Stutsman: ...here to talk about contract for the jail with the justice consultant.

Neumann Monson Project Architect Dwight Dobberstein: Good morning. Last time we were here on this topic, the Board authorized us to invite Bill Garnos from CSG Consultants to come and talk about the project a little more and get a little better feel for what the scope would be so that he could submit a more detailed proposal. We did that. He came on January 21st, which was Thursday afternoon. We meet with the Sheriff and some of his staff and discussed their needs. Actually discussed juvenile detention. But decided that that was not going to be part of this project, at least from the Sheriff's point of view. We discussed alternatives to incarceration. The Sheriff talked about some of their plans for in home detention and just gave him a good feel for what the department was at and what their needs were. Then we toured the jail and the Sheriff's Department. The following morning we meet with the Space Needs Committee and Bill gave some of his reactions and we talked about what might be the next step for him. He said he thought he'd seen every type of jail and when he got here he was surprised to found out this one was unique from anything he'd seen before.

Jordahl: Is that good or bad? Maybe I don't want to know the answer to that question. I'll let that be rhetorical.

Dobberstein: At any rate, the plan was for him to do a space needs study to verify how big the jail addition would need to be. I think that everybody agreed that the first approach would be to look at adding on to the existing jail at that existing site. It's very hard to walk away from that existing facility because it's a fairly new building and it serves a need there and to rebuild that would be expensive. The first order of business was to see how we might add on to that site and then maybe compare that once he has the full program and space needs, compare that with a new jail without specifically looking at a different site. But basically taking the square footage times the multiplier of average costs for jails and say well if we were to build a new jail it would cost this much and if we were to add on this one it might cost this much and give the Board those kind of ideas of what the parameters might be. He has since sent a contract, a proposal basically. The recommendation from the Space Needs Committee was that we would just amend this to our contract. That'd be an easier way to do this and so that's what we're here today to recommend is that we would add their service to our contract as an amendment and proceed. He sent his proposal for $12,136, included all his expenses and includes his initial trip. He was able to collect a lot of the data that we needed on that trip from the record keeping department down at the Sheriff's Office. They've done a real excellent job of keeping records over the years. It's really saved him a lot of time and effort and I think that's reflected in his proposal. I think they should commend him for that. He says he goes into a lot of counties and there are no records whatsoever, so that was good to see. We also sent him a lot of the demographic information that we collected as part of the Space Needs Study. We hope to be off and running on this project given this approval today.

Stutsman: That cost, we anticipate at 12 to 14,000.

Dobberstein: Yes. It was initially 12 to 16,000. Apparently it's very difficult to get from Kansas City to Iowa City cheaply. The plane ticket like $600. He initially tried to fly to Des Moines and then drive the rest of the way. But the day he came was all fogged in in Kansas City so he ended up flying in to Cedar Rapids. He has in his proposal 4 trips including that first one I guess too. If he drives or something I suppose we would adjust that cost. Because it's close to the point where he could almost drive instead of taking that plane trip. As Pat White suggested, with that cost we'll have to make sure we make the most use of his time while he's here. He's planning to come on these trips and stay 2 or 3 days until, to make sure it's productive, I guess.

Stutsman: I would echo too, I really appreciate the Sheriff's Department for having those figures together. Because we heard even from the other consultant, and she talked about having those numbers and statistics and how helpful it is in their work to have all that together. The Sheriff's Department has really saved the County a lot of money by having all that stuff in place. Thanks Duane and Bob, and Kay and everybody else over there that's kept up on that stuff.

Jordahl: Now we just gotten done talking about juvenile detention and the first thing that you said this morning was about juvenile detention. I draw an analogy to the idea of a facility that Tiffin was talking about building for sewage treatment. It was much much cheaper to build a bunch of capacity now than it would be to go back and enlarge the capacity once you built it. I assume that some similar logic applies to jails and I'm wondering with the idea of the inclusion of the juvenile facility is a possibility, how much more would it cost given that we would already be building a new facility to make part of it available for juvenile detention? That seems like a reasonable question that should not be taken out of consideration at the outset. Is there a reason that is reasonable to take out of consideration (inaudible)?

Dobberstein: There was a couple of reasons. One, when we start talking about this we just got the history of how Johnson County came to be in this position where they don't have juvenile detention and it all had to do with previous sheriffs and the policies that are set. Now it's gotten to the stage where there's no room. At this particular time there's probably not enough room given the fact that you have to take extra precautions to separate the 2 populations so that they don't interact with each other. Should we want to start looking at another site or a brand new facility I guess it's all up for grabs and we could look at whatever you wanted us to look at. Right now we thought we'd look at just the jail needs for their present population and try to see if it'd fit on that site and then go from there basically.

Thompson: Are you looking at the needs for women specifically as opposed to the needs for male prisoners?

Dobberstein: Well, yes, there will need to be that taken into account that women have to be separated and also other inmate classification, medical cases and things like that. That's all what he would...

Thompson: So you're considering everything except juveniles?

Dobberstein: Right. We have done other juvenile facilities and we could work with you on that.

Thompson: That seems appropriate to me.

Stutsman: What seems appropriate?

Thompson: To not include juvenile in this right now. One is that there's been changes in the federal laws about juveniles which could result in different rules about who has to be site and sound separate and all of that because of the automatic waiver cases they can then be held in adult jails. With that in so much flux, it's really hard to make any decisions.

Stutsman: I think the big factor is that limited in space. There's just a very limited space there and it probably will take a lot of working just to meet our jail needs versus trying to introduce a juvenile facility, too.

Dobberstein: We did walk the site a little bit and I showed him what the restrictions were and we did talk about the fact that maybe the University will let us take up to the alley there which would really help a lot. But we're very tight on either side of that.

Lehman: That might be another step where he decides that this location here is not feasible for enlargement we would have to look at another site. Maybe at that time if we, he'll tell that as soon as he comes back. That'll be his first decision is can we enlarge this site. If he needs to look for a new location maybe that's where you could set aside some area if not at the time of the new building erection maybe you could look at that option of having space there for the future to merit detention or juvenile.

Stutsman: I think too, that he talked about alternatives, other options. I mean, do we want to make this just maximum security and have another side for minimum security prisoners and thing. I guess I would say, lets go ahead with this his contract, let him do his work and bring back a proposal to us and then we can consider that once he's looked at all these alternative and options and go from there.

Jordahl: Are all of these alternatives and options going to include this alternative site, because I have heard from more than one person calling me in our home about this, that rather than expanding in this present confined space it would make a great deal more sense in terms of future growth and expandability of the facility, the flexibility we would have to include other purposes to put this facility someplace else, for example, county farm area, where we have land. Let this, and I'm not an expert on this so, Duane, I would appreciate some input from you, but whether if have people nearing court dates or kind of inactive interaction with the court system they would be housed by the court house, and the people who are in longer term detention that are just being held, let them be in the facility that is greater removed from downtown. It seems like there would be a way to work that out, particularly in view of the possibility of our needing to double the size of the current facility just to stay legal.

Dobberstein: We're just trying to take this just one small step at a time I guess, and it seemed to be the feeling from the Sheriff and his department, and the County Attorney's Office, that they would like to stay in this location. They feel that this is best location for them. So, we thought we would look at that first, and then lacking a decision at another site, we would at least look at what a new facility would cost, given that amount of square footage. I think we could take this next step, as soon as we decide whether or not this site would work for what we need to add.

Jordahl: We need to look at the cost of these 2 things too, and also the cost of the lack of future expandability. OK, fine, we expand at this site now, but 25 years from now it will be so locked up with University building all around it that it would be impossible to expand at this site I would predict. So, then where are we. I think we should look at the cost not only of the present facility, but also of what the Juvenile Detention component, is that something we could do, you know, the un-answered cost of what we could do in the long run. It could be part of this picture if we look at another site.

Dobberstein: Well we've done some facilities, some Juvenile Detention facilities, and I think that we could get that cost of a new facility for you, if we know what the size would be, and maybe with this committee meeting you could...

Thompson: I am interested in recommendations on what could be done with the old jail, if the new jail site is moved to a different location. What options would we have for using that building. For example, to expand Court House space which is also tight.

Dobberstein: Well that's one the key problems I guess. I guess one of the reasons why we should stay there, is because, what do we use it for. Do we try to sell it, could we use it for other county space needs.

Jordahl: Juvenile Detention.

Dobberstein: I think those are the questions that we have to address. Should we decide to go into the next step and build a new facility someplace else, outside of that lot. We're trying to make one small step and keep this directed so we don't try to study everything and come to no conclusion.

Jordahl: Right, but I don't want to presume the conclusion in study either.

Stutsman: Well Jonathan, we don't know that information either, until we hear back from the consultant and what he can determine for that. Until we get that in place I don't think we really, can have a good discussion on other alternatives and options. There are so many unknowns about what we can use for this space and how we can expand, and once he comes back, then we'll have some information on the table and then we can assess it and go from there.

Dobberstein: His study is to predict and project the population for the jail and that's going to tell us whether we can fit here or we should go someplace else.

Stutsman: In talking with Mr. Garnos, he's good. He has a lot of experience. He knows that there are some alternatives, some options and I think he will present us a good report that we can review and go from there as far making recommendations. But, I think it's important right now to stay focused on the Jail this side and see what information can come up with. You know, we can always be thinking about the future and Juvenile Detention and what not, but we need to decided what we have here, how we maximize that facility and go from there. He may very well come back and say it's not going to work we just don't have enough room to do what we need to do and lets look at some other alternatives.

Dobberstein: It's going to be a joint effort but he's going to come back at say we need X number of beds, and then he's going to look at that site and say X number of beds here's what space it takes up, and we could try to plan for expansion, you know, going up, but that's expensive too.

Jordahl: Why in your opinion did Mr. Garnos come here and begin speaking to us about Juvenile Detention.

Dobberstein: He didn't start with that it was just one of the topics that was discussed with the Sheriff to get a feel for who they handle in this facility.

Jordahl: He was thinking maybe we already did.

Thompson: In some states that would be true.

Stutsman: And that's part of what he's doing is trying to get an overview of our population, and what future needs will be.

Dobberstein: So right now he's not proposing to study that as far as the inmate projection. I suppose we could ask him to do that if we want to, but this isn't part of this proposal and wasn't the charge we gave him, at this time.

Jordahl: So, what we're looking at here is, this place, this facility, what can be done here, how much will it cost, will it meet our needs. We're not looking at other sites, we're not looking at that idea at all.

Dobberstein: Well' we're not schematic designs for the other sites. We talked about just getting a cost and comparing that cost to a new facility whatever the site would be.

Jordahl: A new facility else where, or a new facility here. They're two different things I think, I mean if you have sort of an unrestricted space I that would be cheaper than whether if you had to crunch it in I suppose.

Dobberstein: Well if we were to do it here and tear down this facility you mean.

Duffy: That would be a shame.

Dobberstein: We wouldn't recommend that. So, elsewhere we're unrestricted.

Jordahl: So we are kind of looking at that elsewhere option.

Dobberstein: So obviously if we were to do this down at the Courthouse block, or right behind the Courthouse, it would be more expensive there because you'd have to dig into the hill or something. We were just going to try to say there's no limit on the space, and no unusual expenses what would that cost. To see if it makes some sense.

Stutsman: Where does the money from this contract come from.

Peters: Actually that's a not I have to go down a check with Chris to see where you are on that.

Stutsman: Does it come out of...

Peters: Oh, I'm sorry, where you were taking it from before was Capitol Expenditures.

Dobberstein: You can breathe easier Dwight.

Jordahl: OK, are there any other people who would like to address this question.

Stutsman: It's OK then to put this on for Thursday then, to sign a sub-contract to add onto this contract for $12,136.

Jordahl: Kind of looks like it.

Welsh: Just to be supportive of what you've said. When they're talking about adding on, I was hoping that maybe you all have gotten away from the State that if you add something you won't have to double right away to keep the same capacity. From my standpoint, not having run any numbers off, as soon as you add one, you have to doubt the capacity, to serve the same number of people you've got now and then to add to that, what you mention Jonathan about the long range projections, so you can fit it on now, then you you're locked in. It seems to me quite frankly that exploring adding on to that facility, maybe an exercise that you would need to go through, but my gut reaction seems to say that its a waste of money.

Jordahl: And it might be a real expensive figure too but...

Dobberstein: That's part of what we'll need to study that issue with the state people on whether or not we would have to put single beds in those cells. His feeling was that we might want to do that in a number of the cells for maximum security purposes, but that maybe the rest of them could remain, as two bed cells. We should get some kind of plan together go to the state and review it with them and get their reaction. They might be able to answer this question real fast if they say no, you can't change this without correcting this situation. Then we would be done real fast without that part of study.

Jordahl: Exactly, its that real fast part of the study that's the thing I'm looking for here. Like if I go shopping for a 4-wheel drive vehicle and I look at a Hummer and it's $80,000 I'm going to say to my self well I can't buy that right now and I'm going to go and look at something I can afford. There should be some process here where we cut bait and say that fish is too big, we're going to go and do something that we can do. I don't know if that is part of his approach to this but I think that for Johnson County there is number where it's plain no, we're not going to do that.

Dobberstein: Well, right. Like I said, I think that most of his study here now is just to figure out how big the jail should be and that might be the point there where we can say that we can't fit it on the site. We don't have to go any further we start looking at another idea.

Lewis: And in our visiting I had the distinct impressions he was going to look at splitting the 2 locations.

Jordahl: Good, I hope it is.

Stutsman: OK, so we'll put this on for Thursday then.

Jordahl: Thank you Dwight and Dwayne. Space needs continue but let's see here.

Jordahl: County Auditor do we have any business from the County Auditor.

Peters: You have Resolution and the naming of Depositories.

Jordahl: Ah yes, Resolution and the naming of Depositories.

Peters: And that Resolution is response to the request from the Treasurer for the addition of another Depository, you won't take action until Thursday.

Stutsman: Carol, who's (inaudible)?

Peters: I don't know.

Jordahl: Sounds like a stock brokerage in Cedar Rapids.

Stutsman: I was looking a the 7 million dollars that we're putting there.

Peters: Would you like Tom to come up and...

Stutsman: Yes I would.

Jordahl: Why we don't talk to Cheryl now and maybe Tom can get up here at his nearest convenience.

Jordahl: What's up Cheryl.

Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney: Well, I think the Board just wanted to have the opportunity to discuss this with (inaudible). Last Thursday it was my understanding that you all had greed that we could ahead and begin negotiations with Eastdale but you wanted the opportunity to have this on the agenda this week.

Jordahl: Basically so that Carol could participate in the decision.

Stutsman: I think Charlie asked to have this put back on again, is that right Charlie.

Duffy: Yes.

Jordahl: So perhaps the most reasonable thing would be for you to present the case for the movement to this location for Carol unless you 2 have had an extended conversation about this already.

Whitney: Well, we have currently out grown our existing space. We have people who are doubled up in offices. We have social workers who are sharing offices and it's become a real issue. So this (inaudible) bid for the Space Needs Committee since it has organized last January and I think it's pretty much the consensus with everyone that we have some real space issues. We've talked about more of a long term plan and that is looking at land to buy for building more of a complex that would be more available for Human Services and possibly other accounting services as well. That certainly doesn't solve our short term (inaudible) and that we really need to do something else, but other than that. So, this option at Eastdale came up. There is 31,000 square feet directly across from Work Force Development and given the current suggestion by Federal Government and State Government is more of a co-location with Work Force Development and Public Assistance Programs, so it's kind of a one stop shopping for our clients who need services from both and for our staff to coordinate those kinds of (inaudible). So, certainly the move would be consistent with that trend with the location. There are some fiscal advantages it appears from this in that we would be able to share at least the conference room space with Work Force Development. They have a large conference room, it's about 500 square feet, and certainly its not used all the time, and they have said that they certainly welcome our using that if we're located there. Actually we have used it some even without our being located there because of our space issues. Other advantages space wise with that location certainly is that it's on the bus line and its accessible, and handicap accessible. Because of the way Eastdale Mall is configured there is the common space which would allow us to have a small reception area. There are public bathrooms, and all of those kinds of things that would give us some fiscal saving. So, anyway, we would like to be able to peruse a more detailed discussion with Jack Tank is, the person Eastdale about what the actual lease arrangements would be. There would be remodeling costs and the proposal at this point would be that Johnson County would be responsible for the remodeling cost, and once those were complete, his current proposal is that he would give to Johnson County $25 a square foot to cover that portion of the remodeling. Now certainly I think the remodeling will cost substantially more than that. And what we would do then for local administrative expense and reimbursement from the Federal Government, one of the first things we'll do to get rental estimates to make sure we're paying share market value for the property. Our cost of the remodeling would be spread over the least time period, which is proposed to be 10 years, and so we'll have to make sure that our Fair Market Value Estimates would come to that level, in order to get reimbursement from the Federal Government.

Thompson: And do you know what the rent will be.

Whitney: What is currently proposed, its um triple net lease, 1,256 is what Tank is proposing and that includes Bays plus Tax Insurance and other things.

Thompson: But not the remodeling.

Whitney: Not the remodeling, the offer that their are making at this point in time on the remodeling is that $25 a square foot.

Thompson: What do you pay now, do you know?

Whitney: What we pay right now with the tax overage and all that sort of thing would come to about 640 a square foot.

Stutsman: And what the Board agreed to last Thursday was just basically to go to the next step you know as far as getting a real firm handle on what exactly these costs are. We did not sign a lease, we did not give the go ahead to do this. We just need to get these figures so we can assess whether we want to go ahead and make a firm commitment to sign a lease for this location. We throw around figures and we're to the point where we just have to come up with some definite costs for remodeling. What is this actually going to cost and until we have those.

Whitney: We've been contacted we had the publicity and other people are calling us about the (inaudible). We've been following up on those options. To look at costs and location and all that (inaudible). That's kind of where we're at.

Jordahl: In terms of that facility there's a long range question of the other land near by and the relocation of other DHS services.

Whitney: The long-term plan with regard to (inaudible). Ideally we would, all of our units would located together. I would not be careful to posing that we move the Income Maintenance Unit if we were not having a space issue. I might say that there have been counties in that state that have done that strictly because they wanted co-location with promised jobs. I can think of a couple within our region who I think that it's strictly because of that not because of space issues. They felt so strongly about serving (inaudible). I think there are people on that coordinating the CSP which is Workforce Development's consortium. Who would argue that that advantage outweighs other considerations. I can go back and forth on that because that unit works with our service unit works with MH/DD units.

Thompson: You said that the cost of the renovation would be amortized over the 10 years. Does that mean that you wouldn't be looking at moving the remaining units for the next 10 years?

Whitney: It's hard for any of us to predict how quickly that building might become available. There's a lot of cost involved with that, a lot of available land at this point. Negotiations regarding land. Once that was done building would be expensive and the County would have to figure out sort of a cash (inaudible) kind of thing. In some ways I guess I can't answer that.

Jordahl: In some ways though the hope is that as we find a new facility or space for a new facility and we do have our eye on some land right now, that that facility would meet the same desired goal of co-location, although it might not be exactly across the hall at least be in the same general area of town so that it would be convenient for clients to go from one place to the other, including Kirkwood Community College as another nearby resource for the similar kind of concern for job training and development. There's also the possibility of sub-leasing here. I don't believe you've mentioned.

Whitney: We would want to build that in to our lease agreement that we would have that option.

Jordahl: So we could, if we were able to construct a new County facility that could relocate the other services, we would then want to have our entire DHS component in the same place. But it would still reach much the same goal. It's a short term space solution. It reaches a desired goal of having people have the advantage of co-location which is an advantage not only to our clients but also to our staff. It's available. Which is kind of the short term iron is hot kind of thing. We can reach 2 desired goals, so we make more space effectively than in the North Governor facility and also would give us co-location. Space needs thing and it's a co-location plus.

Thompson: When could you move?

Whitney: The space is currently available. There's 2 units, actually it's units 9 and 10 if you want to take a look. The one unit has been empty for some time. The smaller unit which is just adjacent just became available (inaudible). Dwight did kind of a timeline on if we got something negotiated we have to get bids on the remodeling start the remodeling. It would be at least the first of August according to that time.

Dobberstein: If we were given immediate go ahead we're talking August right now. So as this progresses on it also pushes back that date.

Whitney: So when we talk about short-term solutions I've learned that...

Thompson: Did I read in the newspaper that you thought the total cost of the renovation might be 180,000?

Dobberstein: Well we did an initial estimate just on square footage. We didn't even have a plan worked out. Part of the request was that we have a contract approved so that we could start working with them on a plan and then identify exactly what we think the estimate would be for this remodeling and help the Supervisors zero in on this cost.

Thompson: It could be as much as $100,000 more than we would get back from the landlord?

Dobberstein: Well I don't know. Yes, I suppose it could be. That's what we're trying to determine. If we could lay out a floor plan and then do a take off estimate rather than just a square foot.

Lehman: But we are reimbursed from the State for some of the actual rent.

Thompson: If it doesn't go over the fair market value.

Lehman: Right. Another question I think may have answered previously, is the rent started on occupancy or contract need?

Whitney: That would be another thing we would want to negotiate. The reimbursement would not start until occupancy. That's what I could check out. We can't claim reimbursement on 2 different places.

Lehman: Right.

Jordahl: So last Thursday we did authorize that negotiation continue that the County Attorney seek to establish what a contract would look like and that we get some closer costs on remodeling from the architect. There was discussion then on Thursday if it was appropriate for us to do that before you were seated on Monday. The idea was well as I said the iron is hot this property is available it seems like a really good space for us. Therefore the only responsible thing to do is to move forward. It does not constitute a commitment to renting that space. But rather just a certain amount of commitment of time and money to looking into the details of it. If you want to raise issues about this that maybe we should do something else or approach this differently or whatever there's still plenty of time for you to do that and this is the beginnings of looking at that.

Thompson: I'd be reluctant to spend a lot of money for something that might be temporary. But I don't want to put a monkey wrench into all the planning that's gone on because I understand the need to do this fairly quickly. I could agree to going ahead with this plan.

Jordahl: I don't want to put you in a box here. Either on the spot now in this meeting or if you want to think about this in the course of the next days or weeks whatever we could certainly continue to talk about it.

Thompson: Definitely not weeks. It's really crowded. I've been in that building and it is really crowded.

Stutsman: This is just moving to the next stage. I think any location that we would consider sooner or later we'd have to get to this point were we'd have to come up with some concrete dollar amounts rather than these gross estimates.

Lehman: This is going to let us establish a benchmark to judge some of the other contacts we've had.

Jordahl: Right. There have been quite a number of people calling to suggest other places that we could locate since we've had these public discussions.

Whitney: One thing I might just point out with that is this space is 3,100 square feet. The reason that square footage is adequate is because immediately we have the 500 square foot conference room across the hall that we can use. We don't have to have square footage for public bathrooms and we have a very small reception area because people can use that common area. So square footage needs would vary would be greater if we're looking at something that doesn't have those advantages. So there's some cost savings there. As we think more precisely about some of this stuff we'll want to try to compare some of that too. But I think we should be open to whatever; we should be checking out whatever comes out way.

Jordahl: Ask such a thing as a good deal. It looks like there's a lot to gain in this location. I'm very positive about it at this point. OK. Questions. Anybody else? Members of the public want to talk to this issue? If not, we'll move on to the next agenda item. Thank you Cheryl.

Whitney: Thanks.

Jordahl: That is discussion of County application to state division of substance abuse and healthy promotion for County substance abuse funding.

Peters: This is a renewal you might say. The County applies for this money and then sub-contracts it out to Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse. As you can see, there's a brief description of the services that they're going to provide with these moneys. I just wanted to know if you'd like this on the agenda for Thursday for action?

Jordahl: Yes, I think so.

Peters: I guess I should have stated the amount. $10,000.

Jordahl: So we can get money, huh?

Peters: We can get money. One of things about this grant is you do have to show support from the counties on a 4 to one basis. Basically what you do you're already supporting Mid-Eastern and we utilize those moneys for the cost share.

Stutsman: That's where the County obligation, the 30,000, is just those moneys that we've already using for the block grant.

Peters: Actually, it's 40,000.

Jordahl: That's pretty slick. I wonder how many more times you can use that $30,000 as a cost match.

Peters: We can try a few. Your total expenditures come up to 40,000.

Jordahl: OK. Let's put that on for Thursday. Does anybody have any questions about that? All right then. Tangled up in the agenda here. What's next?

Stutsman: Senior Dining space needs?

(Continued in Part 3)