• Sheriff Robert Carpenter: Presentation of Daily Inmate Counts and State Requirements
• Jail Overcrowding Study/Steering/Site Selection Committee Member Norm Osland: Report and Recommendations
• Neumann Monson PC Architects Project Architect Dwight Dobberstein, and Venture Architects Architect John Cain: Review of Proposed Law Enforcement Center and Site
• Springsted Associates Assistant Vice President Tony Roetlin: Review of Financing for Proposed Law Enforcement Center
• Inquiries

Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in Room A of the North Liberty Community Center, 520 West Cherry Street, North Liberty, Iowa, at 7:03 p.m. Members present were: Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson; absent: Charles Duffy,.

Sheriff Bob Carpenter said the current jail opened in February 1981 with a capacity of 46 inmates. He explained 30 inmates were brought from the prior facility, leaving 16 bunks not utilized. There were overcrowding problems as early as 1986 and he noted Sheriff Hughes spoke to a Grand Jury about this. Carpenter said the Jail bond issue took 3 votes to pass and they downsized it each time. Carpenter said he inherited this problem when he became the Sheriff in 1989. The State issued Carpenter a notice that Johnson County needed to take care of the overcrowding or ship inmates out. He said the rules in place when the Jail was built allowed one individual per cell, but changes in the regulations allowed double bunking, beginning in 1990, taking their capacity to 92 instead of the original intake of 46. He said that up until the mid-90s he was able to bring in some outside prisoners to help defer some of the costs of double bunking. He said the Space Needs Committee began meeting in 1998 and placed the Jail at the top of the list of priorities. He noted Bill Garnos spent about a year working on a study for the Jail. He reviewed the process by which a Jail Study committee was appointed, indicating the diverse backgrounds of the Committee members. Carpenter said the Jail has been consistently over the maximum of 92 the past couple of years. For August the average was 98.6, and for September, 98.1. Last year for the month of September the average was 103.6. Sheriff Carpenter explained that last year they began a program of in-house detention, where work release inmates are given bracelets and allowed to serve their time at night at home rather than in the Jail. The in-house detention program averages about 15-20 inmates a day. This would bring the count up to 115-120, which would be on target with the projections done by Garnos. Carpenter pointed out the dilemma of constantly being over the 92 bunks; he has no room to classify inmates and separate inmates that won’t get along.

Carpenter said some statistics being put out are not accurate, that the Jail is not full of intoxicated youth from the University. He offered to review the statistics with anyone who wants to come into his office. Carpenter said the Jail is being filled by people who need to be in jail, citing one individual waiting for trial for about a year. He expressed his concern about the welfare of not only his deputies, but also the inmates. He is responsible for the inmates’ welfare while in the Jail. Carpenter expressed his intention to prevent the County from being drawn into a lawsuit, adding there is a liability in releasing someone who is intoxicated on their own. With public intoxication cases, if the Sheriff’s Department can find someone who can be responsible for that individual, they can sign them out. Carpenter said the County will probably be shipping prisoners before too long for the safety of the prisoners and his officers.

Jail Overcrowding Study/Steering/Site Selection Committee Member Norm Osland said 12 applicants were selected for the original Jail Overcrowding Study Committee. It was one of the best committees he’s ever served on. They met regularly every 2 weeks until they came up with a recommendation for the Board in late January or February. He commented on the various interests and backgrounds of Committee members. They toured the Jail and consulted with experts on jails, people from corrections institutions, and judges. It became pretty conclusive to Committee members that the jail population in Johnson County probably would not decrease substantially. That is based primarily on the fact that more laws are being passed requiring mandatory sentencing, based on public input, and that the population in Johnson County is increasing. Osland said when the Committee started there were differing opinions about whether a new jail was needed, but in the end they arrived at a unanimous decision on recommending that a new jail be built and a unanimous decision on site selection. Osland said the present location wasn’t selected because of structural limitations in adding onto the existing Jail and because land surrounding the property, which is owned by the University, is not available. He was pleased with the architect selected for this project. The concern of the whole committee was the safety and security of the officers in the Jail. He encouraged anyone who has questions to ask Sheriff Carpenter to arrange a visit to the Jail.

Neumann Monson PC Architects Project Architect Dwight Dobberstein said his firm was hired for pre-design services and did a needs assessment of the Jail. He worked with the County’s Space Needs Committee and the Jail was found to be the top priority for the County’s space needs. In the evaluation of the Jail, it was determined that the structure would not allow for vertical expansion and there were mechanical/electrical limitations for expansion. They recommended hiring a criminal justice consultant who was not an architect and would not be tied to any future contract work. A request for proposals was issued and the County hired Bill Garnos of CSG Consultants to do a study. Dobberstein said that Garnos had worked for the South Dakota Department of Corrections, working with the Governor’s staff, including finding alternatives to incarceration. Dobberstein reviewed the discussions held with Garnos, hitting upon issues of work release, dormitory style housing, jail reduction strategies, and problems with housing juveniles. He said there weren’t enough numbers to efficiently house juveniles and provide required services. Garnos’ report took into account the expanding population in Johnson County, the criminal caseloads, and the average daily population of the jail since 1984. Garnos also described some of the conditions in the Jail, including the inadequate intake and release and dangerous condition of the housing.

Dobberstein presented a graph from Garnos showing the average daily population of the Jail since 1981. Garnos projected the trend in the jail population to the year 2019, based on the period 1981-1999 and based on 1993-1999. Garnos recommended using the midpoint of those 2 projections, which is 185 inmates in 2019. He multiplied that number by a classification factor of 10%, which takes into consideration classification issues, such as the need to separate men from women and prisoners with medical problems. The number is also multiplied by a peaking factor of 25% to take into account days with a big influx of inmates. With the factors applied, the projection for the number of beds required in the year 2019 is 255. Dobberstein said the numbers are right on Garnos’ projections. Dobberstein said Sheriff Carpenter has already incorporated some alternatives that were recommended, such as home detention, but they are still seeing a trend towards the projection Garnos made. Dobberstein said the Committee agreed with the report, that a new jail is needed.

Dobberstein said the Committee went through a site selection process and the site selected is on the western edge of Iowa City, right on Highway 218 and not far south of I-80. Dobberstein said there were several reasons for the selection of this site, including accessibility to the entire county for the Sheriff’s Department. The 8-minute travel time to the Courthouse was deemed accessible. It is also accessible to the hospital and clear of neighbors being close around it. He said a design architect was hired for this project, introducing John Cain.

Venture Architects Principal John Cain said the first step in working with the County on this project involved sitting down with the Sheriff’s Department and writing a detailed building program for the facility. Next a conceptual design was developed to make the building 3-dimensional. The third step was to develop construction cost budgets, as well as project budgets, to give the Board for development of a referendum. He said the outcome of that is a building that is both a jail and the Sheriff’s Department space needs. The jail makes up about 56% of the total building size, at 68,818 gross square feet. This includes the 256-bed jail, divided into 3 different pods. Pod A is a 100 bed dormitory, Pod B is a 100-bed cell pod, and Pod C is a 56-bed special needs pod with cell construction. There is an intake/release or booking area, including 62 short-term seats for overnight guests. There are also a number of areas for inmate programs and activities, exercise areas, classrooms and visiting booths. Cain said there is a work release program run out of the jail. There is also facility support for the jail, including administration, food, laundry, and staff areas. The Sheriff’s Department, which is about 41,343 gross square feet or 34% of the building, includes the Sheriff’s administration area and the different departments within the Sheriff’s Department, including detectives, patrol, communications, and records. There are staff training facilities and fleet operations with a garage on-site for 40 department vehicles and with 10 spaces for evidence storage. The remainder of the project, about 12,827 square feet or 10%, includes the building lobby and a courtroom to allow some cases to be heard at the Jail. There is also space for the Civil Defense Department, building maintenance and facility support, and mechanical spaces as well. The total gross square footage is 122,988. He compared the current Jail’s 46 cells and 92 beds to the proposed jail’s 93 cells and 256, of which 100 are dormitory beds and 156 cell beds.

Cain went on to review the site plan of the proposed law enforcement center, located north of Melrose Avenue and southwest of Highway 218. There are several key components to the building: the Sheriff’s Department, the jail housing area, and the jail support area. The main entrance will be on the south side, visible from Melrose Avenue, with public parking nearby. Staff and visitor parking would be east and north of the building. Service activities would be at the back of the building, shielded from Melrose Avenue. Cain explained how the building is designed to be able to expand in the future. The jail could expand to the west and Sheriff’s Department could expand to the east. He was confident this site would meet all the present and future needs for the jail and Sheriff’s facilities.

Cain explained how the jail pods will look. He showed an example, a photograph of the interior of the Oneida County Law Enforcement Center. Cain said they were looking at a podular design, where an officer is in the center of a square and is able to see 360-degrees into various segments of the housing unit. The current jail is a linear design, with corridors and rooms off the corridors that are difficult to see into. The example shown would be used for Pod A, for minimum classification inmates. Cain showed an example like Pod B or Pod C, both also in a radial arrangement with an officer in the center, in a secure location with good visibility. In the example for Pods B and C there are cells using a maximum security construction.

Cain broke down the project costs. The total construction budget is $16,536,000, consisting of 2 pieces, site development at $450,000 and building construction at $16,086,000. There are other soft costs, including legal fees, architectural fees, furnishings, and equipment at $3,746,000. The total project budget estimate is $20,282,000.

Springsted Associates Assistant Vice President Tony Roetlin said he was going to talk about fiscal and financial features and realities. He noted the discussions they have had, based on discussions initiated by and a letter written by the State Department of Corrections, that Johnson County will in the near future face paying to transport prisoners and house them elsewhere, renting cells where they are available in other jurisdictions. He said they have made a conservative projection of those housing and transportation costs for that segment of the inmate population needing to be housed elsewhere. Roetlin said this would result in annual costs of $600,000 the first year, climbing to $15 million the 10th year. He added, this estimate is conservative in using a $65 per day housing cost per day, but the cost could be $65 to $90, and there have been some counties that have paid over $100 per day per prisoner. He noted an ISU study that conservatively estimated a $10 cost for transportation to neighboring counties. He said there aren’t likely to be neighboring counties for Johnson County to transport to, due to their similar overcrowding problems. He said they are probably looking at $700,000 to $1,000,000 a year in the near future. Those numbers translate into a $16 cost per year for a household in Johnson County with a home having a market value of $100,000. He said this number quickly raises to about $35 as an annual cost.

Roetlin said the Board of Supervisors hired his firm to help them evaluate funding options, which led to an August 24th unanimous vote of the Board to put a question on the ballot for the General Election. A $19 million General Obligation bond issue was placed on the ballot for November 7th to finance the bulk of a project not to exceed $20.3 million. He said those 2 numbers are not to exceed numbers; less money may be borrowed if the project comes in at a lower final cost. He said general obligation bonds are the lowest interest cost mechanism available for funding this type of government project. He said the $1.3 million difference will come out of capital projects funds that are not borrowed, saving County taxpayers about $2 million over the next 15-20 years. He said this calculates out to about $40 in savings for the $100,000 market value home. He said the impact of the $19 million in general obligation bonds would be $29 for the $100,000 market value home anywhere in the county. He said there are 2 points that he feels inspire a level of confidence in this type of project that result from the method in which it is being financed. He said under Iowa Code the total cost of the project can’t exceed the $20.3 million on the ballot without another countywide election. Under Iowa Code, the $19 million bond proceeds for this project may not be diverted to any other project. Roetlin said, if this project comes in under budget, the funds could be used to pay down part of the bond issue.

Roetlin said there are 2 sources of revenue or sources of resources that could be used for this project. One is that space not utilized in the early years in the new facility could be rented out to other counties and jurisdictions that need bed space. The existing facility could be used to alleviate space needs elsewhere in County government, alleviating the need to rent or purchase other property. He said another possibility would be selling the current Jail property.

Roettlin distributed a chart on daily operational costs. He noted the 2 bars labeled "Current jail with housing and transportation costs". He said the bar showing a daily cost of $63 is the cost of securing each bed or each slot into which the County can place an inmate with the present facility (at a double bunking capacity of 92) in conjunction with renting or contracting for 20 additional beds out-of-county (based on a guideline from the Department of Corrections early in the process). This is a cost per unit of capacity or bed. The next bar, showing $76 per inmate, is the cost per Johnson County inmate that will result from continuing to use the existing facility and contracting for some additional capacity outside the county. This includes what he viewed as the conservative $65 per day housing cost and the conservative $10 per day transportation figure from the ISU study. The 3rd column, labeled Proposed new jail and showing a cost of $43 per day, is a maximum capacity cost of operating the facility at a per bed basis. He read the note at the bottom of the chart: "Increased staffing costs to county taxpayers could be phased in through rental of beds to other jurisdictions. Revenue in the first year could be in excess of $2 million." He said that summarizes the ability when a facility is sized for the needs over a 20-year period. It is designed to meet at a maximum the 20th year capacity. Between year 1 and year 20 there is room to contract with other jurisdictions to house the prisoners for whom they don’t have the capacity, at a fee of something like $65 to $90. Those revenues could be in excess of $2,000,000 per year. In the early years there would be excess capacity utilized by reselling it to help finance the operating costs and possibly ease some of the financing costs for construction. He estimated there could be $4,500,000 less principal and interest that would have to be paid.

Angela Miller asked, if this is passed, when would ground be broken and how long would construction take? Dobberstein said design would probably occur over the winter, the project would be bid next spring or summer, ground could be broken next summer, and construction would probably take 18 months. Because it would take some time, the issue of transporting prisoners would probably have to be addressed, whether it passes or not.

Lehman asked Carpenter to discuss the home monitoring program and how that is reflected in the booking logs. Carpenter said those individuals are not shown in their booking logs because they are not in the facility. Those numbers are not included in their daily population. He said they have been running at 15-20 individuals in the home detention program. That is one of the first places they would look at before they have to start transporting prisoners, but the judges have a role in determining who is in the program. Carpenter said, other than that, he really doesn’t have any other alternatives. Jordahl followed up with a question he thought some may ask: if they can do that, why aren’t they doing it now? Carpenter said a judge sends a recommendation to him to put someone in the program and he does a background check. He normally approves it, but if there is a problem he informs the judge. He is cautious, because he can’t be responsible for letting someone out on in-house detention who will commit a serious crime.

Lehman asked for clarification on the issues of underage drinking and public intoxication. Carpenter said underage people are only given a citation and depending on how much underage they are, their parents may be called to get them. People who are intoxicated would have to have someone come to get them. He said those are not the people in jail. There are only a few charged with intoxication who aren’t in there for some other charge, such as assault or improper conduct. Carpenter said a person who is stopped for being intoxicated has done something to draw attention to themselves.

Thompson asked about juveniles waived to adult court for a serious crime. Carpenter said juveniles must be sight and sound separated and Johnson County does not have such a facility. He said most juveniles are transported to the juvenile facility in Linn County under the contract Johnson County has with Linn County. He said juveniles adjudicated as adults are taken to Benton County because they have a sight and sound separated facility. Carpenter said there are no plans to develop juvenile detention facilities in Johnson County because the low numbers would not make it cost-effective. He said they aren’t interested in a regional jail for adults because there are sufficient numbers in Johnson County to make it cost-effective without having the transportation costs.

Wiliam Runger asked if the County had considered giving citations for possession of small quantities of marijuana, rather than arresting individuals. Carpenter said for minor charges a ticket is fine, but if someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol they have a responsibility to hold that person until someone takes charge or they are sober enough to hit the street. Carpenter said he doesn’t think someone needs to spend the night in jail for having one joint; however, they do not have the choice if some other agency brings someone to them. He noted it depends on the ability of a person to appear in court. A citation is an arrest that the person signs a promise to appear in court. A bond is issued to give the county or state the money to bring individuals back who don’t appear in court. He underscored the fact that he doesn’t have the authority to not take prisoners delivered to his jail. Jordahl said he looked at reports regarding who was in the jail for a 2-week period. Public intoxication as the only charge fluctuated between 2 and 13, and alcohol plus other charges was at 15-20 on average.

Jordahl said one question posed might be regarding looking at alternatives. Carpenter said he has received feedback from people that they should be placing individuals in treatment. If an individual has a mental incapacity, they get them in a hospital immediately to let a hospital take care of it. When the hospital clears the person, they do their best to take care of them. When it comes to placement in treatment, he said it is up to a judge to make that decision. Carpenter said his department does not have the room to create any treatment programs in the current facility. Cain said there would be muti-purpose space in the proposed facility for programs. Carpenter noted the interest by MECCA in creating a program at the Jail, but he currently can’t house a program.

Lehman encouraged the public to contact the Board or any of the presenters at this meeting if they have any questions.

Adjourned at 8:20 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor