion what are you doing with the current Jail? Is this remodeled from maximum security?

Cain: What would happen is that once the jail is completed, 256 beds and the jail moves out of the 2nd floor, which is now all jail over here, then this whole building or the 2nd floor would be gutted. All the walls and cells would be removed and then half of the Sheriff’s Department would go to the upper floor and then large portions of the lower floor would also then be gutted and expanded. The lobby would stay where it is and they well stay the same size. Some of those departments and offices might well remain as well. But, those departments, many of them need to expand and so they would expand into areas that are vacated.

Thompson: There wouldn’t be any time when the jail had to be closed for remodeling?

Cain: No. It would not because we’re taking all the jail and building new jail, then going into the old jail and remodeling it into Sheriff’s Department, office space, lockers, showers, training areas.

Jordahl: It can just operate as it is now until they get a new place to go.

Cain: Absolutely right.

Hayek: Pretty cool but how do you get that property to the north that we don’t own when the representative of the owner said they don’t want to sell it and we don’t have right of condemnation over it.

Jordahl: Friendly persuasion.

Thompson: I think it’s pretty clear that we’ve been told we’re not getting any additional land down there.

Hayek: Maybe they’d changed their mind. I don’t know.

Thompson: We’d have to go up over the current jail or something like that. That’s what you just said was difficult to do.

Cain: That would make the architectural magazines, I tell you.

Stutsman: I think there gets to be a point where anything can be done if you want to put the resources to it, but then you get to the point of what’s practical and what’s realistic.

Cain: We want to be realistic with the questions that were asked last time. Those are important decisions and considerations because I think there was a sense at a time, at least I certainly felt in my mind, that you said in different ways that land down here was simply not available. That recognizing the size of the building there is not room to add it to the little pieces that are still left on this site. That it’s only through acquisition that it’s possible. But, the question having been asked, well, have we closed all the doors on that. I’m taking fairly serious the challenge the charge is well, what if. So, what would the impact on the project be? From a physical design point of view it’s a feasible solution. There’s distance between the Sheriff and the jail, which is not desirable. There are issues of multi-storied operation, which is not ideal but does happen everyday in the real world. I think that it will affect the operations of the Sheriff’s Department where there are maybe questions asked. Does it add staff to the future jail? It’s difficult to say. It definitely impacts his operations because what he currently does on one floor, though it happens to be on the upper floor, separating it out between 2 levels, means that every movement that takes place. Be it food and laundry and every single inmate that goes up into this housing area has to ride in an elevator as opposed to walking down a hallway. All of that takes time. In the event of an emergency, where you have staff on both floors but the need to get between levels and in an emergency you’d take a set of stairs. You wouldn’t wait for the elevator. That does take time. Does that translate into additional staff? I think it could very well add more staff. It’s not the same operation.

Thompson: I think the reason people bring this up is that they think that by using the old building there would be some savings. So, tell us how much we would save if we could get land and build downtown.

Cain: Downtown such as this?

Thompson: Yes.

Cain: OK. Go to the next page in your handout and we’ll talk about what that means. The concept, as illustrated here, is described in these numbers and they are simply order of magnitude, sculpt types of numbers to help give us the framework for our discussion. The concept, as I illustrated it, is renovate the existing law enforcement center into an expanded Sheriff’s Department, build new 50 vehicle fleet operations building. Site has not been identified here. Build new 3 level, 256-bed jail and support building and that was noted in the little diagram as well. I will hold for a moment, and there is no reference here, to the additional parking that is required. I will want to come back to that. We discussed it this morning and that number is not adequately reflected in the numbers that I am going to show to you here, but we have to discuss it. In the site development, I’m using these numbers in comparison against the Melrose site, that of that $450,000 we had for site development at Melrose, I believe we can deduct in the range of $300,000. We don’t have utility extensions, we don’t have any major grading that’s required. So, we can save some money there. In the building construction budget that you saw before, there is a series of things that add up to a total of roughly $1 million. We believe that taking a Sheriff’s Department and building it in a remodeled space, at roughly 60% the cost of new construction, would save us roughly $1 million, in construction costs. The Sheriff will argue, and you would all agree with me, that if any of you remodeled your kitchen in your house and lived in it at the same time, there may be capitol cost savings. But in terms of wear and tear on your staff and your wife and your family or husband, there is an operating cost that might actually make it a wash essentially. So, just note that. I pointed out, maybe rather quickly, that to meet the footprint size required for the housing league, we’ll shell out a portion of the first floor. We need that for future support core expansion in the jail. We would not be building that space otherwise. At Melrose it’s added on horizontally in the future. There’s a cost of roughly $840,000 for that. We understand that from other projects in this downtown area, that once you get above one or 2 stories, and this is a very heavy building, we may incur deep foundation design. That means, instead of a conventional spread footing, that’s 4 or 5 feet down, we’re talking about caissons or piles or something. We’ve added $400,000 to this discussion.

Hayek: John, that’s so it can be added onto 20 years from now.

Cain: No. I’ve got that further down. That number requires research. That number could be half of what it might really be. The gentleman who is no longer here talking about soil borings, this is very much a place where I would really insist that we take soil borings on a site. So that we absolutely know what we are looking at because we are talking about multi-story design in a setting that has a history of poor soil conditions.

Thompson: Is this because of the deep foundations that had to be added to the University’s building to the south of the Jail?

Cain: I believe it has to do more with the fact that you’re in a river valley, I think, if nothing else. I could be wrong.

Dobberstein: That building is a good example of what you might find here also. They had to put in a deep foundation.

Thompson: They were only a block away.

Hayek: Yes.

Cain: We’ve talked about stairs and elevators, of which there are none in the other design. We’re adding $470,000 for that. These are construction numbers. The cost to anticipate future expansion, vertically, which occurs both in added foundation design, as well as taking the roof of this 1st phase instead of designing it as a roof load for snow, you’d have to design it as a floor load for people. Those 2 combined would add $380,000 to a budget. The downtown construction aspect felt there was not factor or no dollar factor associated with that. It is recognized that there would have to be some cooperation with the City, that as, if this site were taken, a contractor’s going to need some staging areas to be able to house some materials on site and be able to simply build the building. You can see that and it happens every single day in Iowa City as construction takes place. That’s really not a factor, because the added, the sum of the additions and the deductions, does change the total construction budget. There are a few other things, numbers, in the other category that would be added, a modest increase to the architectural engineering fee and that contingency as well. I noted again, we talked about this before. I’ve not identified any land acquisition cost. That would have to be determined and added to this unless the land were gifted to the County or traded, negotiated in such a way that there would be no number associated with that. The sum of all of these is roughly $900,000. I want to go back to the thing that was omitted up here and that has to do with parking. Unless we’re able on this site, in the negotiations for that land, to be able to acquire additional property for surface parking, as it is on the other site, we could be looking at as much as $3 million to build a level of parking for this building. It’s equivalent of about 160 spaces, 180 spaces that would fill an entire floor. Added to that approximate $900,000 that we know pretty well account for, we could be looking at an additional, let’s provide ourselves with a range, $2.5-3 million for a parking garage level. Plus, whatever land acquisition cost if you were not able to negotiate a trade.

Hayek: Plus, would it be fair to say that in the year 2019, 2017 or 2021, when we add another series of pods in the top of a building there, it’s going to be more expensive in that year than it would be to add laterally to the Melrose site?

Cain: Yes it would. It will incur in a couple of ways. One, the type of construction that we would end up here, just the building to get up onto the roof and do that work, would cost more money than if we were building out horizontally. There is and would be also a disruption to the operations of the jail at that time because we’re getting into lots of detail here. But, I guess it’s good stuff. We have to be able to stub up the plumbing, sewer lines and water lines and everything else so that they are just below the slab, so that when that time does arrive, and you close the building, you core through that slab to get to those points. You’ve got to be able to get into the jail part, which means you are going to lose occupancy, or portions of the building from time to time to make those connections. So, there is going to be some phasing that will have to be done. It can be done. It is done, it happens every day, but there is a cost. Maybe not a capitol cost in that sense, but an operating cost. I talked way more than I know you all wanted to hear my voice. But, that really summarizes everything we had to say today.

Jordahl: How many of those could you stack? Could you go again?

Cain: Again and again.

Jordahl: Yes. Is there some kind of, do you have to size where the footings or the stress stability of the lower structure in some particular way for each increment of addition.

Cain: Yes, essentially. I’m not a structural engineer. We can get answers for those various questions, but you have to work backwards. If you think you are going to have more and more floors, you’ve got to design this building as if they exist now and you just have taken them away. Which means that the stairs have to be so wide that you can handle the population that would, by code, have to leave in the event of an emergency. You would probably double the number of elevators or at least elevator shafts that would be even in that first phase of construction. We would anticipate probably 3 elevators in this kind of a design. One for the public to get up to the housing for visiting and then 2 elevators for inmate food movement. So, there would be 3 and that’s what is reflected in the budget. I would anticipate probably space in the building for at least 2 more inmate elevators. So, you’d have 4, so that when you end up with this high rise design and let’s say you took it to the… You were talking about 3 or 4 levels and that is what Milwaukee County has, the largest project I’ve ever been involved. It has 7 elevators and that’s a building that has 4 of these kinds of levels, if you took that housing pod and you stacked it 4 times. It has 7 elevators in that building and you’d have to make sure you had space in the floor plan for all 7 elevators. You put in only those elevators that the cab itself that you need at that point in time. We’re getting into lots of detailed discussion.

Stutsman: I think we’re going to have to move on.

Cain: Yes.

Stutsman: I wondered if there were any questions and then I also needed some direction from the Board. We’ve got a Board Meeting tonight at 5:30. I didn’t know how long the Board wanted to go, if we wanted some time between Board Meetings.

Thompson: Another hour maybe.

Stutsman: OK. If we know then that for maybe another hour that we can continue this discussion, because we haven’t heard from Tony yet as far as the financial considerations. Are we ready to move on then? Does anybody have any questions for John or Dwight at this point?

Jordahl: I just have a question here about our own process. We’ve had the recommendation of the Jail Site Selection Committee, we’ve had cost estimates here represented for the site out on Melrose. I’m a little bit confused by the amount of time we’re spending discussing the site around the current Jail, although I recognize there are certainly people that have questions about this. We could ask questions forever. I was under the impression that we had more or less decided, maybe more rather than less decided to go ahead with the Melrose site. Where do we actually stand on that?

Stutsman: Well, it’s on the agenda.

Thompson: I think it’s on our agenda for tonight to vote. So, it’s good to have this discussion before that.

Stutsman: Are we ready to move on? Oh Carol did you have a comment?

Thompson: No it’s time for Tony I think.

(Continued in Part 3)