The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-03-13 Info PacketCITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET March 13, 2003 MISCELLANEOUSITEMS IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 IP9 IPIO City Council Meeting Schedule and Work Session Agendas Memorandum from Mayor ProTem: Nation's Cities Weekly Article Memorandum from City Attorney: Absence from Office Letter from City Engineer to Glen Siders (Southgate Development Company, Inc.): Scott Park Sanitary Trunk Sewer Project Memorandum from Dianna Furman: Utility Discount Program Statistics - Fiscal Year FY02 and FY03 Iowa City Police Department Use of Force Report - February 2003 Article [Cityscape]: Municipal Utility [Atkins] Email to City Clerk: March 12 Jail Task Force Email from Johnson County Attorney to City Clerk: Comments on the 46-Item So-Called "Jail Alternatives" Minutes: February 20 Economic Development Committee Human Service Agency Recommendations: [Champion, Vanderhoef] PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES IPll IP12 IP13 Iowa City Airport Commission: February 13 Housing and Community Development Commission: Senior Center Commission: February 18 February 20 CITY OF IOW2, CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET March 13, 2003 IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 IP9 IP10 Letter Inc.): MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Council Meeting Schedule and Work Session Agendas )randum from Mayor ProTem: Nation's Cities We~ , Article from City Attorney: Absence from ;ity Engineer to Glen Siders (Sou' rk Sanitary Trunk Sewer Proje( ~ndum Fiscal Iowa City Police De rtment Use of Article [Cityscape]: Email to City Clerk: March Email from Johnson Counb So-Called "Jail Alternatives Minutes: ate Development Company, Dianna Furman: Discount Program Statistics - ~d FY03 Report - February 2003 ask Force ,rney to City Clerk: Comments on the 46-Item ~ment Committee IPll IP12 IP13 PI MINUTES IH°oWuasiCn[:YaAn~mmunit;:ie°vn:l::~::t C~o3 mission: February 20 SenTter C°mmissi°n: February 18 ~. CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org City Council Meeting Schedule and Work Session Agendas March 13, 2003 TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS · MONDAY, APRIL 7 6:30p Special Council Work Session Emma J. Harvat Haft · TUESDAY, APRIL 8 7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall · MONDAY, APRIL 21 6:30p Special Council Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall · TUESDAY, APRIL 22 7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall 4:00p Special Council Work Session Joint Meeting: JC Board of Supervisors, lC School District, Cities of Coralville and North Liberty · MONDAY, MAY 5 6:30p Council Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall · TUESDAY, MAY 6 7:00p Council Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall · MONDAY, MAY 19 6:30p Council Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall TUESDAY, MAY 20 7:00p Council Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Meeting dates/times/topics subject to change FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS Regulation of Downtown Dumpsters Downtown Historic Preservation Neighborhood Housing Nuisance Ordinance Age 21 and Over Entrance to Bars Downtown Kiosks Summer Meeting Schedule Community Event/Aid to Agencies Funding Allocation City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM IP2 DATE: March 13, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dee Vanderhoef, Mayor Pro tern Nation's Cities Weekly Article Though you have already received this article in your recent publication, I wanted you to know that I participated in the survey representing Iowa City. The Public Finance Research Panel of which I am vice chair is requesting this kind of information from our researchers at the National League of Cities. As a member of the Municipalities in Transition statistically representative survey group, Iowa City joins over 30 cities across the nation in providing data. National President John DeStefano used this information in his national press conference in Washington, D.C. the week prior to the conference opening. At the National League of Cities I presented the history of the panel's work to the Public Finance Panel, and subsequently took draft statements of our work and presented to the National League of Cities Board of Directors. At the panel's request, and the Board direction, the panel will be re-convened for continuing work in June in Denver. As vice chair, airfare for the meeting will be paid by NLC, the City will be responsible for my hotel and food when not provided. In this work, I have also been requested to attend a day and a half conference of federal officials, economists, bankers, and 14 elected officials in April at Harvard University Funding for my airfare has been secured nationally, the City will be responsible for my hotel and food when not provided. Attachment: Article - Budget Picture Worsening in Cities, Nation's Cities Weekly, March 10, 2003 Newspaper Handling VOLUME 26, NUMBER 10 I MARCH 10, 2003 Budget Picture Worsening in Cities by Chris Hoene and Bill Barnes The budget picture for America's cities is worsening this year and will con- tinue to decline through at least the next year. Three in four (75 percent) city offi- cials report that they are less able to meet financial needs this fiscal year than they were in the last fiscal year, according to initial results from NLC's State of America's Cities Survey on Fiscal Conditions. These numbers are up dra- matically from last year when 55 percent of city officials said they were worse off than the year before. The percentage of city offidals reporting that they are less able to meet financial needs is at its high- est point since 1991 (79 percent) and 1992 (78 percent). City officials are also emphasizing that conditions will continue to worsen. Three in four city officials (74 percent) predict that they will be less able to meet financial needs in the next fiscal year. One in two (54 percent) city officials report that they expect their local economy to be weaker in the next fiscal year. nomic and fiscal conditions. Another 53 For America's citizens the result is a percent indicate there has been no declining quality of life. Four in ten city change. officials (40 percent) suggest that the "The reality is that we're only begin- quality of life of residents in their cities. has worsened as a result of declining eco~ see page 8, column 1 Budget Picture, pompagel ning to see the extent of the fis- cal crisis in cities. The next year is going to be tough for America's cities and we, as city officials, are going to be con- fronted with some harsh and unpleasant decisions," said NLC President John DeStefano Jr., mayor of New Haven, Conn. NLC Calls for Emergency Summit To better address the needs of citizens, NLC is calling for a national Emergency Economic and Fiscal Crisis Summit of lead- ers from all levels of govern- ment. "We call upon the President of the United States, the nation's Governors and local leaders to come together in an Emergency Summit on America's Fiscal and Economic Crisis. We must rec- ognize that the problems we face go deeper than current econom- ic conditions. We are facing sig- nificant long-term crises -- a declining federal, state and local partnership, a system of public finance that is outdated, unfair, and inadequate, and popular sentiment that government doesn't work," said DeStefano. DeStefano added, "We are all in this together and it is imperative that we renew our partnership to make govern- ment work for our citizens -- to deliver the services they need and deserve." State Aid and Public Safety Costs Forces behind the worsen- ing budget picture include decreasing aid from state gov- ernments and increased public safety commitments. Deep state fiscal crises are resulting in decreasing aid and assistance to cities and one in three (36 per- cent) city officials list these decreases as the largest source of revenue decline in their cities. City officials indicate that the situation will worsen in the next fiscal year, with one in two (50 percent) city officials report- ing that state governments are enacting measures to reduce state aid and assistance in 2003, compared t° one in five (21 per- cent) in 2001 and one in three (36 percent) 2002. Meanwhile, city expendi- tures are increasing as a result of public safety demands and homeland security burdens. City officials indicate, overwhelming- ly, that they are increasing public safety expenditures -- 89 per- cent report that they increased these expenditures in 2001, 85 percent in 2002, and 81 percent in 2003. The costs of securing America's cities and towns are the major factor driving increased public safety expendi- tures. Forty-three percent of city officials report that their city has devoted additional expenditures to local "homeland security" efforts since Sept. 11, 2001, including six in 10 (62 percent) city officials in large cities (more than 100,000 in population). According to DeStefano, "The state aid and homeland security situations reflect a long and continued decline in the partnership between the federal, state and local governments, and without a strong partnership our ability to make government work for our citizens is signifi- cantly undermined." City Responses In response, cities are draw- ing on reserves, raising fees for services, and laying off city staff. In 2003, 63 percent of city officials report that fees are increasing, or new fees are being imposed, com- pared to 42 percent in 2001. One in two (56 percent) city officials report that city reserves are decreasing in 2003, compared to 24 percent who reported decreas- ing reserves in 2001. One in five (19 percent) cities have, to date, laid off city stab and one in three (30 per- cent) large cities report dty staff layoffs. NLC Expands Fiscal Monitoring Efforts NLC is expanding its efforts to monitor fiscal conditions in 2003. Through its Municipalities in Transition Panel on Municipal Finance, NLC is conducting a series of fiscal surveys, analyzing changes in state-local and feder- al-local' fiscal relationships and tracking specific responses of individual cities. About the Survey These results are based upon initial responses from 145 city officials (from 145 cities) to NLC's State of America' s Cities Survey on Fiscal Conditions, con- ducted in February 2003. The responses represent those received as of February 28. The survey will continue to be con- ducted through March 21 and full results will be available in April. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM IP3 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 11, 2003 City Council ,,~ City Attorney Absence from office I will be out of the office during Spring Break, March 17 through March 21, 3003. I will be available if needed. Cc: Steve Atkins Dale Helling Marian Karr March 12, 2003 Mr. Glen Siders Southgate Development Company, Inc. 755 Mormon Trek Blvd P.O. Box 1907 Iowa City, IA 52244-1907 Re: Scott Park Sanitary Trunk Sewer Project Dear Glen: I am writing to follow up on your request to allow Southgate to construct a portion of the sewer through the area which you plan to develop rather that having the City construct it and recover the costs through tap-on fees. The City Attorney has advised us that Southgate's construction of a portion of the sewer outside the platting process would run afoul of the state law requiring public bidding of public improvements in excess of $25,000. Therefore, the City will proceed to construct the sewer as originally planned. As we have discussed, we are refining our estimates of the tap-on fee for the various portions of the watershed to more accurately reflect the projected costs. If you have questions, please give me a call at 356-5143. Sincerely, City Engineer cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA ~2240-1826 ~' (319) 3~6-$000 · FAX (319) 356.~1009 Date: To: From: Subj: Month 3-Mar-03 City Manager and City Council Dianna Furman, Customer Serv~c- e Manager Utility Discount Program Statistics - Fiscal Year FY 02 and FY03 All Water Total Services Sewer Discount Water Tax Discount Discount Accounts Discount Discount Sewer Discount Refuse Discount Recycling Discount Total Discounts FY O2 Jul 116 84 200 Aug 127 94 221 Sept 128 93 221 Oct 136 107 243 Nov 136 113 249 Dec 142 117 259 Jan 147 122 269 Feb 146 124 270 Mar 148 122 270 Apr 153 118 271 May 154 126 280 Jun 156 132 288 FY02 Totals 1689 1352 3241 FY O3 Jul 112 113 225 Aug 118 115 233 Sept 123 121 244 Oct 129 122 251 Nov 122 127 249 Dec 126 128 254 Jan 126 132 258 Feb 126 135 261 Mar 0 0 0 Apr 0 0 0 May 0 0 0 Jun 0 0 0 FY03 Totals 982 993 2175 cc: Kevin O'Mally Mari/Utility/NewDiscountMonthlyFY03.xls 835.52 41.99 760.56 658.05 224.70 2520.82 896.00 44.90 857.69 701.10 239.40 2739.09 1023.68 51.25 980.49 808.71 276.15 3140.28 1043.84 52.35 999.90 827.17 282.45 3205.71 1106.56 55.47 1060.23 836.38 285.60 3344.24 1151.36 57.77 1103.34 867.14 296.10 3475.71 1164.80 58.20 1116.29 879.45 300.30 3519.04 1216.32 61.09 1165.83 913.26 311.85 3668.35 1184.96 59.39 1135.68 879.45 300.30 3559.78 1205.12 60.32 1155.07 925.57 316.05 3662.13 1207.36 60.37 1157.23 943.72 322.55 3691.23 1254.82 62.91 1202.48 1049.62 360.77 3930.60 513,290.34 $666.01 $12,694.79 $10,289.62 $3,516.22 540,456.98 932.26 46.57 892.16 695.24 238.99 2,805.22 1,006.18 50.07 963.26 769.48 264.52 3,053.51 1,042.02 52.03 997.76 783.00 269.12 3,143.93 1,068.90 53.45 1,023.62 803.25 276.08 3,225.30 1,129.38 56.57 1,081.80 907.87 312.09 3,487.71 1,133.86 56.68 1,086.11 816.75 280.72 3,374.12 1,138.34 56.93 1,090.43 843.75 290.00 3,419.45 1,192.10 59.78 1,142.12 870.74 299.31 3564.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 $8,643.04 $432.08 $6,490.08 $2,230.83 $8,277.26 526,073.29 OFFICER 5, 60 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE REPORT February 2003 DATE 02-01-03 INC # INCIDENT 3-5206 Fight in progress FORCE USED Subject was involved in a fight. When officers arrived on scene he fled into a building. Subject was observed trying to sneak out a window when he saw the officers and refused to come down. The officer grabbed him and directed him to the ground where the officers used a hands on technique to get the subject's hands behind his back and handcuff him. 3 Officers 02-02-03 3-5385 Burglary Officers responded to a burglary in progress call. Officers drew side arms during the search of the building. Suspect was located and arrested. 21 02-02-03 3-5387 Fight While officers were attempting to break up a fight, one of the individuals started to ptmch the officer. Then a large group of persons started punching and grabbing the officer's gun belt. The group of persons refused to obey the officer's commands to back up and the officer deployed a chemical agent into the crowd and towards the two initial combatants. The two persons who had initially been fighting cooperated and were arrested. 58, 19 02-08-03 2-6621 Bar check Subject ran from officers when told he was being cited for PAULA. ADPS officer caught the subject and directed him to the ground. The subject got back to his feet and was directed to the ground by an Iowa City officer. The subject continued to straggle and refused to place his hands behind his back. An officer deployed a chemical agent but the subject again tried to get to his feet. After a DPS officer used his taser the subject submitted to being arrested. 19 02-09-03 3-6667 Disorderly conduct Subject refused to place his hands behind his back as requested by the officer. The officer directed the subject to the ground after he tensed up and turned to face the officer. Subject was OFFICER 47 15 51 60,51 DATE 02-09-03 02-09-03 02-10-03 02-11-03 INC # 3-6767 3-6802 3-6805 3-6969 INCIDENT Public Intoxication Fire Alarm Traffic Stop Public Intoxication arrest FORCE USED handcuff fed. Subject had been placed under arrest but refused to get into the patrol car. The officer made three requests for him to get into the car before trying to direct him into the car. The subject threatened the officer and pushed back against the officer. The officer used an active counter measure strike to the subject's thigh and the subject then complied. The officer had two prisoners in the back seat of his patrol car and was attempting to interview one of them, when the other continually tried to interfere with the interview. The subject continued to interfere with the interview after having been told not to. The officer pushed upward on the subject's chin in an attempt to prevent him from talking. Afterwards the officer was then able to continue his interview. Officers stopped a vehicle for being in the cemetery after hours. When the vehicle stopped the driver got out and attempted to run away. The officer caught the subject and directed him to the ground. The subject stiffened up and refused to place his hands behind his back. He did not comply with the officer's commands to place his hands behind his back and the officer deployed a chemical agent. The subject was then handcuffed. The subject had been placed under arrest and taken to the rear of the squad car, where he was told to stand. He refused to stay put and the officer had to physically hold him in place. After the subject was placed in the back seat of the patrol car he began kicking the cars windows. The officer had to physically remove him from the car and place him on the ground where the officer used a department issue nylon restraint to tie the subject's legs. While at the jail the subject spit on one of the officers. The officer grabbed him and held his face towards the wall to prevent further attacks. When the elevator arrived to take the subject OFFICER 24 3 Officers 17 55 19, 40 54 DATE 02-11-03 02-11-03 02-11-03 02-12-03 02-12-03 02-15-03 02-19-03 INC # 3-6986 3-7056 3-7114 3-7119 3-7297 3-7841 3-8362 INCIDENT Injured Animal Trespass Building Search Vehicle Pursuit Loud Music Domestic Fight Loud Paffy FORCE USED upstairs the officer continued to restrain the subject until he could be turned over to jail staff. A deer was injured after being struck by a vehicle. The officer dispatched the deer with his side arm. The officer was directing the subject up some stairs when he grabbed the handrail and refused to move. When the officer requested he let go and to continue up the stairs he began to push at the officer and make threats. The officer used a hands control technique to place the subject's hands behind his back and handcuff him. Officers conducted a building search with weapons drawn. Nobody was located inside of the building. Officer was in a vehicle pursuit. The driver eventually stopped the vehicle without further incident. While the officer attempted to speak to a person about a noise complaint she tried to close the door on his foot. When the officer attempted to place her under arrest she pulled away and threatened to hit him. She then physically assaulted the officer by grabbing his neck and hitting him in the face. The officer used a reactionary strike and directed her to the ground where she was handcuffed. Subject had made verbal threats that he was going to kill a police officer. The officer ordered him to remove his hands from his pockets and to go to the ground. The subject did not comply and the officer drew his sidearm. The subject took his hands from his pockets, but refused to go to the ground. The officer deployed a chemical agent after first warning the subject and telling him again to go to the ground. The chemical agent did not work and the officer physically directed him to the ground. The officer used hands on techniques to place the subject's hands behind his back. Subject was placed under arrest and handcuffed. He was directed to the ground after pulling away from the arresting officer and took an aggressive posture towards another officer on OFFICER 12 30 DATE 02-20-03 02-21-03 INC # 3-8503 3-8683 INCIDENT Disorderly Conduct Public Intoxication FORCE USED scene. After calming down he was walked to the patrol car where he tried to pull away from the officer. The subject was again directed to the ground and kept there until he calmed down. Subject was arrested for fighting. He refused to be handcuffed and kept pulling his left arm away. The officer had to physically place the subject's left arm behind his back. While the officer patted him down he attempted to pull away and the officer had to place him against the patrol car. While sitting in the back seat of the patrol car the subject attempted to kick the windows out. The officer had to pull him from the car and place him face down on the ground. While the officer was handcuffing the subject the subject pushed backwards towards the officer. The officer directed the subject against a wall to gain control. 37 02-21-03 3-8740 Stolen Vehicle Officer ordered subject from the vehicle. Officer drew his sidearm, but kept it pointed down next to his leg. The subject would not have been able to see that the officer had drawn his sidearm. 3 Officers 19 2, 58 02-21-03 02-21-03 02-22-03 2-8834 3-8842 3-8884 Burglary Suspicious Vehicle Obstruction Officers responded to a call of a burglary in progress. They drew their sidearms during the building search. Officers detained persons who were drinking and smoking marijuana. One of the subjects fled but slipped and fell. The officer held the subject down while he was handcuffed. Subject was placed under arrest for obstruction. After he was placed under arrest he started yelling and struggling, injuring a campus officer. Subject was warned to stop struggling or he would be sprayed with a chemical agent. The subject continued to straggle with 90, 51 02-22-03 3-8894 Intoxicated Person 20 02-27-03 3-9725 Sick/Injured animal officers and was sprayed with a chemical agent. While in the back of the patrol car the subject started kicking at the car windows. The officer opened the car door and pulled the subject towards him to prevent further kicking of the window and warned him about additional charges if he broke a window. Subject was transported to the jail. Officers observed subject being restrained by another subject. One officer grabbed the subject's arm and attempted to calm him while identifying himself as an officer. The subject seemed not to comprehend what the officer was saying so the officers placed both of the subject's hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Officer observed a raccoon hobbling and spinning in the street. It seemed disoriented and had foam coming from its mouth. The officer used his sidearm to dispatch the animal. CC: City Manager, Chief, Captains, Lieutenants, Training Sergeant, City Clerk, Library Letter to the editor In the February issue of Cityscape, Bob Haug of the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities (IAMU) outlined his association's campaign to promote government takeovers of regulated private energy systems. Mr. Haug's arguments, however, are surface-level only. Cities considering such a move need to go beyond the superficial reasoning and take a good look at the facts and realities of today's energy environment. Most importantly, cities need to understand the differences in the world today and the conditions long 'ago that governed the establishment of Iowa's current government-owned util- ities. All of Iowa's 137 government-run electric and gas utilities are at least 25 years old, and most have been around 50 to 100 years. Today, nullifying the advantages that were once available to older city-owned utilities are: federal limits on municipal bond financing, the absence of low-cost federally subsi- dized power, the fully built-out nature of today's energy distribution systems, and the new deregulated wholesale power market. Most of IAMU's campaign centers on rates. The association compares the rates - on average - of Iowa's long- established government-run utilities with those of Iowa's investor-owned companies. The inference here is that new government-owned utilities will offer the same savings as older ones. Because most of the existing city-run utilities either built or bought into gen- erating plants long ago or have access to now tightly restricted federally sub- sidized power, it is unrealistic to expect such savings from a new utility. In all likelihood, a new government-owned utility would need to increase rates, especially when you add -- among many other items -- the expense of purchasing the current electric system, the costs of new facilities and equip- ment, the price for the generation 'and transmission capacity the private utility has built to serve that community, the expense of lengthy feasibility studies and legal fees, and the replacements of utility property taxes. Another foundation of the IAMU campaign promotes "local control" as a means to protect citizens from higher prices. This is one of the greatest falla- cies of the government takeover move- ment. Unless the new government util- ity owns a generating plant, which is "-- highly unlikely today, the city utility board would expose its customers to greater risk and less control over rates because of the volatility of the whole- sale market. Unlike city-operated systems, investor-owned utilities undergo strict state and federal regulation. A three- member board appointed by the gover- nor, confirmed by the Legislature, and supported by an agency of 70 profes- sionals sets and controls their rates. To quote the current chairman of the reg- ulatory body, "The Iowa Utilities Board acts as the surrogate for compe- tition.'' In addition, an office under the auspices of the state Attorney Gen- eral's Office intervenes on behalf of consumers in investor-owned utility rate cases and in virtually all aspects of regulated utility operations. Finally, Mr. Haug tries to explain away the failed and expensive attempt of the city of Sheldon in 1988 to take over the electric utility serving its citi- zens. His conclusion is that times have changed. He believes the regulatory environment and facts that determined the price equation for Sheldon Would be different now. Things have changed, all right, but not in favor of the government-takeover movement. Right now, the largest investments in Iowa's history are,being made by investor-owned utilities. Almost $2 bil- lion in new power plants associated transmission facilities are under con- struction by Alliant Energy and MidAmerican Energy. These invest- ments exclude nearly $340 million of energy efficient expenditures that the law requires only of investor-owned utilities and $28 million in 2002 alone to promote renewable energy. These investments are creating jobs and future tax revenue for all of the com- munities and school districts they serve. IP7 Cities considering a takeover of their utility should make sure they get the entire story. Remember the adage, "Beware of the half-truth; you may get hold of the wrong half." · Mark Douglas PresidEnt Iowa Utility Association Library Trustee 's Handbook now on-line The Library Trustee's Handbook has been updated and is now available on-line. The Handbook serves as a guide for new and veteran library officials while also answering many questions that other city officials might have about libraries. Information can be found in the handbook concerning library board members and directors, budget and finance matters, and how certain.federal and state laws relate to local libraries. A link to the Handbook is available at the League's web site www.iowaleague.org in the Membership Services section under "Information for City Officials." It is also available at www.silo.lib.ia.us/ for-ia-libraries/Trustees/ 2003trusteehandbook.pdf. · March2003 CII¥SCAPE 5 Marian Karr IP8 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sarah Dixon [sdixon@SPPGcom] Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:27 PM 'johnbalmer@plumbers-supply. com'; 'matt-blizek@uiowa.edu'; 'bobek.paul@iccsd.k12.ia.us'; 'john-chaisson@uiowa.edu'; 'madelko@southslope.net'; 'sleppie23@yahoo.com'; 'fitzmauricehil@aol.com'; 'richardgibson314@msn.com'; 'cgross@techiowa.com'; 'paul.delsie@mcleodusa.net'; 'brenda-hollingsworth@uiowa.edu'; 'destiny@zeus.ia.net'; 'phillip-jones@uiowa.edu'; 'rklausner@spd.state.ia.us'; 'jroberts@inav.net'; 'dan.j.schaapveld@doc.state.ia.us'; 'aschut@meccaia.com'; 'jbock@meccaia.com'; 'richard.sills@doc.state.ia.us'; 'john-stratton@uiowa.edu'; 'thompbobson@mchsi.com'; 'dwhiston@stthomasmoreic.com'; 'jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'destiny14@mchsi.com'; 'reklausner@yahoo.com'; 'jlswyldegreen@aol.com'; 'ntrott1900@aol.com' 'bbedford@ci.coralville.ia.us'; 'candice.bennett@jb.state.ia. us'; 'Lodema. Berkley@jb.state.ia.us'; 'pharney@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'jhorne@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'tkriz@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'klogsden@icpl.org'; 'lubaroff@icpl.org'; 'dar-neff@inav.net'; 'tneuzil@co.johnson.ia. us'; 'jschultz@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'dshorr@stanleyfdn.org'; 'auditor@pobox. com'; 'brettsobaski@yahoo.com'; 'sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'msulliva@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'dmwagner@co.johnson.ia.us'; 'jwarkentin@ci.north-liberty.ia.us'; 'rj-winkelhake@iowa- city.org'; 'janderson@ifbf. org'; 'PulkrabekL@aol.com'; 'Marian-Karr@iowa-city.org'; Arlinda McKeen; Lee Konfrst; Melisa Moore; Sarah Dixon; Jim Addy; Tom Slater Jail Task Force Meeting Materials jc TF agenda march jc TF notes feb 12.doc 12.doc Dear Task Force and Resource Group Members: As you likely already know, the March meeting of the Jail Space and Services Task Force will begin at 12:30 on Wednesday, March 12. It again will be held at the Coralville Public Library. Attached are the meeting materials as follows: meeting agenda notes from the February 12 meeting draft report to the Board of Supervisors In your review of this draft, please note that it is consistent with the Table of Contents elements you approved at our December meeting. Our discussion on the 12th will focus on substantive content as we finalize the work of this citizens group that was asked and expected to conduct an open, public process to ensure and consider the voice of the average person. Your work has been right on target, and the insights into public perceptions and appetite are critical to the policy decisons the Board will make in the coming months. Please also note the following: * The recommendations are the same as the draft you received a week or so ago. Only the formatting has changed as the other elements were included. * The recommendations are still in need of some additonal information, particularly around cost considerations and impact on crowding. This information will be critical for the Board of Supervisors. Please be thinking about these pieces. * The appendix is not in final form. It now consists only of a short list (though long in pages) of items that likely should be included. SPPG suggests including as much of that information as possible via web links to save on the bulk of the document. Other information from your previous work will be selected and included, but this does not need to happen until after March 12. Please make margin notes and be prepared to use our few hours on Wednesday 1 to affirm common ground and bring this report and recommendations to an "almost finished" status. Thank you. Arlinda <<jc TF agenda march 12.doc>> <<jc TF notes feb 12.doc>> Arlinda McKeen State Public Policy Group mckeen@sppg.com Ph. 515/243-2000 Cell 515/554-6545 or 402/770-9760 www.sppg.com eSafe scanned this email for malicious content IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders **~ Aleeting Agenda March 12, 2003 · 12:30-4:30 pm Coralville Public Library · 1401 5th St. Jail Sp. ace& Services Task Force 12:30 12:35 12:45 4:15 Welcome and Overview of the Day · Acceptance of the agenda · Review of the Charge Setting the Stage for Report Review · Review of the ground rules · Review of our product · Content and meaning vs wordsmithing · Consensus Review of the Report and Recommendations Looking Ahead · Finalizing the Report for April presentation to the Board of Supervisors · Role of the Task Force · Critique of the meeting · Final meeting: April 9, 2003 - 12:30- 4:30 4:30 Adjourn I eetin g Summary February 12, 2003 · 12:30-4:30 pm Coralville Public Library · 1401 5th St. Sp. ace& Services sk Force Task Force Members Present Dick Gibson, Chair John Balmer Matt Blizek Paul Bobek Bob Carpenter John-Paul Chaisson- Cardenas Connie Champion Bill Dorst Sara Epstein Moninger Cathy Fitzmaurice-Hill Carolyn Gross Paul Hoffey Brenda Hollingsworth Judy Hopping Philip Jones Richard Klausner Larry Omann John Robertson Daniel Schaapveld Richard Sills John Stratton Bob Thompson Nell Trott Dorothy Whiston J. Patrick White Task Force Members Unable to Attend Art Schut Resource Group Attending Barry Bedford Pat Hamey Mike Lehman Kara Logsdon Maria Madison John Neff Terrance Neuzil Lonny Pulkrabek Jean Schultz David Shorr Others in Attendance Ann Bovbjerg Hal Farrier David Kemp Steve Street Bob Welsh Sally Stutsman Mike Sullivan Dave Wagner Marilyn Wright for Art Schut Welcome and :Introductions Gibson welcomed everyone and thanked them for their regular attendance. The agenda for the meeting was approved. Gibson reviewed the handouts that everyone should have received, including the list of recommendations, revisions to the list, and the Comparison of Jail Tntakes. Gibson stated that the focus for this meeting is to agree upon a set of recommendations that will be included in the final report to the Board of Supervisors. He challenged the Task Force to get the final number down to ten recommendations, and stressed the need for compromise on everyone's part to accomplish this. He expressed hope that consensus could be reached in the work of the day, consensus being defined as a lack of substantial disagreement. Gibson suggested the entire collection of submitted recommendations developed by Task Force members over the last month be included in the appendix to the final report. The parameters of the deliberations were reviewed by the chair. There will be no time extensions for completing the final report. Gibson urged Task Force members to be realistic and practical, to stay within the context of state law, and to consider costs. The Task Force will submit no minority report. Gibson distinguished between individual opinion and any formalized or group statements. Some discussion followed regarding whether those recommendations could be considered a minority report or as background and additional information. A decision will be made later regarding their inclusion. The following Ground Rules were posted to guide the deliberations. · Think realistic & practical · Think compromise · Say it loud so everyone can hear it · Reach consensus = lack of substantial disagreement · No minority reports · Stick with decisions · There are no extensions on time for completing the report Recommendations Discussion McKeen offered heartfelt congratulations to the Task Force for the quality of work on the recommendations that were submitted. She asked for general comments about the response and reaction of Task Force members upon reading the packet of recommendations. · There are a lot of good recommendations. T am impressed with the amount of effort put into it. · T am overwhelmed with how many were submitted. · T noticed a fair degree of interrelated recommendations. · As someone with no expertise at all, it seems we are very lucky not knowing the restraints of politics & finances. · There are a lot of similarities among the alternatives. We should remember that these may not have a significant impact on jail overcrowding. · T agree that there is sincerity and conscientiousness of people on the Task Force. My honest comment is T don't think that the recommendations are even-handed. T think most of them came from a handful of people. T don't think most of them address the charge of improving jail space and services. Many won't decrease the population in the jail. T think the recommendations have been biased by what our agendas have been. We have spent 90% of our time talking about alternatives and not made a serious attempt at increasing jail space. · T paid particular attention to those recommendations that will decrease the crowding in the jail, and there are some good ones. t agree that many are not in line with the charge of the Task Force. · As T read them, T didn't see anything T hadn't heard about in the discussions. Tn looking at them, 45 pages have to do with alternatives, and two pages have to do with operations. Obviously, there is some bias. · T understand from reading the recommendations that most of us agree there is a need for a new or a larger facility. No matter how many alternatives are put in place, sooner or later we will have to address the facility problem. T don't think the public is going to vote to support a multimillion dollar jail in the next three or four years. T do not believe it will get approved without alternatives being put in place first. Other comments were offered regarding approaches to addressing the issues. · T think the cost of transporting prisoners will go up and increase support for a new jail. Jail Space & Services Task Force February 12, 2003 page 2 · It may be cheaper to transport prisoners to Cedar Rapids than to house them here. ]It costs $70 to transport a prisoner, and $72 to keep them here. This comes from the county's own prisoner counts. We are not paying a big premium to send prisoners there. · The bracelet program is an example of an alternative that appears to cost nothing. · We can't count on Linn County to be there forever with empty beds. This is more of a stopgap measure that can't be counted on for three to five years in the future. · Tt's only a matter of time until Linn County fills up. · ! disagree. Linn County will be available for the next three to five years, and if not, Muscatine County has a nearly empty jail they are trying to pay the bond on, and they would be happy to fill the gap. Discussion of Top 10 Priority Recommendations Task Force members were asked prior to the meeting to review the 80+ recommendations and flag the ten they feel are most important to include in the recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Those recommendations were brought forward and discussed in an effort to begin to identify common priorities. · #54 almost seems to be a preamble of what we should submit to the Board of Supervisors. · #54 and #55 seem to be the same logic. · ]i pose an unpopular question. No matter how good ideas are, I am not sure that some of them have anything to do with the Board of Supervisors. Should we be putting in things that are not under the authority of the Board of Supervisors? · We must put them in because the members of the Board of Supervisors do have power of the budget and must be elected. Tt is the only way we can send the message. · One of the things I hadn't thought of was the staff expeditor. That could actually address a lot of the policy and procedure changes that are needed. · T think recommendation #65 should be seriously looked at as cost-effective. It would keep the jail right next to the courthouse, and moving the Sheriff's office has got to be cheaper than moving the jail. Each Task Force member reported her/his ten priority recommendations and they were tallied to identify the most common choices. Recommendation # No. of TF Members Recommendation # No. of TF Members 1 44 0 2 45 0 3 46 6 4 47 3 5 48 0 6 49 3 7 50 1 8 51 5 9 52 ? 10 1 53 ? 11 1 54 7 12 1 55 4 13 56 2 14 57 5 15 58 ? 16 59 1 17 60 1 18 61 3 Jail Space & Services Task Force February 12, 2003 page 3 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 1 33 34 35 36 1 37 38 0 39 4O 41 42 43 62 3 63 1 64 3 65 1 66 0 67 0 68 1 69 2 7O 0 71 3 72 0 73 1 74 2 75 2 76 1 77 5 78 0 79 2 8O 0 81 2 82 0 83 84 1 With such diverse comments and difficulty in beginning to bring a systematic review of the recommendations, categories were suggested around which recommendations could be combined or developed. The following were suggested: · Alternatives Policy & Procedure · Facilities Treatment Options · Policy- Data Collection, Coordination Committee Task Force members continued to offer comments on the recommendations and worktoward combining or developing broader recommendations. · There should be bed space reserved for mental health, intoxicated persons, and substance abuse. · ! advocate #78 be put down first for Policy & Procedure, collecting minority data. · :I'm not sure that this would tell us anything. Tt would only tell us how many minority persons are in the jail, it would not determine if there is discrimination going on. Also, it does not address jail overpopulation. · Tf we collect the data and do nothing about it, then there will be no significant change. This is a procedural issue. The state of Zowa is the worst state in regard to minorities in the judicial system. Zt's a matter of wanting to spend the money. Tt has to be an action-oriented recommendation. T advocate for #20, 21, 22, and 36 dealing with the bond issue. #5 dealing with alternatives. #77 alternatives. · · · · · Jail Space & Services Task Force February 12, 2003 page 4 · #68 details it succinctly. If we use this statement as a broad statement to address alternatives, and then under that list suggestions as to the types of things we would like to see. · We talked about public safety. T think that has to be woven into all of this and cannot be compromised. 1.f someone breaks into my home, T want that person put away. · T like #77, but it should be preceded by the first sentence of #84. · We are talking about alternatives to being in jail and also policy and procedure issues that may reduce the amount of time people spend in jail. · Add to the recommendation about the oversight committee that the public should be on the committee. Regarding facilities, several recommendations were suggested: 54, 55, 65, and 61. · T think #65 makes a lot of sense. We should move the sheriff's office and free up space for cells instead of constructing a new jail. · #61 - 1, think there is consensus on the Task Force that a detox center would be beneficial, and the University of 1,owa would be willing to provide support. · The fact is that the City of 1,owa City is primarily responsible. You would have to look really carefully at fair funding options, as far as the idea goes that it would function as a diversion from the jail. · Since the majority of arrests for alcohol are young people, students, etc., the idea is that it would be staffed by students, their peers. 1,f people are in fear of their friend's getting alcohol poisoning, etc., they could bring them in and not fear arrest. · Chief Winklehake is in support of this. But with all due respect, this is a good example of why the process is flawed. 1, would support this, but it does not help alleviate jail overcrowding. 1, don't know if it's true that most residents of .lohnson County believe the jail is full of students. But do we agree that it would help jail overcrowding? 1' think we are doing the Board of Supervisors and the community a great disservice by not looking at the reality of the county budget. Without digging into reality we are not helping the Board of Supervisors one whit. · Looking at the list of 46 done by Sills and others, only seven will cost the county money. Many of them involve a change in procedure or a new procedure. · 1, agree that the drinking problem is not contributing to jail overcrowding, but 1, have strong feelings that the way we've been doing business in this county needs to change. Tn order to get the public to support this, we need to cater to public opinion, and many of the public see it this way. · Recommendation #5 we haven't had any discussion on, and it has been voted on the most. · The fact that #5 is popular shows that this body believes that alternatives are necessary. 1, think it needs to be revised before it is submitted. · T know of no cheaper way to house inmates than the $14 per day minimum security annex in Muscatine County. Tt's a metal building that provides a very primitive dormitory setting. 1.t can be staffed with one guard. They bring food in from the main jail. 1,t predates their current facility. · 1,'m not sure we are going to solve the problem with a pole barn. 1, don't think Muscatine County is a good example because the minimum security building did not keep them from having to build a new jail. My feeling is that we need to take care of the people we have now, and the problem is not with minimum security, it is with maximum security. Tt is going to cost the county whether we move the sheriff's office or build a new building. We've got a 20 year-old building. What is the life of this building when it is used 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Jail Space & Services Task Force February 12, 2003 page 5 · ! agree that we are not Huscatine County, and T'm glad of that. They've got bond problems with the jail. ! think that creating some sort of minimum security building is a piece of the puzzle. We are talking about space for 50 more people, and ! don't see that as insurmountable. · Will we have space in the new building for alternatives, and minimum and maximum security? !f we are going to recommend offering treatment alternatives, we had better have a place to do it. We physically do not have room for these programs inside the building at this time. · ! think it is impossible for us to decide. All we can do is recommend that a study be done by the county before a new facility is considered, including alternatives. · ! don't think it is our duty to decide what the county can afford. T think we can go ahead and recommend it, and the Board of Supervisors can decide that later. McKeen suggested that State Public Policy Group draft three basic kinds of recommendations: facilities, alternatives, and policy & procedures. Staff will use the Task Force recommendations along with the direction provided through the group's discussion to put together 6-8 fairly broad recommendations with some more specific things underneath, and bring it back and get comments from the Task Force at the next meeting. There was general agreement with this approach to determining the broader recommendations that could be then reviewed, affirmed, and polished by the Task Force at its March meeting. rvlcKeen then presented recommendations that Gibson asked her to draft regarding public education and state policy. These are two areas that were not addressed in the recommendations brought forward by the Task Force, yet they were discussed in some detail during the Task Force process and the community outreach effort. IVlcKeen explained that there is not a lot of support for a new jail in this community, and there are lots of misconceptions. Public information and education will be needed to get the public engaged and participating in the process from an informed position. A proactive and comprehensive public education effort is going to have to go along with whatever course the Task Force recommends and the Board of Supervisors adopts. The Task Force agreed these two recommendations should be considered as part of the set to move forward in the process. Comments: · The public thinks that the way we deal.with drunks does not go along with our morals. · T have on my desk probably 40 charges for marijuana where the amount of possession is less than a gram, or just residue. All these people have mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers and T guarantee that they all think that these are the people that the jail is full of. Looking Ahead IVlcKeen distributed the Table of Contents for the final report that was agreed upon in December. A complete draft form of the report will be provided to the Task Force in advance of the March meeting. Discussion of that draft, including the recommendations, will be the sole topic of the next meeting. The Task Force asked for a snapshot of the top ten list to be distributed. .lohn Robertson reminded the Task Force that he created an email list after the last meeting. SPPG is now on it as well as .lohn Neff. If a Task Force member wants to be on this list and has lost the invitation, contact John Robertson. Jail Space & Services Task Force February 12, 2003 page 6 Critique · T just wanted to say that ! am proud of how far we have come, and we shouldn't lose heart. · T thought it was a very frustrating meeting, but ! appreciate how much time and energy everyone has put into it. T think we are going in the right direction. · T think all of our recommendations are reasons why the bond referendum did not pass. Despite this, we do need to remember that there is a space issue that needs to be addressed. The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. 3ail Space & Services Task Force February 12, 2003 page 7 3ohnson County, ~owa April 2003 Dear Johnson County Board of Supervisors: With pleasure and optimism the Jail Space and Services Task Force submits for action its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The culmination of ten months of work, this report carries not only recommendations for reducing the population of the jail, but reflects the values of the residents of this county who spoke out on the issues. The Task Force believes it is neither possible nor desirable to simply incarcerate people in Johnson County. Rather, the values of this community are to also ensure treatment, prevention, and alternatives to traditional jail sentencing whenever possible without compromising public safety. The recommendations and rationale contained within this report evolved over the period of time the Task Force researched, studied, learned, and deliberated. The group faced the complexity of the issues and recognized systemic change was required to ultimately impact jail crowding. Those who followed the work of the Task Force know there was not unanimity during the early months regarding the best course for alleviating crowding or addressing the county's budget squeeze. Tt became clear through community outreach and discussion that any viable infrastructure solutions for jail crowding would first require sustained implementation of other options. Those options are suggested in this report as well. The Board of Supervisors sought recommendations to jail space and services issues based on the insights and best judgment of the citizens of ~lohnson County. The Task Force itself is, first and foremost, a citizen panel. Members turned outward as well to hear the views of others in the county. Each member participated fully throughout the process and contributed to the ultimate product. The Task Force forwards its report urging the Board of Supervisors to act as one in implementing the set of integrated recommendations presented as a thoughtful, long-term approach to alleviating pressures on the jail. Finally, on behalf of the Task Force, T thank the Board of Supervisors for investing and trusting in this open and public process to bring the best thinking and the perspectives of the citizens to bear on this important task. Sincerely, Richard Gibson Chair 2 3ail Space & Services Task Force Table of Contents 4 6 3ail Space and Services Task Force Resource Group Acknowledqments Preface fl :Introduction 9 Context 10 Executive Summary :11 Board of Supervisors' Charqe to the Task Force 11 Recommendation 1: Alternatives :12 Recommendation 2: Facilities 13 Recommendation 3: Treatment Opportunities :14 Recommendation 4: Policy and Practice Review :14 Recommendation 5: Coordinating Committee 14 Recommendation 6: Assessment and Policy Regarding Minorities and People of Color in the Criminal 3ustice System 15 Recommendation 7: Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting :15 Recommendation 8: Public Awareness and Information :15 Recommendation 9: Public Policy :15 ,Charge tO the Task Force Vision for the Public Safety and Criminal 3ustice System by 200R ,Recommendations tO the Board of Supervisors lnsiqhts into the Task Force Deliberations Overview Recommendations 3ail Space and Services Process Appendices Recommendations Drafted by the Task Force Members Selected Handouts from the Task Force Process United States Department of 3ustice Report Links to Documents on the County Web Site 16 18 20 21 31 34 34 34 34 Report & Recommendations 3 3ail Space and Services Task Force Adult Corrections Richard Sills, Probation Officer, Department of Correctional Services Citizen Representatives Dick Gibson, Retired, University of Towa Facilities Planning Cathy Fitzmaurice-Hill, Mayor, City of Hills Paul Hoffey, Retired, Director of Public Safety, Cedar Falls Judy Hopping, CEO/Manager, Federal Employees Credit Union .1ohn Robertson, Public Defender, IVluscatine County Citizens for .1ail Alternatives Sara Epstein Bob Thompson, Musician City Councils Connie Champion, Iowa City Nell Trott, Coralville Bill Dorst, North Liberty County Attorney .1. Patrick White, .1ohnson County Attorney Faith Community Dorothy Whiston, Pastoral rvlinister, St. Thomas More Church Labor Larry Omann League of Women Voters Carolyn Gross Private Sector .1ohn Balmer, CEO, Plumbers Supply Co. Public Defender Richard Klausner, Chief Public Defender Public Schools Paul Bobek, Executive Director of Administrative Services, Towa City Community School District Daniel Schaapveld, Board, Clear Creek Amana Schools Restorative 3ustice .1ohn Stratton, retired, University of Towa, Department of Sociology 4 3ail Space & Services Task Force Service Providers Brenda Hollingsworth, National Alliance for the IVlentally ]:11 - Johnson County Art Schut, Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, Commissioner, Governor's Commission on Latino Affairs Sheriff Robert Carpenter, Johnson County Sheriff U of ! Administration Philip Jones, Vice President for Student Services, Dean of Students, University of Towa U of ! Student Body Matt Blizek, Vice President, University of ~[owa Student Government Report & Recommendations 5 Resource Group Jerry Anderson, Regional Manager, Johnson County Farm Bureau Barry Bedford, Chief of Police, Coralville Police Department Candice Bennett, Juvenile Court Services Lodema Berkley, Clerk of the Court, Johnson County District Court Charles Dully, Farm Bureau Board Stephen C. Gerard :[I, District Associate Judge, District Court Patrick Harney, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Jeffrey Horne, Budget Coordinator, Johnson County Tom Kriz, Treasurer, Johnson County Mike Lehman, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Kara Logsden, Coordinator, Iowa City Public Library Maria Madison, Commissioner, Federal Mediation Service John Neff, Retired, University of Iowa Department of Physics & Astronomy Terrence Neuzil, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Lonny Pulkrabek, Deputy, Johnson County Sheriff's'Office Jean Schultz, Director, Johnson County Information Services Brian Shimon, Chief of Police, University Heights David Short, Stanley Foundation Tom Slockett, Johnson County Auditor Myron Smalley, Farm Bureau Board Brett Sobaski, Towa City High School Student Sally Stutsman, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Hike Sullivan, Executive Assistant, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Carol Thompson, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Dave Wagner, Jail Administrator, Johnson County Sheriff's Office Jim Warkentin, Chief of Police, City of North Liberty R.J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police, Iowa City Police Department 6 3ail Space & Services Task Force Acknowledgments The Jail Space and Services Task Force willingly accepted the challenge to rise above personal perspectives to develop recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as a fair representation of the will of the people of Johnson County. Their job would have been far more daunting without the aid and support of a broad array of individuals and organizations. To the Board of Supervisors, the Task Force expresses its appreciation for its foresight and ongoing support and respect for the full process to provide them citizen input and recommendations. Special thanks to the county staff for their expertise, data, information, and cooperation. Mike Sullivan, .left Horne, Dave Wagner, Jean Schultz, and Tom Slockett made themselves available and assisted in providing necessary information as needed. Gratitude is due the members of the Resource Group. The entire Resource Group diligently followed the progress of the Task Force, ably supporting the process through information and insights into certain elements and aspects of the system. They often served as the silent members who also provided ongoing links to organizations, agencies, and constituencies in the county. John Neff, while also serving as a Resource Group member, deserves special thanks for his diligent, tireless, and always-reliable data analysis and commentary on jail crowding statistics. Overwhelming thanks is due to the residents of Johnson County. Without the participation of the real people in the survey, the focus groups, the town meetings, and in engaging in the issue through the media, the product of this Task Force could not have represented the views and values of the citizens of the county. The Task Force, public survey, focus groups, and town meetings were facilitated and coordinated by State Pub/lc Po/lc? Group, Des I~o/nes, Iowa. www. sppg. com Report & Recommendations 7 Preface Jail crowding is not new to :Iowa, nor is it new to Johnson County. As recently as 1996, the Iowa Legislature requested a task force and information gathering process that demonstrated the widespread impact of increased numbers of offenders requiring space in aging jail facilities across the state. That effort identified state level opportunities to address issues of local and/or regional jail infrastructure, often through prevention and other programmatic approaches to target resources on people rather than bricks and mortar. While Johnson County's jail was not built in the 1800s, other conditions have combined to create pressures on space, funding, and human resources. Paramount is continuing to support a criminal justice system that ensures public safety. State and local policy, public safety and security, and budget demands and constraints have placed Johnson County's Board of Supervisors in a position to call for change to alleviate the crowding and need to transport and house inmates in other counties. To its credit, the Board of Supervisors turned to county residents for assistance. The Jail Space and Services Task Force was convened as part of a public process to identify potential solutions to the crowding issue. Its early discovery was that the crowding problem does not exist independent from the other elements of the criminal justice and public safety system. With that knowledge, the Task Force approached its work systemically, to recommend and encourage changes to the system that will reduce demand for bed space in the county jail and, ultimately, strengthen the criminal justice and public safety system for all residents. 3ail Space & Services Task l~orce Introduction Turni'ng the attention of the public to a topic as mundane and unpopular as spending money to put people in jail is not easy. The spotlight always comes easier to controversy or high profile problems. This is one of the challenges facing Johnson County as it seeks to implement changes in the criminal justice and public safety systems. The stresses jail crowding is placing on the county demand it be addressed very soon, but few, from the public standpoint, are very interested right now because it appears the Sheriff and the jail are operating quite well and withoul constraints. The time is now right for action, though, from another perspective. The county needs and wants a viable plan to incrementally address the issues associated with jail crowding using approaches that meet with the public's values and political will. By its own admission, the county cannot afford to be passive about this issue any longer. The voters of ]:owa City approved a public library bond issue in 2000, and they recently approved building a new school. Few would maintain the position that building a jail could compete with these projects at this time. The question, then, is how best to approach solutions. This plan does not place bricks and mortar in an immediate competition for tax dollars. Rather, this plan, in the form of a set of comprehensive, yet broad, recommendations, suggests other kinds of solutions will have a significant impact on crowding. Tf implemented as recommended, necessary construction may be delayed a number of years. Few also maintain that there will never be a need for a new jail. These recommendations take that future need into consideration as well, providing ample time for determining the best and most cost-effective course of action consistent with community values and support. Some will say this is a new approach for Johnson County, and some will suggest it will be difficult to implement the suggested recommendations. Regardless, the time for change is here. These recommendations, when implemented as a whole, place the county in a position of leadership in protecting public safety while addressing increased demands on the jail through creative and practical programs and policies. The .1ail Space and Services Task Force undertook a broad information and data gathering effort, heard from residents of the county, and deliberated thoughtfully and in depth to develop and set forth this set of recommendations. The Task Force believes these recommendations do come to the core of the concerns and considerations of both jail crowding and the larger issues facing the county's criminal justice and public safety system. Report & Recommendations 9 Context In order to develop a set of recommendations for jail space and services in Johnson County, the Task Force operated within a context that defines the situation specific to the county and the community. Understanding the environment of Johnson County is critical to understanding why the Task Force made its recommendations. Following are the perceptions of the Task Force. The jail does not operate independently of the system of public safety and criminal justice. The jail is part of this system and is inextricably tied to others facets within the system. To consider only the jail in developing recommendations, or to not consider the jail, is detrimental to the process and will lead to inadequate solutions. Many factors relevant to the jail space and services in Johnson County are outside the control of both this Task Force and the county and its officials (i.e. mandatory sentences, taxation issues). The recommendations anticipate what may be most practical and likely to occur in the non-scientific judgment of the Task Force as they consider other stakeholders' opinions. The crime rate in Johnson County is relatively Iow compared to other counties within ]'owa and other counties comparable to the demographics of Johnson County. Despite the Iow rate, problems do exist and need to be addressed. o Situations beyond the immediate control of the county are causing too many people in the system. o The community's values dictate that it needs to exert certain pressures on the system and infrastructure to reduce the effects of those situations outside of the county's control. Public support and opinions are necessary to adequately justify or implement any recommendations. o Johnson County residents, as an aggregate, are thought to be interested in participating in public policy at higher levels than in other counties. The issue of jail space and services in Johnson County is not black and white; not pro- jail and anti-jail. The Task Force has taken an integrated look at a system with multiple concerns. .3ai~ Space ~ Services Task Force Executive Summary Board of Supervisors' Charge to the Task Force - With these few words, the .lohnson County Board of Supervisors set in motion an eleven-month process of public information, involvement, and deliberation focused on addressing jail crowding issues. Though jail crowding and associated costs are not currently a top priority or a highly visible set of concerns for the public, the Board of Supervisors faces ongoing problems, particularly in light of the current difficult budget and economic environment and state and local public safety and criminal justice policies. Complex problems faced the Jail Space and Services Task Force. The Task Force approached its work from a perspective of maintaining the public safety and identifying key concerns that could be changed through actions taken by or actions by others influenced by the Board of Supervisors. The Task Force felt it could not limit its considerations only to those directly related to the jail itself. Rather, systemic approaches were sought in an effort to develop a balanced and comprehensive set of recommendations which, taken together, would result in fewer offenders sentenced to jail. Certain significant factors also influenced the deliberations of the Task Force, including: Many factors relevant to the jail space and services in Johnson County are outside the control of both the Task Force and the county and its officials (i.e. mandatory sentences, taxation issues). The recommendations anticipated what may be most practical and likely to occur in the non-scientific judgment of the Task Force as they considered other stakeholders' opinions. The crime rate in Johnson County is relatively Iow compared to other counties within Towa and other counties comparable to the demographics of Johnson County. Despite the Iow rate, problems do exist and need to be addressed. · Public support and opinions are necessary to adequately justify or implement any recommendations. The issue of jail space and services in Johnson County is not black and white; not pro-jail and anti-jail. The Task Force has taken an integrated look at a system with multiple concerns. The Task Force recognized it did not have a crystal ball to see into the future. The recommendations contained in this report are based on the best expectations and practical approaches for Johnson County's situation. IVlaintaining the public safety is a priority of the Report & Recommendations Task Force. Efforts were focused on shaping a good, but traditional, criminal justice and public safety system into a more innovative system that reduces the number of individuals in the jail and reflects the beliefs and values of the community in providing alternatives to jail, treatment, and services. Through the information gathering and review as well as the deliberations, certain areas of general agreement emerged. The Task Force believes: · The Board of Supervisors should act in those areas in which it has authority as well as influence the criminal justice system in areas in which it does not have direct authority. The present jail is inadequate for the needs of the present jail population and to meet the need for in-jail counseling and educational programs. There is no general agreement on how to address this issue. There should be no bricks and mortar projects until the criminal justice system has demonstrated that it has taken reasonable steps to reduce the number of persons incarcerated and the time they spend incarcerated, consistent with the law and reasonable considerations for public safety. · The role of weekend alcohol problems are not the explanation for overcrowding of the jail. Crowding is a much more complex problem. The voters of Johnson County will not support the construction of additional jail facilities until the criminal justice system has demonstrated that reasonable steps have been taken to reduce dependency on the jail as the primary solution for dealing with persons at odds with the law. The criminal justice system has not made appropriate efforts to find alternatives to incarceration or to keeping persons out of the system when other options would be viable. · :It will eventually be necessary to construct new or altered jail'facilities. The complete replacement of the jail and Sheriff's office should not be considered at this time. The following set of recommendations were developed by the Jail Space and Services Task Force to be implemented as a whole to provide a balanced approach to reducing the number of persons in the jail, ensuring appropriate facilities, while ensuring public safety. Recommendation 1: Alternatives The Board of Supervisors should, over the course of the next twelve months, develop and implement, in conjunction with the Sheriff, the County Attorney, the court, local social service agencies, Department of Correctional Services (DCS) probation professionals, and the defense bar, an array of longer-term alternative programming solutions, each designed to ensure community safety, provide meaningful opportunities to offenders, and decrease jail over- crowding pressures. When fully implemented and sustained over time, these alternatives 12 3ail Space ~ Services Task Force should systemically reduce the number of persons in the jail through approaches that address such issues as, but not limited to: · Length of time individuals spend in jail while waiting for the system to work through its process, · Which offenders are incarcerated and which are shifted to alternative programs, and · Diversion from the system altogether. As part of the effort, systems should be put in place to collect data and monitor the effectiveness of these initiatives. The Task Force further recommends to the Board of Supervisors fast-track implementation, monitoring, data collection, and tracking of certain alternatives the Task Force feels will continue to protect the public safety, and may also be less costly than incarceration, provide better outcomes for offenders, and reduce pressures on jail populations. If any of these alternatives is deemed by those involved to be unworkable at this time or in the future, the rationale and data to support that decision will be provided by that department or entity to the Board of Supervisors and to the public. These priority alternatives include: · Increase the use of 10% or surety bonds, · Enhance fewer crimes to second and third offense, · Work release, · Electronic monitoring, · Day reporting center for community service, · Re-instate the weekend OWT program, and · Intensive pretrial supervision Recommendation 2: Facilities The Board of Supervisors should launch development and review of "brick and mortar" alternatives to complete dependence on the presently crowded jail and sending prisoners to the Linn County Jail. The possible construction of any jail facility would be dependent upon several years of experience gained through data generated by the various proposals put forth by the ~lail Task Force and accepted and implemented by the Board of Supervisors and other departments. At a later date, contracted experts may determine feasible, alternative, appropriate facilities proposals that could involve, but not be limited to: · Remodeling existing facilities to relocate the Sheriff's Department and use the first floor as jail space, · Constructing a second facility at a Iow cost to house certain types of inmates, e.g. minimum security, or · Creating a detox facility. These alternative facilities should include and consider, but not be limited to: · Appropriate facilities for minimum, medium, and maximum security prisoners, Repor~ & Recommendations · Space for treatment, classes, and meetings, · Space for kitchen, library, exercise, and storage, · Office space for community program staff, and · Courtroom. The facilities recommendation would be completed and the successful alternative selected, with cost details and a budget, before asking the public to approve a bond issue to finance construction of the improvements. Any facility construction should be planned, designed, and implemented in a manner that does not preclude future cost-effective replacement of the jail. Recommendation 3: Treatment Opportunitie~ The Board of Supervisors should explore, in. collaboration with relevant agencies, the possibility of developing and expanding ways to divert persons with mental illness and substance abusers from the jail population and to provide needed services for those who cannot be diverted. This could involve providing space at the jail for service providers, increasing assessment and screening of individuals at all stages of contact with the system, as well as staff training to identify and best respond in situations where mental health and substance abuse appear to be a factor. Recommendation 4: Policy and Practice Review The Board of Supervisors should undertake a systematic, thorough, and ongoing program review to reduce the reliance of the justice system on incarceration. Further, the Board of Supervisors should request the courts, the prosecutor's office, the public defender's office, and the sixth judicial district review their policies and procedures impacting jail populations and modify policies, procedures, and practices when possible and appropriate. Local law enforcement agencies should also be encouraged to undertake a similar review. Recommendation 5: Coordinatinq Committee The Board of Supervisors should create a Criminal .lustice Coordinating Committee within _lohnson County, including representatives of criminal justice agencies, relevant human service agencies, and the public. The Criminal .Justice Coordinating Committee would serve as a county-wide vehicle for communication, review, and gauging and appropriately responding to community values around public safety and criminal justice. A standing sub-set of the committee, consisting of the professional representatives of the various criminal justice agencies, would also be created with the sole responsibility to continually evaluate the status of defendants in confinement awaiting trial and inmates serving sentences, and to take action and/or make recommendations for action. Space & Services Task Force Recommendation 6: Assessment and Policy Reqardinq IVlinorities and People of Color in the Criminal 3ustice System The Board of Supervisors should fund or seek alternative funding for a study of jail and sentencing rates for minorities and people of color, designed to determine if jail and sentencing patterns discriminate against minorities and people of color. Tf such discrimination is occuring, the county should immediately implement or enforce policy and procedures designed to eliminate such discrimination. Recommendation 7: Data Collection, Analysis, and Reportinq The Board of Supervisors should establish a system for regular collection, analysis, and dissemination of the data generated from ongoing policy review, alternatives and diversion programs, and court and jail statistics. These data will be used to assess the effectiveness of policy and practices on reducing the jail population, assess the impact of alternatives, and to project if or when a new facility of some type will be needed. Recommendation 8: Public Awareness and Information Public awareness and information at the grassroots level about the public safety/criminal justice system, its role, its performance, data and statistics, and the need for change should become a proactive and integral part of the Board of Supervisors' and the county's approach to managing this system. Recommendation 9: Public Policy The Board of Supervisors should ensure Johnson County's voice is heard at the state policy level by state policy makers, both locally and in Des Moines, to affect state issues that have impact on public safety and criminal justice at the county level. Report & Recommendations ~[5 Charge to the Task Force Board of Supervisors' Charqe to the Task Force - Vision for the Public Safety and Criminal 3ustice System by 2008 This scenario describes a practical, doable, best-case vision of the public safety and criminal justice system five years from now assuming the Task Force's recommendations are implemented. This will serve as the goal by which to measure progress and achievement. :It is acknowledged that many variables are at play that are unpredictable and uncontrollable, including state laws affecting local public safety/criminal justice activity and revenues available to support all county services. Tt also recognizes that this scenario will require a spirit of collaboration by all involved to take the steps needed to achieve this vision. The approach involves active involvement of the Board of Supervisors, municipal governments, courts, prosecutors, bar, jail, sheriff's department, local law enforcement agencies, and the Towa Department of Correctional Services. Key players also are those involved in the system through delivery of programs, services, and alternatives via nonprofit, government, or private efforts. There will be a clearer understanding by the public of the public safety/criminal justice system and how it works. The public will also have a higher working knowledge of the facts and data that reflect how the system is working on a day-to-day basis. Conversely, there will be a clearer understanding and reflection of the public will and values by the Board of Supervisors and all those involved in the public safety/criminal justice system. Special interests or narrow perspectives (public or professional) will not dominate the system. Means for ongoing system- wide and community-wide dialog will be fruitful in policy and operational innovation that will support the values of the people supporting the system through tax dollars. Prevention efforts targeted at all ages will be continued and expanded. Efforts will have been initiated to ensure only those who require it are formally brought into the criminal justice system. If determined necessary and cost-effective, an alternative site for specific populations or for holding certain detainees in a safe place will aid in reducing temporary jail crowding and perhaps ensure some do not carry with them an arrest record for using poor judgment in situations that do not place others in harm's way. ~[ndividuals who are brought into the system will experience a process where each person is considered on an independent basis. The system will ensure procedures and practices are in place to reduce the time required for the system to provide just, fair, and swift action for arrestees in the process to determine their innocence or guilt. Detainees for parole or 3ail Space & Services Task Force probation violation will have appropriate procedures and practices implemented to minimize the time they are held in the jail. For those found guilty through plea, pre-trial agreement, or trial, judges will have an array of options that, in some combination, meet the sentencing needs of the vast majority of offenders. Upon leaving the courts portion of the system, those who remain involved with the criminal justice system will be accountable for their actions through a diverse array of activities including appropriate use of confinement in jail, alternative sentences fines, community service, work release, electronic monitoring, etc.), and appropriate use of treatment o~tions. Among other things, this array of activities must be representative of community values an( meet public safety needs, as well as be consistent with the laws of the State of Iowa. Alternative sentencing and diversion from the system should include treatment options available either at the jail when needed or provided with flexibility so there are no systemic barriers to participation or compliance. Alternative sentences and treatment options will be the first consideration in determining the best course for an individual. There should be specific reasons to confine an individual without other alternatives involved at some level. The results will be fewer individuals in the jail. This also will require that treatment and services be funded appropriately and that trained staff and facilities are available to handle the caseload. Those sentenced to incarceration at the county level will be housed in facilities that are safe and secure. The level of security should be appropriate for the offense and the situation. There will be a greater flexibility in determining the best jail setting for an individual. Space will be available for various treatment, service, and education activities dictated by the court and provided in collaborative programming options. Cost considerations will not wholly drive system decisions, but will be carefully balanced with community values, community will, relative cost of the array of options in the system, current and future investment in the system, available revenue, impact on the overall county budget, and potential revenue enhancement sources. The set of recommendations included in the next section, taken together, implemented, and sustained will move the county much closer to this vision by 2008. Report & Recommendations 3ail Space and Services Task Force Recommendations to the Board of Supervisor ]:nsiqhts into the Task Force Deliberations The charge to the Task Force is rather loosely framed to call for a review and recommendations concerning the jail and jail services. Some persons have been mildly critical of the Task Force for seemingly wandering into other issues not properly the purview of the Task Force and that, indeed, the Task Force has not accomplished its assicjned task. :It was clear from the beginning of the Task Force deliberations that many members believed it was necessary to review the question of why the jail was overcrowded rather than to simply study means to expand jail facilities. To do otherwise would most likely doom another attempt to get passage of a bond referendum to expand or replace the jail. This belief was substantiated by the written survey, focus groups, and town meetings conducted by the Task Force consultant as a part of the Task Force deliberations. The Task Force has subsequently determined that the issue of how and why the jail population was what it was, was more important and of higher priority than determining if and how the jail should be expanded. The Task Force further felt the issue of why and for how long people are in jail needed to be addressed before any consideration of how to expand the physical jail was discussed. In this connection it has often been stated that the Board of Supervisors does not have sufficient authority over the principals of the criminal justice system to have an influence of how that system works and that basically, the Board of Supervisors is powerless to do anything short of expanding or replacing the jail. Tf this is the case, it raises the question of how the Task Force could have any influence if the Board of Supervisors did not have influence and the Task Force would be left only with the task of recommending how to expand the jail. The Task Force chose not to accept this possible limitation, but to take the position that the Board of Supervisors must find a means to influence the criminal justice system to adopt means to reduce the heavy system dependency on the jail to meet the functions of the justice system and that the Task Force would lend its assistance in this task through the report it prepared for the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors has budgetary jurisdiction over the County Attorney and Sheriff. Tt has the advantage of a "bully pulpit" to encourage change in the system. If the Board of Supervisors and the other elected officials are unable to effect change, they will most likely again fail to meet the legitimate needs of the jail. Tt will then be up to the voters of the county to determine if this set of elected officials is capable of dealing with the problem and whether they should be continued in office. The Task Force is in agreement that the present jail is inadequate for the needs of the present jail population and to meet the need for in-jail counseling and educational programs. There is no agreement concerning the level of inadequacy or what form correction of these facilities problems should take. There is, likewise, no agreement on when these matters should be corrected, but there is agreement that there should be no "bricks and mortar" projects until the criminal justice system has demonstrated that it has taken reasonable steps to reduce the :i.8 Jail Space & Services Task Force number of persons incarcerated and the time they spend incarcerated, consistent with the law and reasonable considerations for public safety. The Task Force is also in agreement that the voters in the last referendum applied too much significance to the role of weekend alcohol problems in iowa City in overcrowding of the jail. While many persons would disagree that jail is the proper means for dealing with this problem, the facts appear to be that the role of the jail in handling the problem is not overburdening the capacity of the jail. The role of alcohol and students should not be seen as the explanation for jail overcrowding - the issues are much more complex than that. The Task Force believes that the voters of Johnson County will not support the construction of additional jail facilities until the criminal justice system has demonstrated that reasonable steps have been taken to reduce dependency on the jail as the primary solution for dealing with persons at odds with the law. In fact, it will be difficult, at best, to get voter approval of a bond referendum to finance jail construction. The public will not be supportive of renewed investments in jail facilities unless it has demonstrated that they are absolutely necessary and that, as a matter of practice and policy, persons have not been unnecessarily jailed or jailed for too long. The Task Force believes the criminal justice system has not made appropriate efforts to find alternatives to incarceration or to keeping persons out of the system when other options would be viable. This has resulted in overcrowding of the jail. :It appears that the leaders of the criminal justice system may not be in touch with the thoughts or wishes of the community in this regard - too many people are being put in jail, often for too long, and for the wrong reasons. Criminal justice procedures are often unnecessarily stretched out too long as well, resulting in too many persons being held in jail waiting too long for resolution of their cases. The Task Force is not properly constituted and does not have the time to develop a specific set of recommendations for change in this regard. A long list of suggestions is offered, however. This task must be referred to the professionals in the criminal justice system to deal with in a public manner and with the involvement of interested members of the public. The involved officials, elected and appointed, must be held accountable for results. The Task Force has frequently been reminded that there is no money for the implementation of alternatives to incarceration, only for the construction of expanded facilities, a consequence of available methods of financing. The Task Force believes there are a number of alternatives available that will actually save more money than their cost to implement, while, at the same time, reducing the demand for more capital investment to expand the jail facilities. One could also conclude that if funds are unavailable for alternative treatment strategies, funds will also be inadequate to house a larger inmate population, even if the jail capacity is increased. This is a very fundamental issue that has not been addressed by the Task Force. The county has made significant use of housing prisoners in Linn and other counties as a solution to the overcrowded jail. This use has often been characterized as adding significantly to the cost of housing prisoners in .lohnson County facilities. It appears, based on the record for the first half of FY 03, that the cost of housing and transporting prisoners to Linn County is Report & Recommendations 19 very similar, if not less costly, than housing them in ~lohnson County. The reality is that, at this time, there is no significant difference between the costs of housing in the two locations. The cost to house prisoners in Linn County is a direct function of how many prisoners are the responsibility of the Johnson County ~lail, not where the prisoners are being housed. The Task Force finds it is reasonable to continue to utilize other facilities for some time until other solutions are developed, but this is not seen as a reasonable long-term strategy, as those facilities may become unavailable or the financial differences could change to the disadvantage of Johnson County. The Task Force believes it will eventually be necessary to construct new or altered jail facilities. :It is in agreement that complete replacement of the jail and Sheriff's office should not be an option considered at this time. Tt is not in agreement with when or how the system should be expanded. A number of alternatives have been suggested short of full replacement of the jail that tend to focus on either relocation of the Sheriff's office from the jail and remodeling of the vacated space for expanded jail functions, or to construct a separate minimum security facility - a jail "annex." Whatever solution is selected, it should be carried out in a manner that retains for the future a cost-effective full replacement of the existing jail. That need could reasonably be a number of years in the future. The Task Force is not properly constituted, nor provided with appropriate staff or time, to reduce these suggestions to a more specific solution. The Task Force found that many persons felt uninformed when asked to vote in the past referendum. This suggests that the Board of Supervisors be more attentive to the need to keep the citizens of Johnson County informed of matters having to do with governance of the county and encourage their participation in the process of governance. The Board of Supervisors also needs to play a more active role in the formulation of regional and state policies impacting on the governance of Johnson County. Overview Nine recommendations to the .Johnson County Board of Supervisors span the scope of issues identified by the Jail Space and Services Task Force. While the recommendations are in and of themselves broad, the relevance and rationale for their inclusion suggests the Board of Supervisors needs to take specific and sure action to move forward in their implementation. The integration and interrelationship among the recommendations cannot be overemphasized. To implement one or two recommendations while passing by the others will create imbalance in the public safety/criminal justice system and create impacts not intended by the Task Force. These recommendations must be considered as a whole. These recommendations first and foremost maintain the expectation that the public safety and well-being of the citizens of Johnson County will be assured. The Task Force does not recommend any action that would, without appropriate thought, reduce the level of public safety and public confidence in the criminal justice system. While the Task Force was charged with making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors about jail space and services, it was soon clear to the Task Force that any attention focused 20 3ail Space & Services Task Force solely on the jail would overlook other critical considerations and create unbalance elsewhere in the system. For those reasons, the Task Force expects other entities impacted by these recommendations to take the recommendations seriously and step forward to work in concert with the Board and other departments and agencies, working in good faith to implement the set of recommendations as a whole. The Task Force does not ignore the difficult policy and budget situation faced by the county. Some recommendations do not require additional monies. Others seek to eliminate need for funds in one area, such as cost for holding a person in jail, so that funds may be freed up for programs that are less costly. Still others, as might be expected, do require funding. In those cases, the Task Force also considered potential non-county sources of funds, such as grants. Finally, the Task Force, above all, is a.citizen group. Even those with special expertise and whose professions involve daily work in the public safety/criminal justice system are ultimately 3ohnson County citizens. The Task Force has done its best to consider the input from other citizens through its activities and the findings of the survey and community outreach meetings. These recommendations represent the best efforts of the Task Force to fairly signify community values and perspectives on how the Board of Supervisors and other entities should address the complex set of issues facing the system. Recommendations Recommendation :!.: Alternatives The Board of Supervisors should, over the course of the next twelve months, develop and implement, in conjunction with the Sheriff, the County Attorney, the court, local social service agencies, Department of Correctional Services (DCS) probation professionals, and the defense bar, an array of longer-term alternative programming solutions, each designed to ensure community safety, provide meaningful opportunities to offenders, and decrease jail over- crowding pressures. When fully implemented and sustained over time, these alternatives should systemically reduce the number of persons in the jail through approaches that address such issues as, but not limited to: · Length of time individuals spend in jail while waiting for the system to work through its process, · Which offenders are incarcerated and which are shifted to alternative programs, and · Diversion from the system altogether. As part of the effort, systems should be put in place to collect data and monitor the effectiveness of these initiatives. The Task Force further recommends to the Board of Supervisors fast-track implementation, monitoring, data collection, and tracking of certain alternatives the Task Force feels will continue to protect the public safety, and may also be less costly than incarceration, provide better outcomes for offenders, and reduce pressures on jail populations. :If any of these alternatives is deemed by those involved to be unworkable at this time or in the future, the Report & Recommendations rationale and data to support that decision will be provided by that department or entity to the Board of Supervisors and to the public. These priority alternatives include: · Increase the use of 10% or surety bonds, · Enhance fewer crimes to second and third offense, · Work release, · Electronic monitoring, · Day reporting center for community service, · Re-instate the weekend OWl program, and · Tntensive pretrial supervision. Rationale and Context: There is a strong consensus belief within the Task Force, and within the community, that alternatives to jail must become a major part of the local community justice system for the long term. There is an equally strong belief, supported by evidence of the community's values, that until such initiatives are implemented, the construction of a new jail facility is unlikely to be approved by voters. Implementing this recommendation will assure an independent and objective mechanism will exist to monitor the system and make future recommendations to the Board. The alternatives to traditional jail sentences recommended here for immediate implementation should reduce the jail population in ways that are responsive to the county's budget constraints as well as consistent with longer-term community expectations for increased use of alternatives. Their expedited implementation will allow data to begin to be gathered. This should reduce the time needed to show the degree of success of each alternative, also impacting when a decision might be made about additional alternatives and/or any need for physical infrastructure relative to these alternatives or to jail space for maximum, medium, and minimum security inmates. Implementation: · Who is Responsible and Involved Board of Supervisors is responsible for establishing expectations and leading the initial efforts. Others who must ultimately fulfill this recommendation include the Sheriff, the County Attorney, the court, local social service agencies, DCS probation professionals, and the defense bar. Cost Considerations Longer term cost considerations: Short term cost considerations for the immediate implementation of the specified alternatives - several involve no additional cost to the county. Community service, and OW:[ weekend programs can be supported by DCS and Kirkwood at no cost to the county. :[ntensive pre-trial release is anticipated to have first-year costs of $36.76 per day per inmate and less in subsequent years. Expected Impact on Crowding 22 3ail Space & Services Task Force Role of the Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should earmark adequate funding and authorize implementation of the full range of alternative activities. The Task Force should be reconvened after the twelve-month development and implementation period to meet, assess, and make further recommendations regarding jail over crowding issues. To support the immediate development and implementation of specific alternatives recommended by the Task Force, the Board of Supervisors must incent the necessary participating departments and agencies to implement the alternatives suggested, monitor their progress, and ensure public awareness of the initiatives and their results. RecQmmendatiQn 2: Facilities The Board of Supervisors should launch development and review of "brick and mortar" alternatives to complete dependence on the presently crowded jail and sending prisoners to the Linn County .]ail. The possible construction of any jail facility would be dependent upon several years of experience gained through data generated by the various proposals put forth by the .]ail Task Force and accepted and implemented by the Board of Supervisors and other departments. At a later date, contracted experts may determine feasible, alternative, appropriate facilities proposals that could involve, but not be limited to: · Relocating the Sheriff's Department and use the first floor as jail space, · Constructing a second facility at a Iow cost to house certain types of inmates, e.g. minimum security, or · Creating a detox facility. These alternative facilities should include and consider, but not be limited to: · Appropriate facilities for minimum, medium, and maximum security prisoners, · Space for treatment, classes, and meetings, · Space for kitchen, library, exercise, and storage, · Office space for community program staff, and · Courtroom. The facilities recommendation would be completed and the successful alternative selected, with cost details and a budget, before asking the public to approve a bond issue to finance construction of the improvements. Any facility construction should be planned, designed, and implemented in a manner that does not preclude future cost-effective replacement of the jail. Rationale and Context: The results of these efforts would serve to better determine if there is a need for a new facility, its capacity, and the scope of its services. Tt will result in a safe and more economical jail facility(s) at a lower cost, and a bond referendum more likely to be supported by the public. The facility would include room for treatment, services, and activities whose objective would be Report & Recommendations 23 fewer return trips to the justice system and incarceration with their high cost to taxpayers and society in general. Implementation: · Who is Responsible and Involved Led by Board of Supervisors. Also involved are public safety and criminal justice system leaders as well as contracted experts in the area of facilities analysis. Cost Considerations Contractor fees and expenses; costs of any infrastructure improvements or additions. These are impossible to specify at this time, and would be, to some degree, under the control of the Board of Supervisors. Expected Impact on Crowding Facilities adjustments would relieve crowding and reduce or ultimately eliminate the need for out-of-county placement of inmates. Role of the Board of Supervisors Understand that the need for a new and larger jail facility is quite likely, but the citizens of Johnson County may not approve the construction of a multimillion dollar structure until the public is convinced other measures designed to reduce overcrowding in the present jail have been put into place and are working or have failed. When the Board of Supervisors acts to implement this recommendation, it must also authorize the hiring of an architect and establish a committee consisting of representatives of the Sheriff's Office, Board IVlembers and representatives of the voting public. The deliberations and results of the committee and the architect's work are to be public during the entire process, to include interim and final reports to the public. RecommendiatiQn 3: Treatment Opportunitie~ The Board of Supervisors should explore, in collaboration with relevant agencies, the possibility of developing and expanding ways to divert persons with mental illness and substance abusers from the jail population and to provide needed services for those who cannot be diverted. This could involve providing space at the jail for service providers, increasing assessment and screening of individuals at all stages of contact with the system, as well as staff training to identify and best respond in situations where mental health and substance abuse appear to be a factor. Rationale and Context: It humanely treats individuals whose criminal justice problems stem from mental illness or substance abuse and focuses on what got them into trouble with the law. This approach may reduce recidivism. 24 :Jail Space & Services Task Force Zmplementation: · Who is Responsible and :[nvolved Board of Supervisors, mental health and substance abuse provider agencies, local law enforcement, Sheriff's Department, County Attorney, the courts, public defenders. The Board of Supervisors and the service providers should jointly press to begin this effort. Cost Considerations Training for local and county staff. Space for services for those incarcerated. Beds and treatment options for those diverted from the system. Could be cost-neutral or costs could be partially off-set by reduction in demand on jail beds. · Expected ]:mpact on Crowding Hay reduce recidivism. Role of the Board of Supervisors Negotiate with appropriate agencies, which may require entering into contractual agreements requiring a financial outlay for screening and assessment, treatment, and staff training. Recommendation 4: Policy and Practice Review The Board of Supervisors should undertake a systematic, thorough, and ongoing program review to reduce the reliance of the justice system on incarceration. Further, the Board of Supervisors should requestss that the courts, the prosecutor's office, the public defender's office, and the sixth judicial district review their policies and procedures impacting jail populations and modify policies, procedures, and practices when possible and appropriate. Local law enforcement agencies should also be encouraged to undertake a similar review. Rationale and Context: Ongoing review and adjustments in policies and procedures keeps people out of jail who don't need to be there and, in the long run, may prevent some of them from returning. It can assist integration into the community of the offender and possibly save public money. To the extent that the effort is successful, it will result in reduced need for more jail beds and reduce the costs resulting from the construction and operation of more jail beds. This should result in a higher level of public support for the operation of the jail. As important, it may increase public willingness to support construction of additional jail facilities, if required. To the extent it keeps young persons from becoming entangled with the justice system because of typical youthful behavior that causes little or no harm to others, it will increase the level of social concern and tolerance in the community and reduce the possibility of young persons becoming labeled as felons or criminals for what should not be considered as criminal activity. Report & Recommendations 25 Implementation: · Who is Responsible and Involved Board of Supervisors take the leadership. The prosecutor's office, the public defender's office, the sixth judicial district, and local law enforcement must also be actively involved and provide leadership within their agencies and departments. Cost Considerations Staff time. Actions taken as a result of policy change could save public dollars or shift funds to other parts of the system. · Expected Impact on Crowding Role of the Board of Supervisors Appoint a committee responsible to the Board of Supervisors to review the full array of alternatives to entrance into the criminal justice system, or incarceration, or length of time incarcerated. The committee should be comprised of representatives of the elected stakeholders in the system, other elected public officials, and representatives of the public. Deliberations and results of committee work will be open to the public during the entire process and include interim or final reports to the general public. Stakeholders in the process are to be held accountable for producing outcomes that reduce the dependence on incarceration. Recommendation 5: Coordinating Committee The Board of Supervisors should create a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee within Johnson County, including representatives of criminal justice agencies, relevant human service agencies, and the public. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee would serve as a county-wide vehicle for communication, review, and gauging and appropriately responding to community values around public safety and criminal justice. A standing sub-set of the committee, consisting of the professional representatives of the various criminal justice agencies, would also be created with the sole responsibility to continually evaluate the status of defendants in confinement awaiting trial and inmates serving sentences, and to take action and/or make recommendations for action. Rationale and Context: A criminal Justice Coordinating Committee provides a means of communication of important information between key players in the criminal justice process, facilitates cooperation, and lets light into the system. It also can provide specific recommendations regarding policies, procedures, and practices to relevant policy makers. The National Tnstitute of Corrections emphasizes that Criminal Justice Coordinating Committees are a critical factor in alleviating jail crowding. Such a committee is comprised of department heads of all agencies involved in the local criminal justice system. This can provide a remedy for the compartmentalized nature of the system, enabling the major players to develop and alter policies in order to expedite procedures, and restructure policies and programs in a coordinated 26 3ail Space & Services Task Force fashion. The National Institute of Corrections guidelines for implementing a Criminal .Justice Coordinating Committee may be found at http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/O17232.pdf The sub-committee of professionals would identify persons who do not constitute a danger to society and, under other agreeable circumstances, could be eligible for release from confinement, which would serve to reduce overcrowding in the jail. Tmplementation: · Who is Responsible and ]:nvolved Board of Supervisors leadership and impetus to develop the scope of the Committee's work. Also involves ongoing and active participation by the public, treatment and services agencies, local law enforcement, DCS, the Sheriff, County Attorney, public defenders, and other key stakeholders. Cost Considerations Staff time. If successful at moving some offenders away from more costly incarceration, may save public money. Expected Impact on Crowding Directed efforts to reduce crowding by review of systemic functioning and, in the case of the sub-committee, specific cases that may be eligible for alternative efforts. Role of the Board of Supervisors Use considerable tact and diplomacy in convincing the participating offices, organizations, and agencies that such a committee would continue to ensure the public safety and result in greater efficiency and lower costs. It is expected the experience and data would help to more reasonably determine the size of any new jail facility, should one be proposed in the future. The Board of Supervisors should lead and coordinate the effort to bring all parties to the table, and provide a meeting place and staff support. Representatives from the community and the Board of Supervisors should be included on the Coordinating Committee. Recommendation 6: Assessment and Policy Regarding Minorities and People of Color in the Criminal 31Jstice System The Board of Supervisors should fund or seek alternative funding for a study of jail and sentencing rates for minorities and people of color, designed to determine if jail and sentencing patterns discriminate against minorities and people of color. If such discrimination is occurring, the county should immediately implement or enforce policy and procedures designed to eliminate such discrimination. Rationale and Context: There is concern that at least some part of the present overcrowding issues is related to minority status, ethnicity, or race; if true, such practices may demonstrate a lack of consistency or be illegal, and certainly do not comport with community values. Report & Recommendations 27 There is a preponderance of secondary data that suggests that current contact, arrest, and judicial practices might disproportionally affect minorities and people of color in Johnson County. Tf corrected, changes might have an effect on current and future jail and prison population. :Implementation: · Who is Responsible and Znvolved Board of Supervisors provide leadership. Other stakeholders at the county and local levels would need to participate and cooperate in the study and in implementing recommendations that may arise from the findings. Cost Considerations Funds, from the county or other sources, for the assessment, analysis, and developing data gathering and tracking for the future. Costs to implement any recommendations may be necessary, but are impossible to forecast without seeing assessment findings. Expected Tmpact on Crowding Dependent on whether disproportionate minority confinement is an issue in the county as well as steps required to address the issues. Those steps cannot be known at this time. Role of the Board of Supervisors Earmark funds and appoint an external commission to undertake a study which would include systematic and ongoing collection, analysis, and reporting of data regarding disproportionate minority confinement. Recommendation 7: Data Collection, Analysis, and Rep0rtin_n The Board of Supervisors should establish a system for regular collection, analysis, and dissemination of the data generated from ongoing policy review, alternatives and diversion programs, and court and jail statistics. These data will be used to assess the effectiveness of policy and practices on reducing the jail population, assess the impact of alternatives, and to project if or when a new facility of some type will be needed. Rationale and Context: The current jail will eventually need to be replaced with a better, larger facility. While the suggested changes in policies and programs can postpone the replacement of the jail, it cannot be postponed indefinitely. The current economic climate and public opposition to a new jail leaves programs and policies, and perhaps Iow-cost infrastructure for specific purposes, as the only feasible solutions for the next three to five years, or beyond. Tmplementation: · Who is Responsible and :Involved Board of Supervisors to establish. Jail, courts, DCS, County Attorney, information systems department, budget coordinator, and others to provide and support data gathering and analysis. 28 3ail Space & Services Task Force Cost Considerations Time to design data reporting and tracking system. reports. Time to complete and submit Expected Tmpact on Crowding Provides foundation for evidence-based decision making on alternatives, programs, and infrastructure and develops historical data for trends and analysis for the future. Role of the Board of Supervisors Request that the Criminal .]ustice Coordinating Committee periodically evaluate the data to report on the effectiveness and impact of current efforts to control the jail population, and to project if and when the need for infrastructure is anticipated to be critical. The Board should also regularly evaluate public opinion on the data and issues related to future program and infrastructure efforts. Recommendation 8: Public Awareness and Tnformation Public awareness and information at the grassroots level about the public safety/criminal justice system, its role, its performance, data and statistics, and the need for change should become a proactive and integral part of the Board of Supervisors' and the county's approach to managing this system. Rationale and Context: In the purest sense, "government is the people." Throughout this public and transparent process, people have asked for additional information and asserted they do not understand either the basics or the complexities of how the county's system works, who is in the jail, or what factors come into play when changes are made. Providing data and information will he~p the public understand the problems associated with the operation of the jail and thus increase the willingness of the public to support the resolution of those problems, provided the public is sympathetic and supportive of the policy decisions behind the operation of the system and jail. The ready availability of data will help the public distinguish between real needs and wants and policy formulation in keeping with the wishes of the public. The data would facilitate comparison with data from other governmental units and thus aid in the formulation of policy and education of the public concerning the operations of the system and jail. Ultimately, change must be both driven by and supported by the people, including the taxpaying public. An informed constituency is in a better position to make wise policy choices. Implementation: · Who is Responsible and Involved Board of Supervisors, other county officials should lead. Also involves the media, neighborhood associations, service organizations, business/industry, the University and student groups. Report & Recommendations 29 Cost Considerations Time to manage a community outreach and speakers bureau. No cost for earned media efforts. This does not need to entail public relations or advertising. Should a "slick" effort be desired, costs would be significant over time. Expected Impact on Crowding Tndirect impacts would occur over time by making citizens more aware of the need to take action that may involve additional tax dollars. Role of the Board of Supervisors Lead by example in establishing practices and expectations that information be actively distributed to a variety of interests, and even to those who do not express an active interest. Data collection, analysis, and reporting should be directed by the Board. Regular, incremental, useful information to the media, neighborhood associations, business groups, community groups, faith community, labor, student groups, schools, the University, and others will ensure there is awareness and value placed on these issues. Recommendation 9: Public Policy The Board of Supervisors should ensure ,lohnson County's voice is heard at the state policy level by state policy makers, both locally and in Des Moines, to affect state issues that have impact on public safety and criminal justice at the county level. Rationale and Context: There is a sense of helplessness in the county where legislative action is concerned. As one of Towa's leading progressive counties, it. is incumbent on county leaders to advocate for state policy that supports the priorities of the residents of .lohnson County and :Iowa as a whole. Implementation: · Who is Responsible and Tnvolved Board of Supervisors · Cost Considerations None or minimal Expected Impact on Crowding Not possible to estimate these indirect impacts. policy that would have negative county impacts. Serves also as an effort "prevention" of Role of the Board of Supervisors Actively seek involvement of .]ohnson County's legislative delegation, the Governor's Office and state agencies, and the Towa State Association of Counties in ongoing policy planning, strategy development, and advocacy efforts. 30 3ail Space & Services Task Force 3ail Space and Services Process The process to provide the Johnson County Board of Supervisors with a public process yielding information and recommendations to aid them in policy decisions about jail space and services issues included a variety of key sets of activities. Among them were the public survey, resident issue discussions, stakeholder issue discussions, town meetings, information gathering and data analysis, and task force efforts. Task force activities and detailed agendas were not prescribed in advance to allow members to explore and deliberate on issues of their determination. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors contracted with State Public Policy Group, a policy development and issue management firm based in Des Moines, to design and implement the process spanning June 2002 through April 2003. State Public Policy Group was responsible to the Board of Supervisors to facilitate and coordinate activities to ensure timely delivery of a set of recommendations that reflect the ideas and opinions of the residents of Johnson County about issues related to jail space and services in light of overcrowding impacts and ongoing out- of-county housing of inmates. The process and activities were designed to create a cumulative base of information and shared knowledge by which recommendations could develop. June 3, 2002 Planning session with Board of Supervisors and County Officials facilitated by SPPG to determine categorical make-up of the Task Force and provide suggestions for the Resource Group. Also determined role to be played by the Board of Supervisors in serving as resource group members. June - July 2002 Background work and appointment of Task Force. SPPG developed a methodology by which Task Force members would be appointed. All but the citizen members were appointed by leaders among the categories determined by the Board of Supervisors. Citizens who submitted their names or were suggested by others were contacted by SPPG, submitted an application, and were interviewed. Overall balance in geographic, gender, cultural, and other considerations was sought. SPPG also used this time to review information from previous efforts, conduct interviews, tour the jail, and respond to media interest. June - August 2002 Issue Assessment. Activities by SPPG staff included gathering information about the issue, interviewing individuals with special knowledge of the issue, learning about the 2001 bond issue, talking with residents of Johnson County informally, touring the jail, and responding to media issues. Processes for keeping the Board of Supervisors, Task Force, and the public were also developed. Report & Recommendations July 31, 2002 First Task Force Meeting. Goals of the first meeting were to introduce members to one another's experiences and views as well as to provide some basic information about the issues to stimulate future Task Force efforts. July - December 2002 Review of existing data and models. The summer and fall months focused on gathering information, learning about the complexity of the issues, and looking outside Johnson County for potential models for solutions to overcrowding and budget issues. .July - October 2002 Survey of the public. Tn this broad effort to create a practical set of recommendations about the jail space and services, the Board of Supervisors sought information about public awareness and opinion of the issues. A survey provided early information on which other activities and discussion were based. SPPG designed and conducted the survey, tabulated results, analyzed data, and provided a written report. September 11, 2002 Task Force Meeting. Focused on information gathering regarding jail facility issues and arrest and incarceration data. October 9, 2002 Task Force Meeting. Focused on information gathering on budget and jail alternatives. October 2002 Survey results and analysis completed. November 13, 2002 Task Force Meeting. Focused on other counties and how they approach the issues. Survey findings presented. December 2002 Tssue discussions with residents. Based on the survey findings, three guided issue discussions, similar to a focus group, were held with small groups of :[0 - 15 residents invited from a random sample. The purpose was to probe more deeply into key questions raised by the survey findings. Sessions were held in locations across the county. December 2002 :Issue discussions with stakeholders. Similar to the resident guided issue discussions, the same key questions were posed in two sessions of stakeholders with professional or other expertise that added depth to the understanding of the issues. These were also limited in size and invitees were selected to provide a balance of views. 32 Jail Space & Services Task Force December 2002 Town meetings. Three town meetings were held to provide the general public an opportunity to come together for a facilitated discussion of key issues. Informative handouts were provided and specific questions were posed to provide the Task Force with the kind of input they were seeking from across the county. Open to the public, these were promoted through organizations and the media. December 11, 2002 Task Force Meeting. Continued information gathering, focused on alternatives. Public outreach and opinion results were presented to the Task Force. The "problem" (or problems) were framed for future consideration. Report format was reviewed and accepted. Dec. 2002-April 2003 Task Force deliberations and recommendations. Specific activities were determined by the Task Force as the process develops, facilitated and guided by SPPG toward creating a written product. January 8, 2003 February 12, 2003 Task Force IVleeting. Continued discussion of alternatives. Discussed ultimate goals of systemic change through recommendations in form of a vision scenario. Task Force Meeting. Draft recommendations developed by Task Force members were discussed and priorities established for a set of recommendations. March 2003 Draft Report. SPPG developed a draft report for review by the Task Force in preparation for the March meeting. March 12, 2003 Task Force Meeting. Discussion and conceptual acceptance, with revision, of the draft report and recommendations by the Task Force. April 9, 2003 Task Force Meeting. Final review and acceptance of the report, as well as discussion of how the message would be conveyed to the Board of Supervisors. April 30, 2003 Task Force report delivered to Board of Supervisors. Report & Recommendations 33 Appendices Recommendations Drafted by the Task Force Members (80+ of them) Selected Handouts from the Task Force Process (e.g. Neff on who is in the'jail, Sills alternatives list) United States Department of .lustice Report - Alleviating 3ail Crowding (web link) Links to Documents on the County Web Site · Task Force meeting notes · Survey report · Town meetings summary · Stakeholder summary · Public summary 34 3ail Space 8~ Services Task Force RE: Jail Task Force Alternatives Marian Kart From: J. Patrick White [jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:34 PM To: 'Sarah Dixon'; 'johnbalmer@plumbers-supply.com'; 'matt-blizek@uiowa.edu'; 'bobek. paul@iccsd.k12, ia.us'; 'john-chaisson@uiowa.edu'; 'madelko@southslope.net'; 'sleppie23@yahoo.com'; 'fitzmauricehil@aol.com'; 'richardgibson314@msn.com'; 'cgross@techiowa.com'; 'paul.delsie@mcleodusa.net'; 'brenda- hollingsworth@uiowa.edu'; 'destiny@zeus.ia.net'; 'phillip-jones@uiowa.edu'; 'rklausner@spd.state.ia.us'; 'jroberts@inav.net'; 'dan.j.schaapveld@doc.state.ia.us'; 'aschut@meccaia.com'; 'jbock@meccaia.com'; 'richard.sills@doc.state.ia.us'; 'john-stratton@uiowa.edu'; 'thompbobson@mchsi.com'; 'dwhiston@stthomasmoreic. com'; J. Patrick White; 'destiny14@mchsi.com'; 'reklausner@yahoo.com'; 'jlswyldegreen@aol.com'; 'ntrott1900@aol.com' Cc: Barry Bedford; 'candice.bennett@jb.state.ia.us'; 'Lodema. Berkley@jb.stateia.us'; Patrick Harney; Jeffrey Home; Tom Kriz; Mike Lehman; 'klogsden@icpl.org'; 'lubaroff@icpl.org'; 'dar-neff@inav.net'; Terrence Neuzil; Jean Schultz; 'dshorr@stanleyfdn.org'; 'auditor@pobox. com'; 'brettsobaski@yahoo.com'; Sally Stutsman; Mike Sullivan; Carol Thompson; Dave M Wagner; Jim Warkentin; RJ Winkelhake; 'janderson@ifbf. org'; 'PulkrabekL@aol.com'; 'Marian-Karr@iowa-city.org'; Arlinda McKeen; Lee Konfrst; Melisa Moore; Jim Addy; Tom Slater Subject: RE: Jail Task Force Alternatives See the attached memo for my comments on the 46-item so-called "jail alternatives." J. Patrick White Johnson County Attorney Johnson County Courthouse 417 South Clinton Street P.O. Box 2450 Iowa City, Iowa 52244-2450 Phone 319/339-6100 Fax 319/339-6149 jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us <<Jail Space Services Task Force Alternatives 3-6-03.doc>> *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IHPORTANT: Do net epen attachments from unrecognized senders *** 3/10/03 DATE: March 7, 2003 TO: Jail Space and Services Task Force RE: 46 so-called "Alternatives FROM: J. Patrick White Johnson County Attorney For some time you have heard reference to a list of 46 items presented by Richard Sills. These have been put fbrth as "no cost" viable approaches to our jail space and services charge. Several of you, and I have concurred, have asked when we would discuss that list. We never have. Now that list, without ever having been discussed, plays a rather significant role in the draft recommendations. The weight now being given to this undiscussed list is significantly misplaced. Thus, I submit these comments in the hope you will find time to read them before you approve the list, or significant parts of it, as anything approaching recommendations of significance. At Arrest Enhance fewer crimes to 2nd and 3rd offense (e.g., public intoxication, drug possession, domestic assault), as it increases the number of defendants held at initial appearance. a. Who can do this: Police departments, Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: For example, on 8/15/02 there were 7 pretrial detainees held on public intoxication 3rd alone. They were held 31 days on average. This cost $13,140, if they caused 7 other inmates to be moved to Linn County. I will resist, with everyfiber I can muster, the suggestion made here that we lighten up on domestic abuse. I find this item to be a shocking proposal to reduce consequences for repeat domestic abusers. I hope you will insist on a substantial analysis/discussion of domestic abuse before you endorse this proposal. Though the proposal doesn't specify whether it applies too to OWI's, I likewise would be shocked were that the direction you suggest. OW1 endangers larger numbers of people than any other crime. By the time it's committed a second, third or more times, the Defendant should indeed pay a greater penalty. I agree that we should attempt more with both public intoxication and drug possession defendants--in treatment opportunities. Possession of drugs is illegal--why should legislative policy regarding subsequent offenses be ignored? Who should make those decisions? Do you really want officers making those judgments at the time of arrest? Speaking only for myself, I think that would be a poor public policy. ° Always cite in simple misdemeanants who are no danger to themselves or others. a. Who can do this: Police departments b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: From 1/22/01 to 5/26/02, the ICPD arrested 1268 people for public intoxication, 83 of whom had no behavior report or were cooperative. This group includes candidates for cite and release. The others were either violent and disruptive, or required medical monitoring. Even the 83 arrest days this would supposedly save deserve closer examination. I don't claim to know those cases, but it is careless to conclude there was not an appropriate reason to arrest without more careful inquiry. This recommendation would have virtually no impact on jail crowding. Cite in more defendants, instead of taking them to jail, to reduce overcrowding the jail's detention area. a. Who can do this: Police departments, Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: From 12/19/02 to 1/17/03, the ICPD arrested and took to jail 36 people with Iowa residences for misdemeanors that were non-assaultive and non-alcohol. In 2000, the jail cited into court about 200 people who were age 18 to 20, were arrested for the first time here, and were mostly charged with drug possession. The arresting office could have done this instead. It is true that citation is an option available itt some cases. It is also true that no one can assure us that citation in more cases as an altemtative to arrest will have the same deterrent/public safety impact. Use summonses more often, instead of warrants, to reduce overcrowding the jail's detention area. a. Who can do this: Judges, police departments, Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: In 2000, 730 people were released at initial appearance after having been arrested on a warrant or, in some cases, picked up in less than a day if held for another county. A summons may have worked in many of these cases. It is simply unfair to the system to suggest that because there is no cost to the county, it is a good idea. More summonses would increase the work load (cosO for an already beleaguered Clerk of Court. We should be about assessing system cost and efficiency--not narrowly looking at county cost. Every arrest warrant is authorized by a judge. Book citable defendants at the police department, to reduce overcrowding the jail's small booking area. a. Who can do this: Police departments b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: See comments under At Arrest, item 3. Departmental booking is a step backward and a bad idea. Criminal history/records is a specialized area--and very important to the public. Expanding the criminal history function outside of the specialization at the Sheriff's department also increases the total system cost as other agencies take on that role. Charge a booking fee to the arresting agency when a defendant is taken to jail. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: Using arrest data from 2000, the yearly income would be $155,775, if the booking fee were $25 (arrests by the IHP and the JCSD were excluded). The fee could be assessed against the arresting agency or the person arrested. This is bad public policy. We have consolidated booking at the Johnson County Sheriff's Department--a forward-looking step. Society at all levels should be looking for ways to create economies of govermnental operation by consolidation. We have done it here on this point and there is no valid public policy reason to retrench. The apparent theory is that such a fee would reduce arrests. That theory assumes, incorrectly, that people are unnecessarily being arrested. I don't believe that's the case, with some minor exceptions. There certainly remains no evidence of that and no discussion has occurred at our meetings which supports that view. Submit police reports more quickly, to expedite cases through the system. a. Who can do this: Police departments b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: According to the Scott County case expeditor, police reports are submitted in two days there. According to a senior prosecutor here, our law enforcement agencies take from 2 to 6 days, and every agency has some officers who routinely take weeks. I welcome any expedition of reports consistent with thoroaghness and completeness. I've not spoken with Scott County for some time, but itt my opinion, reports submitted in 2 days are many times going to be incomplete. I continue also to fail to see how this will impact our jail situation. At Initial Appearance Set lower bond amounts, to increase the number of defendants who can afford release. a. Who can do this: Judges b. Cost to county: 0 As a practical matter, judges are evaluating the two criteria which go into this decision: 1) the likelihood that the person will appear for trial, and 2) public safety. A policy approach which ignores either wouM be completely inappropriate. I am having a difficult time discerning any policy rationale difference between this recommendation and one which would, for example, propose that bond be eliminated in its entirety. Change the pretrial interview policy to decrease bond recommendations and to increase recognizance and supervision recommendations. a. Who can do this: DCS b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: from October through December 2002, the DCS interviewed 292 defendants for pretrial release. Bond was recommended 35% of the time, with judges concurring 96% of the time. The same comments as I've made with regard to #1 above apply here. Obviously, more people could be released if bond is lowered or required. Again, however, Iowa statute requires that this be an evaluation of the likelihood that the person will appear and consideration for public safety. Policy which ignores those goals and is motivated only by getting more people out of the jail is wrong-headed. 3. Release all non-threatening misdemeanors if an Iowa resident. a. Who can do this: Judges Cost to county: 0 Number: From October through December 2002, the DCS interviewed 292 defendants for pretrial release. They were charged with felonies, aggravated misdemeanors, and assaultive serious misdemeanors. 45.5% of them were required to post bond at initial appearance. This recommendation fails to attempt a definition of "non-threatening". As I've said, the law considers public safety--that is a case-by-case evaluation. The fact that 45% of the 292 people interviewed for pretrial release were required to post bond indicates that the court felt there was a risk that the person would not appear or that public safety was implicated. The pool of people interviewed (292) would be but a small fraction of people the court saw at initial appearance during the three-month period referred to. Release all targeted felonies (e.g., forgery, drug offenses) if an Iowa resident with a limited criminal history (e.g., no prior felony convictions). a. Who can do this: Judges b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: See comments under At Initial Appearance, item 3. Who will decide what are the targeted felonies that require no bond? Does that include the person who by forgery defrauds the elderly victim out of many thousands of dollars? Does it include the person who manufactures or sells methamphetamine or cocaine? The category of drug offenses doesn't give much guidance, nor does it take into consideration the statutory requirements. This would be a good point for me to interject too that it is nafve to attribute no cost to the county to more people being released without bond. Inevitably, numbers of them will fail to appear, triggering more time, effort and expense on the part of the entire system. That's why the probability or the likelihood that the person will appear is a factor set by the legislature in deciding whether to require bond. o Follow-up on unverified pretrial interviews when defendants are held and report back to the Court when recommending release from jail. a. Who can do this: DCS b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: For three months in 2001, the DCS did this and otherwise coordinated the release of pretrial detainees, which took several hours weekly. Some were released on recognizance and some on supervision, the latter of whom caused the pretrial supervision caseload to increase from 60 to 82, an all-time high. That the pretrial supervision case load increased reflects the judge's good faith judgment that people being released needed help, guidance and supervision in order to reduce the risk of public safety and increase the likelihood that they would appear in court when require& This is certainly a cost to the system. I would agree, however, that if we had additional pretrial supervision resources that some increase couM be made in the number of persons released, consistent with the statutory goals. This would require increased staffing or budgeting with the Department of Correctional services, a state agency. o Do initial appearances twice daily, to reduce the number of hours defendants are held after arrest. a. Who can do this: Judges, Sheriff, DCS. b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: The limiting factor at present is a shortage of judges. Increasing to two times a day for initial appearances would have only a very slight impact on the jail population--saving but a few hours each day for a very small number of individuals. I don't agree at all that there is no cost to the county (and, as I've already indicated, I think that is an inappropriate measure). To do two initial appearances a day is certainly going to increase the cost to the Sheriff, who will have to set up twice instead of once, and it certainly will have an impact on judges' schedules and the ability to handle other matters. Thus, there is an inherent cost itt creating more times the court is on the bench. For Pretrial Detainees Start a diversion program (i.e., deferred prosecution, which Polk County does). a. Who can do this: County Attorney, judges b. Cost to county: 0 A diversion program certainly is an option. I don't think it is a particularly good one, and I certainly don't agree that there is no cost to the county. Deferred prosecution is a means of probation which someone needs to monitor or supervise. I have maintained that there is no reason for deferred prosecution given the availability of deferred judgments. A person who obtains a deferred judgment can, upon successful completion of probation, have his or her record expunged. That is not substantially different than the goal achieved by a deferred prosecution program. My personal belief, and there certainly is room for those who disagree, is that those persons who commit crimes should be seen in court. It is my opinion that a greater deterrent and rehabilitative value is obtained from a person who has to appear in front o fa judge and face the consequences for their behavior rather than be handled informally. Enhance fewer crimes to 2nd and 3rd offense (e.g., public intoxication, drug possession, domestic assault) at arraignment, as it increases the time spent resolving cases. a. Who can do this: County Attorney b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: See comments under At Arrest, item 1. I've spoken earlier to my opposition and reservation to this enhancement recommendation and it applies as well at the arraignment stage. Plea bargain at the arraignment, instead of at the pretrial conference months later. a. Who can do this: County Attorney, defense attorneys, judges b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: The Polk County Attorney does this on pretrial detainees, assigning the task to a senior prosecutor, to reduce overcrowding in the jail. We are available now for plea discussions at arraignment. We are always present for arraignments and the attorneys at arraignment have authority to make decisions. As a matter of fact, an admittedly small number of defendants--but some--enter into a plea and sentencing at arraignment. As a practical matter, however, defendants who are represented by counsel are not likely to be interested in pleading at arraignment in that the attorney needs the opportunity to evaluate the case, the evidence and their client's sentencing prognosis. I agree that any increase in the number of pleas and especially sentences achieved at arraignment would be an improvement. I don't think it will have much impact on jail crowding in that the cases which lend themselves to pleading and sentencing at arraigmnent are seldom cases where the defendant is incarcerated. I would agree there would be some, but not many. Expedite cases. a. Who can do this: County Attorney, defense attorneys, judges b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: The county attorneys in Polk and Scott County fast-track cases on pretrial Detainees to reduce overcrowding in their jails. From January through November 2002, 50% of the disposed felony cases in Johnson County had been pending for 12 or more months. Some of these defendants were held in jail during that time. I'm a little weary of Polk and Scott Counties being cited as exemplars. Both of them have even more serious crowding problems than we do. Scott County has been transporting prisoners to states other than Iowa. Polk County has been using tractor-trailers of some sort to house prisoners and is required to house prisoners in many, many locations. I would be interested in a comparison of recidivism statistics between Johnson, Polk and Scott, if Polk and Scott are to be exemplars for how cases should be handled. A fair evaluation should try to identify the respective rates of repeat offenders in situations where handling differs significantly. It is not sufficient to lead to a conclusion so say that some defendants were held in jail during that time--we need to know how many, and what cases, and why. I don't disagree that a felony case pending for twelve or more months is a long time and it continues to happen. I believe that judges are sometimes not as resolute as they should be in granting continuances; however, in fairness, one of the reasons is that it is extremely difficult to tell a defendant they're going to trial in the face of their request for more time. That will always become an appeal point in the face ora conviction and, for a trial judge to grant a continuance is safer in avoiding appellate issues. Itt any event, you cannot make the sort of generic, across-the-board analysis that has been made to us. You must look at each case and evaluate the reasons for the length of time each case has taken. Expedite cases on probationers with new charges. a. Who can do this: County Attorney, defense attorneys, DCS b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: On 8/15/02 there were 17 probationers in jail with new charges. It is att oversimplification to say that you can expedite cases on probationers with new charges. That actually complicates the decision-making, both for the defense and the prosecution. People who are probationers in jail have the probability of substantial jail or prison time and defense attorneys often want to sort through that very carefully rather than quickly pacMng their clients off to prison. Screen the jail population weekly to identify candidates for release. a. Who can do this: County Attorney, Public Defender, DCS b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: Polk County, which has a larger jail population, does this daily. I don't disagree that screening thejailpopulation weeMy is appropriate, but I disagree that it is cost-free to the county. Assuming that screening wouM require time from jail staff or the county attorney's staff, there is a definite cost. That sort of screening would also require staff from the Department of Correctional Services, which is a state cost and should be considered in any evaluation. o Screen probation/parole violators weekly to identify candidates for release. a. Who can do this: DCS b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: On 8/15/02 there were 13 probation/parole violators in jail without new charges. See #6 above. 8. Arrange prompt substance abuse and psychiatric evaluations at the jail, as the release of some inmates is contingent on these evaluations. a. Who can do this: MECCA, Community Mental Health Center b. Cost to county: Unknown c. Number: During two weeks in 2000, everyone arrested in Johnson County was tested for drugs; 51.1% tested positive. 76.4% of the charges during this time involved drugs or alcohol. Those who had used drugs in the last year were significantly more likely to have mental health concerns, and those who had ever used drugs were significantly more likely to have consulted a mental health professional at some time. I support the recommendation forprompt substance abuse andpsychiatric evaluations at the jail, not just to expedite release but to expedite programming and treatment. This recommendation is far from cost-free and it is a disservice to our process simply to say it is unknown. I agree also that the two-week survey in 2000 confirms that people in jail have a high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse. Those are reasons for crime which society fails adequately to address. The more programming which can be established to address substance abuse and mental health issues, the better off we will be. It has been my feeling that this is exactly the sort of programming which should be done at or within the jail and I concur that it is appropriate to explore in more detail how that could be done and the cost of it. But the fact it that there are some limitations on our ability to do that sort of program in the jail which hopefully a new or redesigned jail would adequately take into consideration. Have district associate judges do informal bond reviews on D felonies after arraignment, to speed up the scheduling of such hearings and the possible release of inmates. a. Who can do this: The Chief District Court Judge must authorize this. b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: An informal bond review can be done the next day; the alternative, a formal bond review, is done several days later. This recommendation wouldn't even require district associate judges to do the informal bond reviews as they could be handled by district judges as well. Our district judges have for some time had exclusive statutory authority over most Class D felonies and more recently they have chosen to exercise control over Class D felonies (OW1 3fa) which could legally be handled by district associate judges. They are always engaged in an on-going process of assessing work loads and allocating responsibilities. I agree that informal bond reviews have had a positive operational impact and that it would be productive to use those at the district court level as well. However, in almost every case, by the time a district court arraignment arrives, the defendant has had multiple opportunities to have bond considered in that bond was considered at initial appearance, the opportunity was therefor an informal bond review before the trial information was filed and the opportunity for a formal bond review before the trial information was filed. Bond is also reviewed by the district court judge who approves the felony trial information, so adding informal bond reviews after felony arraignments would be the fifth opportunity to review bond, and I don't think we would find much gain in terms of our jail population. 10. Have the district court judges do informal bond reviews during daily order hour, to speed up the scheduling of such hearings and the possible release of inmates. a. Who can do this; Judges b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: An informal bond review can be done the next day; the alternative, a formal bond review, is done several days later. I concur with this recommendation--but again don't think it will have any significant impact on our jail population. I also disagree that there is no cost to the county. Any time another court appearance is scheduled, there is cost to that--both direct cost and effective cost based on time taken from something else. That is not to say that l disagree with this idea, only that in the overloaded system that exists, almost nothing is cost-free. 11. Expedite release orders getting from the judge to the jail. a. Who can do this: Clerk of Court b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: Occasionally, an inmate is held overnight because the release order does not get from the courthouse to the jail. This is especially unfortunate when it occurs before a weekend or a holiday. Everyone who participates in the system makes their best, good faith effort to expedite release orders. It is true that occasionally an inmate wouM be held overnight because the order does not make it to the jail. This wouM occur if an order is signed late itt the day, perhaps near or · after the clerk's office has been closed orperhaps near or after the jail representative has been to the clerk's office for the final time that day to pick up documents intended for it. I don't think there is much to be done other than to reinforce the goal of expedition, and I know of no one in the system who seeks anything other than expedition; thus, this will have very little impact. 12. Contact defendants failing to appear to arrange their turning themselves in. This increases the number of defendants who are promptly released from jail thereafter, as they show that their failing to appear was inadvertent and was not at attempt to avoid prosecution. a. Who can do this: Defense attorneys b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: On 8/15/02 there were 5 inmates in jail for failing to appear only. We have actually implemented an attempt to contact defendants who have failed to appear. We have involved the local law enforcement agencies and out-of-state agencies, and our success rate so far is about 20%. That is after almost six months of activity on our part. I can certainly speak to the fact that it is not cost-free. We are now devoting approximately one- fourth to one-third of the time of one of our legal assistants to this activity and that means she is not available to do other types of work, which we certainly have. I have made a judgment that trying to get failures to appear who are truly inadvertent (and even some who may not be) located quickly is a good idea and, for the present time, we intend to continue that effort. 13. Start an intensive pretrial program. a. Who can do this: Board of Supervisors, DCS b. Cost to county: $268,350 first year (that is, $36.76 a day for one inmate), less in subsequent years c. Number: This would free up 20 beds daily on average. I have been supportive of the idea of an intensivepretrial releaseprogram. Theproposal which th~ Department of Correctional Services made to the Board of Supervisors is illustrative, however, of the cost considerations--S36. 76per day for someone who is not incarcerated is a ~ but I trust reflects the judgment of DCS about the necessary staff and programming. As I recall the Sheriff's reservation about the value of this expenditure, it was that people under intensive pretrial supervision would likely not be those in maximum security cells, but more likely those in medium security and, although there was an agreement that the program target was 10-20 beds, he didn't see that it would have impact on the real crux of the problem, which is maximum security beds. I still think this is a good idea, but the cost ought to give the Task Force pause about proposing solutions without adequate information. 14. Start a day reporting program. a. Who can do this: Sheriff, DCS b. Cost to county: Unknown I agree that a day reportingprogram is a good idea. It is, however, only successful if adequately staffed and housed. 15. Prioritize presentence investigations on inmates. a. Who can do this: DCS b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: There are one or two monthly, and making them a priority would save about 21 bunk-days each time. I agree thatfasterpresentence investigations would save some jail space and would be a worthy goal. 16. Do the mandatory presentence investigation on inmates after sentencing when the sentence is uncontested. a. Who can do this: Judges, County Attorney, defense attorney b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: This would save 45 bunk-days each time. This one is more complicated. The sentencing may well be uncontested between the defendant and the county attorney, but the court should not automatically or always accept that position. Oftentimes the presentence investigation will be critical to the court in determining whether to accept a plea agreement or as to what sentence to impose. At Sentencing Never recommend or sentence simple misdemeanants to jail, unless there are compelling Reasons to do so. a. Who can do this: County Attorney, judges b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: There were only a few such sentences in 2000. I don't frankly understand how this would be any different. Simple misdemeanants are not sentenced to jail now unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Whether there are compelling reasons becomes a subjective determination of the court and the sentencing decision is made by a magistrate or district associate judge. Rarely recommend or sentence non-assaultive, indictable misdemeanants to jail. a. Who can do this: County Attorney, judges b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: From May through June 2001, the jail averaged 10 male inmates daily who were Serving more than 7 days for non-assaultive crimes (includes OWI 3rd). And using data from 2 or 4 months in 2001, the jail averaged 4.2 inmates daily who were serving less than 7 days for drunk driving or drug possession. Many serious and aggravated misdemeanants deserve and need jail time as part of getting their attention or accelerating their attitudes toward not repeating the offenses or the rehabilitative process. OWI 3rds are non-assaultive but they are highly dangerous and Iowa law prescribes jail as an option instead of a prison sentence. Given the crowding of our prison systems, it frequently takes a fourth OW1 offense to earn a prison sentence while we attempt to avoid future offenses with a jail sentence. I personally think if we had more severe penalties for first and second offenses we would reduce our repeat offender rate--but I'm not suggesting that we have the space or capacity to implement that recommendation. I find it far too simplistic and lenient to recommend that non-assaultive indictable misdemeanants be more rarely sentenced to jail than is presently the case. Not very many of them are presently sentenced to jail--at least for a first violation of the law. One of the philosophies that I think the court, and I believe the Department of Correctional Services, should pay more attention to is that if we would concentrate resources on first offenders, we would often save a variety of future offenses. That would involve more substance abuse treatment, more probation supervision, more anger management and more of other programming. Fine or order community service rather than jail more defendants for contempt. a. Who can do this: Judges b. Cost to county: 0 10 We could, as a practical matter, always reduce the number of defendants sentenced to jail for contempt. This recommendation seems to have merit only if there are current cases where the court is ordering defendants to jail for contempt unnecessarily. While beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, people who are itt contempt of court often deserve to be punished in a way that has meaning and oftentimes meaning comes from some period of jail incarceration. This would be a recommendation too where I don't agree that there is no cost to the county in that I think ultimately a more lenient approach is going to foster yet more contempt, larger numbers and amounts of fines are going to cause yet more uncollectable amounts and more time and expense to collect them. Reduce jail recommendations and sentences by 10 or 20 percent. a. Who can do this: County Attorney, judges b. Cost to county: 0 This one is almost hard to believe. Why not thirty or forty percent? Why not by half? Why not eliminate jail in 80% of the cases? I agree that it is certainly possible to reduce jail recommendations and sentences in many cases, but, as I stated in my e-mail to the Task Force members the other day, I have yet to see cases presented where people are in jail who don't need to be or in jail for periods longer titan they need to be. Arbitrary judgments can be made to reduce jail time, but those have little to do with public safety and constitute, I believe, an irrational and dangerous idea. Increase sentencing options--e.g., work crews, OWl Weekend Program a. Who can do this: DCS, Sheriff, County Attorney b. Cost to county: The DCS can provide supervised work crews at no cost. And Kirkwood College offers the OWI Weekend Program at no cost. I agree that we should seek to increase sentencing options and I agree that work crews, an OW1 Weekend Program and others are viable options. I find it hard to believe that DCS could provide supervised work crews for additional individuals at no cost. The Kirkwood College OW1 Weekend Program is certainly at no cost--it is at a substantial cost to the participants and, once again, I have concerns about the indigent person. I think there are viable sentencing options--not significantly different--but I surely am not nafve enough to think that they are going to be at no cost to the county. I hope to have time to address those in a separate memo to the Task Force. Allow community service instead of jail for drunk driving and drug possession. a. Who can do this: Judges, County Attorney, Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: See comments under At Sentencing, item 2. It is possible to allow some community service itt some cases, but the legislature has set mandatory minimum jail sentences for both of these offenses which need to be served unless the person is given a deferred judgment and probation--which is, in fact, often given already. I am a supporter of more community service, but again, I have no illusions about that being cost-free. One of the reasons that community service fails so often now and creates yet more prosecutor and court time is that people too often fail to do community service unless it has 11 been organized and supervised for them. A viable community service program needs to have management and oversight and reporting and trackhtg, and somebody needs to pay for that. Jail Cite in more defendants, to reduce overcrowding the detention area. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 I've already discussed citations. The detention area is not nearly the most serious jail capacity problem. I certainly agree that the detention area and the booking area need improvement and a new facility or revised facility wouM be designed in a very different way. Neither do I agree this is cost-free--even to the county. Install an ATM and a credit card machine, to make it easier for defendants to post bond and thereby get out of jail. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost of county: $538.75 for a credit card machine. I'd have more confidence in this as an approach if ATM/credit cards weren't at such a high interest rate. I have no particular reason to argue against this, but it is going to be of very modest help considering the already widespread availability o fA TMs and credit card machines. In point of fact, I think it is possible to do this without cost to the county. Sell phone cards to inmates, to make it easier for them to get out of jail with help from relatives and friends. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 Selling phone cards is not without cost. Someone would have to administer that program and while the cost may be minimal, there will be some cost. Again, I have no particular objection to this, although I think the county getting itt the business of selling phone cards is a bit problematic. Classify inmates differently to reduce maximum-security inmates. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 It is certainly true that you could arbitrarily reduce the persons classified as maximum- security as an artificial device to reduce the crowding in that section of the jail. No one has presented to this Task Force evidence that the current classification system unfairly or unreasonably or inaccurately classifies inmates. 5. Calculate credit for time served differently. a. Who can do this: Judges, Sheriff, County Attorney 12 b. Cost to county: 0 I don't understand this recommendation. Elaboration is necessary to explain what would be calculated differently. o Increase good-time percentage. a. Who can do this: Sheriff, judges b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: Sentenced prisoners serving 30+ day sentences can apply to the Jail Administrator for good time reduction. If the Jail Administrator and Sheriff concur, their recommendation is made to the judge that the sentence be reduced by 20%. If the reduction were increased to 40%, 1.8 beds per day would be freed up. Amount of credit given for good time should be rationally related to the individual's behavior. Increasing the good time percentage to forty- percent strikes me as far too much. I have been a proponent of a prison system which allows people sentenced to prison to earn time rather than automatically being credited for time. Within the jail context it is more difficult to administer a meaningful good time system. No one has presented any information or suggestion that the good time system currently used in the county jail has unfairly penalized people, nor is there evidence that moving it to forty percent would in any way improve jail behavior or discipline. One of the shortcomings in the sentencing process in many locations, including Iowa, relative to prison sentences is what I call "truth in sentencing." People will have more confidence in the process and feel better if, when a judge imposes a sentence, they know that the judge says what he or she means and means what he or she says. Liberal good time systems undercut the credibility of the process. Twenty percent is adequate; forty percent would be unnecessary and not truthful to the victims or the public. Approve more inmates for work release. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: Sentenced inmates in jail less than 7 days used 6.3 beds daily in 2000. Under present policies these inmates do not quality for work release. Certainly more people could be placed on work release. It is completely inaccurate to say that there is no cost to the county. A meritorious work release program needs staff; it needs someone to administer; it needs tracking; it needs communication and coordination. Sentences of less that seven days would be a reasonable line to draw with regard to work release. I acknowledge that some flexibility exists for reducing that threshold, but it needs to be costed out and the additional administration provided. The physical act of releasing someone from the jail is a cost in and of itself, and so it is simply inaccurate to say there is no cost. ° Resume sending inmates to the OWI Weekend Program. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 c. Number: This would free up 22 bunk-days monthly. 13 It is simply untrue that the Sheriff can resume sending inmates to the OW1 Weekend Program. On this point, I have sharp disagreement with the judges who authorized the Sheriff,, I believe completely illegally and outside the bounds of statute. There is no authority to allow people sentenced to jail terms to spend those terms in a motel. Ironically, this is an option that I think shouM be pursued more seriously, but the mechanism wouM be a minimum-security facility, probably overseen and managed by the Sheriff, designated as an alternative jail. Sheriff's oversight and management is not essential to an alternative jail, but I think helpful. In any event, it is not cost-free. Someone has to administer an 0 WI Weekend Program or an alternative jail. Some of the cost undoubtedly can be defrayed by charging the persons using that program. Once again, however, I'm concerned that provision would need to be made for persons who cannot realistically afford that cost--probably by the county funding their attendance. Give judges, County Attorney, Public Defender and DCS weekly reports on jail population. a. Who can do this: Sheriff b. Cost to county: 0 Even something as mundane as weekly reports on jail population has some incremental cost to the county. My office receives daily reports on jail population now, and I'm not sure what this recommendation envisions adding to that. Whether this is a recommendation of any significance probably depends upon what the reports contain and the recommendation is, of course, silent on that. Other Open a jail annex similar to that in Muscatine--a pole building holding 32 inmates. a. Who can do this: Board of Supervisors, Sheriff b. Cost to county: The 2001 operating budget of the Muscatine County Jail Annex was $240,609. During that year the annex collected $78,000 in work-release fees, for a net budget of $162,609-- that is, they spent $13.92 a day to hold one inmate. c. Number: This would free up 32 beds daily. I agree that a jail annex or alternative jail is an option we should explore. Unfortunately, my own expectation was that this Task Force would do so and, obviously, it has not. I think it is disingenuous of us to have spent so much time and effort and to have produced very little itt the way of concrete or specific recommendations. I don't know enough about the operation of Muscatine County to be able to make a judgment. I'm not particularly enthused by a pole building in that I think people in a jail annex need to be treated fairly and decently. I would be happy to spend additional time hearing about the operation of the Muscatine pole building and attempting to review whether it has any applicability to our current situation. I'm at a complete loss to understand how the recommendation would conclude that Johnson County could free up 32 beds with such a building. Start a permanent criminal justice coordinating committee, to promote justice, efficiency, and protection of the community. a. Who can do this: Board of Supervisors b. Cost to county: A part-time cmployee may be needed to collect, distribute and analyze data. 14 Number: A committee such as this is an intergovernmental and interagency group. It could be limited to representatives from the Board of Supervisors, judiciary, county attorney, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and DCS; or it could also include representatives from treatment agencies, service agencies, and the public. While I have no strong objection to a permanent criminal justice coordinating committee, we attempted the equivalent of that over two months and concluded that it was not a good use of our time because, although we met weekly and discussed the entire jail population, we identified a very small number of situations where we could accelerate or impact the population. This working group included the then-Chair of the Board of Supervisors, the County Attorney, the Public Defender, Department of Correctional Services and the jail itself. Mr. Sills was the DCS representative and I think I recall clearly DCS concurring in the notion that we were not finding people who were in jail who did not have to be and that our jail was full of people who belonged there. I historically am an advocate of intergovernmental cooperation and so, as I have said, I wouldn't have any objection to this; however, our experience has been that it will not be of particular value--for a very important reason. We concluded in part that much of the communication that would come out of this sort of coordinating group was already occurring in Johnson County and that we had a well above- average level of communication among all of the parties in the system to accomplish all of our goals, including minimizing the jail population in any case where that could be done. 15 MINUTES ECONOMI'C DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE THURSDAYf FEBRUARY 20f 2003 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM CI'VI'C CENTER APPROVED IPIO Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: City Council Members Present: Others Present: CALL TO ORDER Ernie Lehman, Ross Wilburn, Dee Vanderhoef None Steve Atkins, Karin Franklin, Steve Nasby Chambers Irvin Pfab Nancy Quellhorst, Terri Morrow and Matt Ernie Lehman called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF .1ANUARY 16, 2003 Minutes were approved as submitted. All in favor 3-0. OTHER BUSINESS Nasby reported that the CDBG application from Big Mama's BBQ was verbally withdrawn and he is awaiting written confirmation. He stated that Big Mama's BBQ was looking into a different location and a smaller operation that may allow the owner to finance the project without CDBG. Lehman said that he had gotten a letter from Eagles that stated that the company planned on fulfilling lease obligations through 2005. The Council ED committee set the next two meeting dates. On February 27, 2003 the ED committee would have a special meeting to discuss the proposed Pepperwood TIF district. In addition, the committee agreed to move their regular March meeting up one week to March 13. PRESENTATION - WORKPLACE LEARNING CONNECTION Nancy Quellhorst showed a power point presentation to the committee on the activities of the Workplace Learning Connection. The largest component of their program is job matching. Quellhorst said that they offer high school juniors the opportunity to refine their future job or career choices by matching the students with employers that apply knowledge or skill sets the students have identified as their areas of interest. Quellhorst said that the Iowa City program has grown significantly over the last few years with the total number of students participating in their programs has topped 2,000. She said that the learning experiences gained by students, employers and adult participants have benefited all parties and exceeded the program goals. PEPPERWOOD MALL TIF REQUEST Nasby noted that a letter and conceptual drawings were included in the committee's packets and that Terri Morrow, Southgate Development Company, was present to answer questions. Morrow made a brief presentation to the committee that outlined Southgate's proposed redevelopment plans for the mall, the parking area and access from Highway 6. Franklin asked if Southgate has discussed the proposed plans with Iowa State Bank and Trust Company as the concept drawing changes the access point on Keokuk Street. Morrow said that they have had Economic Development Committee Minutes Page 2 discussions with the bank regarding the access and possible reconfiguration of space around the bank. Lehman noted that this is an area that is need of re-development. He said that a TIF similar to the one for Sycamore Mall would seem to be appropriate. Vanderhoef and Wilburn acknowledged. Morrow said that she was familiar with the Sycamore Mall TIF agreement. Staff said that the next step would be for the committee to discuss the boundaries of a potential TIF district and that this district could be for Pepperwood Mall only or it could include a larger commercial area. The ED committee decided to schedule a special meeting on February 27, 2003 and asked staff to prepare information on a proposed TIF area. SYCAMORE\FIRST AVENUE TIF EXPANSION Nasby said that a map showing the proposed expansion was included in the ED packets and the majority of the expansion included Oral B and Mid-American. He noted that the impetus for the expanded area came from the committee's discussion on public improvements in the area and the potential for funding these improvements with TIF monies. Nasby said that the majority of TIF funds in this district are committed to the Sycamore Mall for about the next six years and that few TIF funds would be currently available for public improvements. Vanderhoef said that Kirkwood would be making changes on their campus and felt that expanding the TTF to include this additional area was needed. The ED committee directed staff to pursue the expansion of the Sycamore\First Avenue TIF as presented on the map. AD.]OURNMENT Ernie Lehman adjourned the meeting at :~0:05 AM. ****NEXT MEETING WILL BE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003 AT 3:30 PM.***** shared on citynt/pcd/minutes/edc/edc02-20-03.doc City of Iowa City Human Service Agency Funding Recommendations for FY04 Recommendations March 13, 2003 by Champion and Vanderhoef. As recommended by Councilors Connie Champion and Dee Vanderhoef Difference FY03-FY04 FY04 Recommendation Increase/ % Iowa City % Decrease% contributes to $ Increase/ Increase/ AGENCY FY02 Actual FY03 Actual FY02-FY03 FY04 Request $ % total bud,qet** Decrease Total Decrease Arc + $0 $0 NA $2,00(} $2,000 100.0 0.13 Bi9 Brothers/Big Sisters 41,011 41,011 0.0 42,241 1,230 3.0 13.00 Crisis Center 40,600 40,600 0.0 41,818 1,218 3.0 9.00 Domestic Violence Intervention 54,256 54,256 0.0 56,968 2,712 5.0 10.20 Elder Services, Inc. 62,063 62,063 0.0 65,00(} 2,937 5.0 5.10 ~O~ /o~.., ~-~ Emergency Housin~l Project 10,000 14,000 40.0 56,00(} 42,000 300.0 9.90 4-C's (Comm. Coord. Child Care)+ 0 0 NA 6,00(} 6,000 100.0 1.00 Free Medical Clinic 6,284 6,584 4.7 6,913 329 5.0 2.00 I-IACAP 8,635 8,635 0.0 8,635 0 0.0 0.005 ICARE 11,000 9,350 -15.0 10,935 1,585 17.0 5.00 I~YEP 43,483 43,483 0.0 47,000 3,517 8.0 8.70 I~ECCA 29,962 29,962 0.0 31,46(} 1,498 5.0 0.60 Neighborhood Centers 62,856 62,856 Q0 72,284 9,428 15.0 4.80 Rape Victim Advocacy 14,850 12,200 -17.8 12,81(} 610 5.0 3.00 Red Cross 5,50C 5,500 0.0 6,038 538 5.0 1.80 United Action for Youth ! 65,00C 65,000 0.0 68,25(} 3,250 5.0 5.00 Youth Homes + C 0 NA 2,00C 2,000 10Q0 0.12 $455,500 $455,500 0.0 $536,352 $80,852 17.8 NA ~/~' Contingency Fund $10,000 * $10,000 0.0 $465,500 $465,000 0.0 + denotes new request for city funding Contingency Fund is carried over from previous FY if not expended In FY02 a one time donation ($62,000+) was made to the American Red Cross for disaster relief on the East Coast. *$7,500 was committed to the STAR Grant as a cash match in FY03 (with City Manager's approval) **Percentage based on request and projected budget for FY04 jccoghs/Fund Rec0mm FY04-1C.xls 1/6/2003 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003 - 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Robnett, Mark Anderson, Alan Ellis, Baron Thrower, Rick Mascari STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the January 6 and January 9, 2003, Commission meetings were approved as submitted. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Mascari made a motion to pay the bills. Ellis seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 --0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION -ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Larry Blake, from Hills Bank, and Ron Duffe, from Jet Air, presented information. Hills Bank would like to have a customer appreciation day at the Airport. The day would have an aviation theme. He said they have the basic idea and would have to decide what specific events to have if the Commission approved use of the facilities. O'Neil told Blake that the Commission had an application form for use of airport property. O'Neil said he would send them an application. O'Neil suggested a Young Eagles event could be scheduled in conjunction with the event. Dick Blum, from H.R. Green, said there is a power point presentation on the history of the Airport. O'Neil introduced Dave Hughes, from Earth Tech. O'Neil said Earth Tech is the engineering firm working on the Mormon Trek project. He said Hughes was in town and decided to attend the Commission meeting in case there were any questions about the road project. Mascari asked how long Runway 36 would have to be closed while the earthwork is being done on the road? Hughes said it would probably take about a week and would most likely be in the early Fall. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: Environmental Assessment project - Blum said that the project is moving forward. Most of the technical information had been compiled and the noise study is being completed. Blum said that work is being completed on the issue of the Airport being a historic district. He said Green's investigation has convinced them that there may be historic buildings but not a historic district. Mark Schenkelberg, the FAA Environmental Planner, will be visiting Iowa City to discuss the issues. Blum said H.R. Green is on schedule to meet the timeline that was discussed at the meeting with the FAA in Kansas City in December. All of the information is to be in Kansas City by April in order to make the deadline for FY 2003 grant funding. Blum said there was a noise study done about 16 years ago. Sensors were set in neighborhoods around the Airport and a noise concern was identified. The noise study indicated that the City buses produced more noise in the neighborhoods than any aircraft. b= Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) February report - Tracy Overton, from Iowa Realty, presented information to the Commission. He said the restrictive covenants were passed by the City Council and now it was time to lease and sell the property. Mascari asked about the building restrictions for a potential ILS? O'Neil said that the required air space study application must note that any structure must be reviewed as to its effect on navigational aids. An air space study must be completed before a building permit is issued. Overton said he is in active negotiations with one potential tenant and there have been several serious inquiries. Overton said that with the fill dirt activity, people are making more inquiries. He said the prices range from $3.00 per square foot to $4.50 per square foot, depending on the size of the lot. Obstruction mitigation project- Anderson said this issue would be deferred. He could not meet with the project manager from Stanley. Mike Donnelly was out of the U.S. for a while on another project. d. Hagen property- Bob Downer was introduced. He represents Ann Hargrave, owner of Hargrave-McEleney, Inc. Ann Hargrave was also present. Downer said Hargrave-McEleney was interested in a parcel of property that the Airport purchased as part of their land acquisition project a couple of years ago. The preference would be for Hargrave to buy the property, as opposed to leasing it. Downer said there might be interest also in the property west of the Hagen property. Hargrave asked about restrictions on the property. O'Neil said that the total parcel was purchased even though not all of it was needed for the Runway Protection Zone. The owner wanted to sell the entire parcel and the FAA agreed to participate in the purchase. If the Commission wanted to sell the parcel, a release would need to be obtained from the FAA. O'Neil said that if the back portion of the lot was sold or leased, an easement for an access drive could be given across the front portion of the property. If the front part of the lot inside the RPZ is outside the Obstacle Free Area extended, it may be possible to lease it for parking. O'Neil said the easiest way to get an idea of whether or not a project is feasible is to send in an airspace study application. Anderson asked what length of lease would be wanted if the property is leased? Hargrave said she had not considered that yet. Ellis asked if the property would have to be sold through a realtor? O'Neil said the property could be sold in-house. An appraisal would be done and the price negotiated. The first decision would have to be if the Commission wanted to recommend to the Council to sell the property. A grant assurance waiver like that received for the Aviation Commerce Park would have to be applied for. The final decision to sell the property would be made by the Council. If the property is leased, that would be a Commission decision. Robnett said she wanted to make sure the property is not needed for the safety area if an ILS is installed on Runway 25. Robnett said if the property was not needed for the safety area, she would be inclined to lease it as opposed to selling it. Mascari agreed with Robnett. Anderson and Ellis said they would probably recommend selling the property. Thrower said he would like more time to study the issue. Strategic planning - subcommittee - Robnett said she did not have anything new to report. She said AlP funding could be applied for to pay for the strategic plan. O'Neil said funding for planning grants could be reimbursed. Construction projects can not. O'Neil said that funding requests for FY 2003 AlP money were due several months ago. He said that of the projects that the Commission is asking funding for, the planning project would be a Iow priority. O'Neil said he thought the Commission should definitely ask for funding, but based on past experience, he did not think a grant would be offered. Anderson suggested O'Neil and Dulek review the contract as soon as it is received from Airport Business Solutions. O'Neil said he would circulate the contract to the Commission when he receives it from ABS and the Commission should send him their comments as soon as they have time to review it. When the contract is approved, the Notice to Proceed can be issued. Robnett said the Commission needs to discuss the selection of a facilitator. She said the University of Iowa Institute of Public Affairs might have a facilitator. Ellis said there should be at least two public meetings to receive input. Robnett said she was concerned about the costs over the $15,000 base cost. Ellis said that the cost for travel and other expenses would be up to 20% or up to $3000. Ellis said he has discussed this with ABS and they will try to keep costs down as much as possible. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Anderson asked O'Neil if any repairs had been done to the DTN weather computer? O'Neil said a new data box was installed. Anderson asked about the Mayor's request to inquire about moving the manager's office to the Terminal Building? O'Neil said he was working on a plan to provide office space for the Civil Air Patrol and for making the airport manager's office more visible and assessable. The manager's office and airport operations would be moved to Building D and the CAP would move to the manager's office in Building G. Baron suggested writing a letter to Jet Air, asking if they would be willing to release some of the office space in the Terminal. O'Neil will send a letter to Jet Air. Thrower said there might be some money through FEMA to pay for some office space in relation to Homeland Security. Mascari and Thrower will be a subcommittee to investigate what might be needed for community service groups involved with Homeland Security. Anderson said it has been an interesting six years and although he did not reapply for the Commission, he planned to stay active in Airport issues. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mascari said he wants written confirmation from the FAA that the City can put a road along the south property line of the Airport. Ellis said he has that same concern and wanted to know if the City would compensate the Airport for use of that property? O'Neil will send a letter or e-mail and ask the FAA for written confirmation of Mascari's concern. The road is displayed on the ALP, which is approved by the FAA. Mascari said the Commission should limit the number of lots to be sold in the ACP. He said the Commission should sell enough to be in the black and then lease the rest. He said the Commission needs to know how much the Council thinks the Commission needs to pay back. Mascari said the numbers given by the City Manager were not what the Commission thought was owed. O'Neil will ask the City Manager for a budget report. Robnett said those numbers are important for the strategic plan. Mascari said the Commission should strongly consider selling enough property to pay off the debt and enough to purchase an ILS. He said he was in a meeting with the FAA when they said they would not object to Iowa City purchasing their own ILS. Blum said the issue is not purchasing the ILS, but the ongoing cost of maintenance. The ILS that the Commission researched would not be maintained by the FAA. Ellis said that should be reviewed with the strategic planning. Ellis presented Anderson with a plaque for his six years of service and thanked him for his service and dedication to the Airport. Mascari asked about advertising the Airport, somewhat like the Library advertises. Robnett said that is an issue that will be discussed with the business plan. Mascari asked what IOW Aero is doing with Building D? O'Neil said it is being used to store aircraft. Mascari wanted to know if there was any lease violations? O'Neil said IOW is in compliance with their lease. Mascari wanted to know if there was anything that could be used in front of his t-hanger for ice control. He said it is difficult to move aircraft by hand when there is ice on the ramp. O'Neil said he does not use salt because it is too corrosive to aircraft and he does not use sand because pilots complain that it damages the propellers. Robnett said the Commission would need to compile a list of all the things they would like to include in the strategic/business plan. Thrower asked about the self-service pump that was not approved in the FY 2004 budget. O'Neil said the request was for a self-service jet fuel pump. The idea was to have both aviation gas and jet fuel available 24 hours a day. O'Neil suggested the Commission ask for the project again in the next year's budget. Ellis said the Council and Commission need to come to terms on what the Council expects the Commission to repay. Ellis said the FAA should be asked what kind of back charges the Council could charge. Thrower said he thought that sounded like a question for the local jurisdiction to decide, not a FAA question. Ellis asked O'Neil if the State AlP funding would be reinstated this year? O'Neil said he discussed this with the local representatives in Des Moines on February 11. They said it would be discussed but they did not have much hope that it would make it out of committee. O'Neil said the Vertical Infrastructure fund may pass but the AlP money would probably not be reinstated. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said there was a letter in the packet concerning use of the parcel on South Gilbert Street. O'Neil said the leases for hangars #31 and #33 expire at the end of February. New leases were sent to the tenants in December. A memo was sent to the City Manager concerning the jet on display at the Airport. The new annual agreement with the Air Force mentions some security requirements. If the 4 City wants to continue to have the jet on loan, it is the Mayor or City Manager's responsibility to sign for the aircraft. O'Neil said it is not actually part of the Veteran's memorial, although there are some that confuse it with the memorial stone and plaque that are near the jet. O'Neil said he would like to see the jet moved to the other end of the Airport frontage, near the Reserve Center. The security requirements could be better met because the jet could be inside a fenced area and would still clearly be visible. O'Neil said someone who has a glider wanted to know if the Commission would lease some property to put up their own hangar. O'Neil said he is on a State committee to select a consultant and monitor the update of the Iowa Department of Transportation's Aviation System Plan. It is the State's Master Plan for the 114 public airports in Iowa. Dulek said the Council would appoint the new Commission member at their meeting on February 18. Ellis said he thought at least one of the Commission members should go to the meeting. O'Neil said the FAA AlP Conference is scheduled in Kansas City for June 3 and 4. Commission members that plan to attend should let him know. O'Neil said he wanted to mention a concern he has for whomever the Commission has conduct the strategy/business plan. He said the Scope of Services should be very clear so the company knows what is expected of them. It should be a turnkey operation. The Commission and the City staff should not be doing all the research work for them. O'Neil said he needs to know from the Commission how much they expect him and Dulek to do and how much they are expecting the consultant to do. Robnett said she agreed with O'Neil and would like the subcommittee to meet sometime next week to give some direction to him. The committee will meet on February 17 at 12:$0 p.m. O'Neil said that since there are three Commissioners that are going to be at the meeting, he would post it as a public meeting. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for March 13, 2003,at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Mark Anderson, Chairperson MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2003 6:30 P.M. SENIOR CENTER, LOWER LEVEL CLASSROOM PRELIMINARY/DRAFT Members Present: Amy Correia, Mathew Hayek, John Deeth, Lori Bears, Jerry Anthony, Rick House, Jayne Sandier, Mark Edwards, Morgan Hoosman, Members Absent: None Council Members Present: None Staff Present: Steve Nasby, Tracy Hightshoe, Stephen Long Others Present: Scott Shuulz, Lyle Hocty, Jerry Hansen, Alaina Welsh, Allen Dix, Annie Wolfe, Bob Burns, Julie Spears, Maryann Dennis, Nancy Stensvaag, Stephen Trefz, Cecile Kuenzli, Bob Andrlik, Charlie Easzha David Purdy, Valerie Kempf, Chris O'Hanlon, Danieile Thompson, Michelle Hankes, Sandy Pickup, Joan Vandenberg, Crissy Canganelli, Linda Nelson, Deanne Krumbholz, Karen Kubby. Call To Order Amy Correia called the meeting to order. Approval of January 16~ 2003 Minutes MOTION: Deeth moved to approve minutes as submitted. Hayek seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. 7-0. Edwards arrives. Public/Member Discussion of Items Not on the A.qenda Correia brought to the committee's attention a memo from Steve Nasby concerning an interest rate policy change recommended by the City Council for CDBG/HOME funded housing projects. She suggested that this policy change be placed on a future meeting agenda in order to discuss any ramifications this might have for home ownership. Discussion Re.qardinR Applications for FY04 CDBG and HOME Fundinq - Question & Answer Session 1. Scott Shuck & Lyle Hocfy - Family Services, Responsible Renting for Tenants & Landlords; Applicant present to answer questions. Project designed to help people become responsible renters/ tenants, to learn to become financially responsible (provides debt/consumer counseling) and to help educate landlords on various issues. a) Applicant willing to work with Iowa City Housing Authority. The classroom rental is $100.00 per time used and may be an in-kind donation- total of $500.00. b) Any renter in Iowa City may use services. A referral relationship would be used with housing agencies and program would be of no cost to client, there is currently a small fee charged. Applicant can provide counseling and screening for GICHF/Shelter House referrals. c) The other sources of $1,660.00 are from their current operating funds. They do not receive United Way funds. d) Applicant has been in operation in Iowa City for 8 years. Previously, applicant received CDBG funds in FY02. Applicant is able to sustain themselves with client fees from credit counseling, from creditors and "fair share contributions". This amount has decreased about 50% in the past 3 years. They do provide help to very Iow-income individuals at no cost. Hoosman arrives. 2. Doug Boothroy & Norm Cate - City of Iowa City, Housing Inspector; Applicant described the current workload of the Housing Inspection Department as desperate. The program has been effect for 25 years and began with CDBG funds. They are pro-active and fire safety is Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 2 their highest priority. Their office fields complaints, zoning and nuisance issues. Applicant inspects every rental unit every 2-3 years, and aggressive inspection program has measurably improved the quality of housing, life and neighborhoods. Applicant has not increased staff since 1992 and the number of rental units has grown every year. Applicant will not have the manpower to keep up with the workload, the increasing number of rental units and the rising expectations of neighborhood groups, City Council and tenants. Some services are likely to be cut, and there will not be timely inspections and follow up. a) Unsure of how many of the 3,000 new units are funded/subsidized by CDBG or HOME funds. b) The number of inspectors would increase from 5 to 6. The increase in the number of inspectors needed is due to the continual increase in the number of rental units. c) Applicant will need to sustain the position annually. That would be a Council budget decision, possibly with CDBG money. d) The rental permit/inspection/violations fees increased approximately 42% last year. About 70% of their budget is comprised of rental permit fees. The per unit costs are $78 for the structure, $11.50 for a unit within the structure, $2.75 for every bedroom. The multi -family units are inspected every 2 years and are charged the fee every 2 years. An annual permit fee has been discussed by the City Council, but the timing, with just increasing the fees 42% this year, is not right. e) The PIN grant money has been applied for and decision is due in May by the neighborhood council and City Council. f) The inspectors are assigned duties by address, this would not change. Applicant must comply with federal CDBG rules for the inspector position. g) Ail City inspections are done only on private housing and not any University properties. Therefore, the City has not approached the University for any funds. It is an interesting question given that the UI does not have any off campus housing. 3. Stephen Trefz - Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) - Rehabilitation; This is a public facility rehabilitation project. a) There has been an increase in the number of clients. Since November 2002 the Center has had more applications for services than they have had in the past 5 years. A part of this is due to employer health plan changes when some providers of mental health insurance drop other sites and the Community Mental Health Center is their only option. b) There has also been an increase of services for the homeless population through the PATH grant, a Homeless outreach program. b) There are no zoning issues with the City. c) If the project is not done, the number of clients that are seen would not really decrease but the Center would continue to see fewer and fewer people because of the long waiting list. They are currently scheduling into June and can not hire more staff due to the space concerns. d) The CMHC currently has 6 people sharing 150 square feet, the move would allow 600 square feet. e) The expansion would also allow them to become compliant with HIPA. This would make the space secure and provide the anticipated needed space for medical records. 4. Al Axeen - Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP) Transitional Housing; The submission is for an expansion of the local transitional housing program. Their transitional housing programs are developed around the Broadway model. It is a 2-year assistance program with 30% of applicant's income towards rent and the rent is capped at fair market value. The economy has turned down and lots of family incomes have dropped. a) The site council is comprised of volunteers; 1/3 are private individuals, 1/3 HACAP people (clients), 1/3 government appointees/elected representatives. The site council is very involved in the decision making of purchasing properties. They have also had Catholic youth groups paint homes for the program. b) The management fees include money for a family support worker for the 6 units (4 hours per month, per family). c) Applicant will try for additional money through a different funding source. d) Agency cash flow is tight as it is for most other agencies. e) Applicant is concentrating on condominium type housing. They will keep their focus in areas with stable public transportation coverage. The units may be on section 8 assistance. f) The applicants for housing are required to pay a deposit. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 3 5. Connie Benton-Wolfe, Jean Bott, David Purdy - Elder Services Inc. - Small Repair Program; The project will assist 55 frail elderly or disabled households with home rehabilitation/modification. a) The program has had support in the past with CDBG funding. b) All applicants for repairs are homeowners, all with limited income. They do not look to see if the owners have equity, they simply look at financial situation. Most of the applicants are on a limited income, $600.00 to $700.00 per month, and can not repay a loan. If they do have financial resources, they pay all or partial costs. Local contractors have done some repairs in- kind. c) The idea of using reverse mortgages was brought up by Sandier, and is something to look into. There is currently only 1 bank in Iowa that provides these types of loans. d) Most of these projects are very small, only 5 of the 39 projects were over $1000.00. e) The Council policy of 1% simple interest was discussed and if it can be modified, possibly to exclude repairs under $1000.00. f) Page number 33 is missing number of people served, number of bedrooms, etc. g) The services program will run out of funding in April. If they do run out of money, they will start a waiting list of projects that need to be completed. 6. Bob Burns & Alaina Welsh - Whispering Garden IHA Limited Partnership Affordable Family Housing; The applicant is a private, for-profit partnership. They propose building scattered site rental housing. The applicant presented a hand out to committee in response to the staff report. 7. Robert Andrlik - Table to Table - Food Rescue & Distribution; The applicant requests to fund a full time director for project which channels food donations to shelters, soup kitchens, and local agencies. a) Questioned if reporting by number of persons would be a problem. Andrlik stated it could be done. There would have to be flexibility in how to arrive at a count as Table to Table does not provide the total food budget to agencies served, the tracking would be a percentage of the clients served. An unduplicated count would be hard to obtain. 8. Nancy Stensvaag - Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity (IVHFH); The IVHFH application references CITY STEPS and identifies affordable housing as a great need in Iowa City. a) Partial funding means fewer units built. With funding provided, the more units the IVHFH can build. b) The National alliance of IVHFH will not allow an interest-bearing loan. The City Council has asked the applicant to return with a proposal. Habitat recycles money with income payments. Habitat wants a declining balance lien. c) The habitat homes may not be outside of the Whispering Meadows neighborhood. Habitat has an architect on their board and will provide different building plans. d) Habitat sells both the land and the home; they also collect the debt. They recycle the money into a pool of building sites. They plan 10 homes for their 10th anniversary in 2004. They plan 8 or possibly all 10 will be in Iowa City. All the money stays local with 10% going towards developing countries. 9. Chris The PATV Living. a) b) c) d) O'Hanlon & Josh - Public Access Television - Automatic Door Opener; is seeking a grant for an automatic door opener for the Evert Conner Center for Independent The CDBG is the first source of money requested. No other sources have been sought. The Conner Center serves a population with approximately 20% having some sort of a disability. The money asked for is for a relatively inexpensive model of automatic door and a volunteer will be installing the door. The number of people the PATV/Evert Conner Center serves is difficult to pin point. The center does many things and has over 70 open case files. They also do a tot of referrals, training and speaking engagements within the community. They work on policy issues with state and local agencies. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 4 10. Chris Bergen & Chris Kinkead - DVIP -Furniture Project; The DVIP furniture project is a simple program that collects donated furniture and distributes it to homeless individuals. The goal is to recycle the furniture and to keep it out of the landfill. a) A question that comes up every year is other available funding. Every year, except for 2003, they have applied for the Emergency Shelter Grant. The Emergency Shelter Grant has not funded new projects for a few years. They do not fund the furniture project but have funded DVIP. This is one reason it has been difficult to find funding for the project. b) DVIP does have an ongoing relationship with Americorp, the Furniture Project does not. c) DVIP provided a handout to answer questions contained in the staff report. 11. Michelle Hankes - 4 C's Rehabilitation; The 4 C's has been in the Iowa City area for about 30 years. The programs main goal is make sure that every parent can go to work or school and know that their child is cared for in a safe environment. They provide this service through education, resource referral, providing care givers with items and doing site/home visits. They are looking for building upgrades including a ramp and a lift. a) They have answered committee questions in a handout and prioritized based on importance. b) The windows are inadequate. They do not open, are not energy efficient, and some are leaking. c) There will be multiple bids for elevator and windows. d) The 4 C's owns the building. e) They serve approximately 2300 persons and about 10% need the ramp/lift. 12. Valerie Kamp - Successful Living -Transitional Housing Acquisition; The applicant provides transitional housing for persons who are homeless, have substance abuse or mental health issues. a) The owner plans on selling the building, if applicant is unable to purchase facility, 21 individuals become homeless. b) The property is up for sale in July. D & K indicated their preference would be to sell it to Successful Living. c) A larger private loan would mean that there would not be money left for reserves. d) The project will not go forward if there is less money awarded. e) Hayek and Sandier noted the facility is very well maintained. 13. Linda Nelson & Diane Krumbholz - HACAP Head Start Playground; The applicant is seeking support to expand family resources and specifically, to install a play area at their facility. Their current playground is a fenced in parking lot with no shade. Volunteers have raised funds through chili suppers, fundraisers, and contributions from the community. a) The volunteer budget in the application is for projects that staff and volunteers are able to complete. Examples are moving and filling planters with flowers, to move and rebuild a sandbox, and to complete a mural on the back wall. b) If awarded partial funding the project will proceed but it would not be completed this year. 14. Danielle Thompson - Eagles Flight Inc.-Hannah's Blessing Daycare Building Improvement; The applicant is a daycare that provides dependent care to Iow-moderate income households. Their budget has been revised since application was submitted. a) Their revised budget is due to the award of a Johnson County Empowerment grant. They request to reduce their request from $29,000 to about $14,000. b) They will be opening before August. Their target opening date is April 30, 2003. c) The applicant does have an initial list for clients. d) They have requested a tax exemption from the Assessor. The Assessor has denied their initial request, as they do not view the business as a community service. Applicant is appealing the decision. e) The delay in opening has been due to increased costs. They had many unexpected costs at closing, including water problems, city building code modifications, a radon inspection, and flood insurance costs of $1600.00 per year. f) All improvements have estimates. The facility needs a fence, smoke detectors, and a retaining wall. g) The center will care for 29 children now but could modify and accept up to 35. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 5 h) Hills Bank declined their loan application because the equity is all in an Iowa City Lien. The facility is also not currently generating income. 15. Danielle Thompson - Eagles Fight Inc. - Hannah's Blessing Daycare Operational; a) The applicant will not need the $800.00 CDBG for utilities. Committee suggests applying to CDBG ED committee - creating 1 job. b) DHS license and public health have given preliminary approval, as they do not actually license until business has been open for 180 days. c) DHS and Department of Public Health have approved the facility. 16. Carol Spaziani -Compeer Program; The program reaches out to persons with Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and connects them with a trained volunteer to encourage and support participation in community activities, a) They hope to continue the project without CDBG, the board is very committed to continuing the Program. They would like to obtain other sources of funding. b) The Robert Wood Johnson Grant is unsure at this point. The initial $25,000 was for July 02- Dec03 and contingent upon the program funds exceeding the initial grant. The $10,000 Johnson County end-of-year- money received must now be repaid and they are unsure of repayment schedule. The purpose of the CDBG grant is to fund the half-time director's position. c) Applicant operates on a Big BrothedBig Sister operational model. The role of the half-time director is to match adult volunteers who are not in the mental health system as friends to the persons with severe mental illness. d) Applicant receives many referrals from several Iowa City agencies. 17. Joan Vandenberg - Mark Twain 21st Century Community Learning Center; The program is about extending the school day and school year to do more after school activities for Iow- income students. This program allows the students to build academic skills and also provide daycare for Iow- income working parents. a) The program is currently applying for a 21st Century grant through the Department of Education ($150,000/year for 5 years). b) If the Learning Center is not funded, the program will continue but in a much smaller capacity. Applicant would have a mini program with a half time director and recruit volunteers. The program would have less academic youth development activities. Another alternative would be to provide scholarships for children on the free/reduced lunch program, but do not qualify for Title X×. The cost of the scholarship is $125.00/month; they could provide scholarships for 12 kids for 12 months. There is currently a fee-based program at Twain, but it has a hard time staying viable because most of the families can't afford the cost. c) There are many children from homeless families at Mark Twain, and they would receive preference. d) The number of children assisted is listed as 261, this means that all students would be assisted at some level. But, there is a core group of about 70 students that would receive assistance every day, that being before/after school care, summer and some evening enrichment programs. e) The Federal Grant applied for does not require a funding match but the addition of City funding would strengthen their application and make it more competitive. The Federal Grant will be awarded in May. f) This program is currently designed for Mark Twain Elementary where 62% of the students are eligible for the free/reduced lunch program. If successful, future applications may be submitted for additional schools that meet the program's criteria in Iowa City. 18. Christina Canganelli & Karl Dixon - Shelter House - Property Acquisition; The applicant is asking consideration for expansion or addition of facilities to meet the increasing needs for homeless persons. a) The applicant does not have a completed feasibility study. A series of focus groups were done and they have given their concerns, insights and commentaries on the needs of the homeless. There are over 4 hours of videotape from these focus groups. b) An appraisal has been done and it is accessed at $ 242,000. Canganelli feels this number is high and they are hoping for $200,000 to $225,000. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 6 c) The architect and contractor have given rough estimates for project. Canganelli is hoping for more donations and work to be done in-kind. d) The cost of the land may appear high but after looking at adjacent properties with help of City staff, the cost is actually lower. e) A site has been identified for the new property and a purchase agreement is in place. The closing for this land is September 2003. f) The school district for the new property is now Mann but would move to Twain or Grant Wood. Students would be able to attend the school previously attended before entering the shelter. g) If fewer funds are granted, the project would have more to money to raise. 19. Christina Canganelli & Karl Dixon - Shelter Coordinator; The applicant is seeking to expand staff and capabilities with the current system to provide improved service. a) All the clients served by the Shelter house use other community or public resources. Approximately 90% participate in in-house counseling. Action plans are developed for clients in order to become self sufficient and referrals are made to connecting services. b) About 85-90% of the coordinator duties are direct service to the clients. Other duties include administrative work and outreach programs. c) They currently have 24 hour M-F staffing, and during the day they have 2 full time counselors who are working with individuals at the shelter. The development of staffing has been very important and a priority they hope to continue. If other financial resources are not available, they are looking to other means to keep the positions. They are participating in several benefits, fund- raisers and will piece it together as best as they can. d) The STAR match for FY04 is actually starting in September 2003-August 2004. For that year they are committed for providing a match of $106,000. The Federal grant has been awarded, Goodwill and Shelter house have committed, and they are waiting to hear from MECCA. If the match is not done, they will lose everything. 20. Christina Canganelli & Karl Dixon - Shelter House-John Thomas Deposit Assistance Program; a) The applicant has copy of landlord agreement regarding recaptured funds. There is a disclaimer for the Shelter House. b) Recaptured funds will continue to be returned to the deposit program for future use. The recaptured funds are not shown on submitted budget, questioning if there will be a revised budget. c) The STAR program has a resource for deposits and is available only to STAR clients. d) Applicant needs Council approval for the grant, instead of a 1% COL the Council requests for housing projects. Applicant provides deposits of approximately $100 to households transitioning out of the shelter or to homeless households in need. Administratively it would be difficult to track the renter and collect the funds once the renter leaves the unit. Applicant does not have the capacity to track and monitor all clients receiving the initial assistance. e) Other donations are not contingent upon CDBG funding/match. Applicant recently received $1000.00 from FEMA, to be used for 1st month's rent. They also have designated donors that are interested in contributing to special projects with a specific purpose. Different civic or religious groups are also interested in helping with specific fund raising causes. f) The program has 30% Shelter House clients. This program allows people to move out of the Emergency Housing Project (EHP) faster. They also get many referrals from DVIP, MECCA, Successful Living and HACAP. g) The rate of recapture is low; therefore it is not likely the program can be self-sufficient. 21. Karen Kubby - Emma Goldman Clinic; The applicant is seeking to make improvements to their existing medical facility. a) The applicant understands that all improvements must be done through a public, competitive process and has conveyed this to potential vendors and contractors. b) The applicant understands they would need to seek Council approval to not enter into a conditional occupancy loan. The items requested for funding will depreciate. They will lose value and need replacement, therefore the applicant prefers a declining balance loan or forgivable grant. Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Page 7 c) Their budget has been revised. The flooring estimate was reduced due to an in-kind commitment from a flooring vendor. d) The energy efficiency program they want to include would save 18.5% annually. e) The flooring is a very high priority. They especially wish to change the flooring of one particular area in order to properly clean and sanitize. They would be willing to trade-off the proposed new exam table in order to improve the flooring, which they feel is a higher priority. f) The facility serves 6000 clients per year plus walk-ins and family support people. 22. Sandy a) Pickup - Free Medical Clinic - Case Management; The budget funds for the Case Management Program are primarily from in-kind services, medicines and lab tests. The budget does not allow for operational expenses. b) The program is currently funded in part through CDBG funds. The remaining funds are from pharmaceutical companies, donations from churches, and reserve funds from the clinic budget. c) The program will continue without the CDBG funds. Patient care is the priority of the clinic and they try to ensure the same quality of care regardless of the budget. d) Pickups job has recently been altered to include grant writing and fund-raising to ensure the clinic can continue to provide care. 23. Tracy Hightshoe - City of Iowa City-Downpayment Assistance Program; The City has had a down payment assistance program intermittently since 1994. a) The noted Iow expenditure rate is because the City had used a private lender for the program from 1996 until approximately 2001. The private lender went through four reorganizations and had difficulty spending down the money. In 2001 the City took over the program and has since spent down the funds available to approximately $10,000. b) The program assisted 11 households last year with an average assistance of $3,000.00 per household. c) The greatest program barrier currently is lead-based paint. Due to federal lead-based paint regulations, if a house is built before 1978, the house must be tested and mitigated for lead. The testing is very costly and the program does not have the funds to mitigate any lead problems discovered. Thus, the program has been amended so that only homes built in or after 1978 are eligible. d) If the program experiences difficulty spending down funds due to a 1% conditional occupancy loan, applicant will seek Council approval for modification. Adjournment MOTION: House moved to adjourn the meeting. Sandier seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. (9-0) ****Next meeting is scheduled for March 13, 2003 at the Senior Center. data on citynt/pcd/m[nutes/hcdc/hcdcO2-20-03.doc MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS: CALL TO ORDER Lori Benz, Eve Casserly, Jay Honohan, Betty Kelly, Allan Monsanto, Charity Rowley, Jim Schintler, and Deborah Schoenfelder Joanne Hora Michelle Buhman, Craig Buhman, Linda Kopping, Susan Rogusky and Julie Seal. Stan Aldinger, Jon Cryer, Nancy Adams-Cogan, Linda Fisher, Irvan Phab, Gretchen Grimm, Betty McKray, Ina Lowenberg, Lee McGovern, Charlotte Walker, William Laubengayer, Bob Welch, Edna Weber. MINUTES Motion to approve the Jan. 14, 2003 minutes as distributed. Rowley/Monsanto. Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Motion to approve the Jan. 21, 2003 minutes as amended. Kelly/Schintler Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Helen Gjovig was added to the list of guests at the Jan. 21 meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Charlotte Walker requested that copies of the Senior Center Commission agenda be available for the public to pick up on the day of the Commission meeting. NUTRITION PROGRAM LEASE UPDATE - Honohan Currently there is not an executed lease between the Senior Center and Elder Services for the meal program. The Commission has been in the process of negotiating a lease with Elder Services and Heritage Agency for some time. The issue of ownership of some of the items in the Senior Dining Kitchen remains unresolved, therefore has been removed from the newly proposed version of the lease. Kopping, Honohan and Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek, agree that it is better to have a lease, even with the ownership issue unresolved, than to have no lease at all. Copies of the proposed lease were distributed in the packet. Motion: to forward the proposed lease agreement to Elder Services for their review and hopefully their agreement. Kelly/Monsanto. Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 DRAFT OPERATIONAL BUDGET: PLANS AND PROGRESS Review and Discussion of Planning for Change: F¥04 Funding, Operational and Program Changes at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center Revision II1- Kopping/Honohan Linda Kopping reported that the County plans to provide $75,000, in the form of a block grant, toward the FY04 Senior Center Operational Budget. This block grant will need to be applied for on an annual basis. Future grants could be more or less than this year's amount of $75,000. Rowley questioned whether or not the block grant comes out of the general or rural fund. Honohan will check on where these funds actually come from. The major concern of the Commission is whether or not the block grant process continue to provide needed annual County funds to the Senior Center in FY05 and beyond. In addition, in the absence of a 28E agreement with the City, there will no longer be county representation on the Senior Center Commission after June 30, 2003. The Senior Center Advisory Report- William Laubengayer, Jo Hensch (via e-mail) and John Cryer. The Participant, Program and Volunteer Advisory Committees meet last week in orderto review the '~lanning for Change Revision III, document. The Committees came up with four specific changes to the document. (See attached document) After reviewing the comments, it seemed that there was not much overall criticism to the draft, and that the group thought membership fees were acceptable. A sliding scale for memberships, expanding programming, reduced rate for two members in the family, and expanding hours were discussed as possibilities. Ninety percent of the discussion focused on membership fees. Those attending the meeting suggested a basic membership fee be implemented with the option of donating over the basic amount if one could afford it. The amount people would pay should be kept confidential so people will not feel bad about paying at the lower level. It was noted that the scholarship program was not well received in the past as participants were hesitant to apply for assistance. One concern regarding the sliding scale is that given the option, people would pay the lowest level. The Advisory Committees felt that the majority of participants would pay an amount above the lowest level. Chair of the Johnson County Task Force on Aging- Bob Welch This report was included in the Commission packets. The Task Force would like to see a broader look at the programming in the Senior Center. It would like to see the Senior Center invite service organizations to provide activities at the senior Center. The Task Force would like to see more community groups use the Center. It would like the City Manager to reorganize the Senior Center staff in order to accommodate a leaner budget. The Task Force would like the name of the Senior Center remain the name. It proposes a ten-dollar per year MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 DRAFT membership fee. The Task Force believes that people would donate money above that amount to cover the deficit in the operational budget. The Officers of the Senior Center Commission and the officers of the Task Force plan to meet and discuss the items Bob Welch presented at the Commission meeting today. Commissioners discussed the comments from the Advisory Committees. Keeping the suggestions from the Advisory Committees in mind, Kopping prepared and distributed an example of a scaled membership fee schedule. The Iowa City Residents would pay a basic membership fee of $25.00, non-Iowa City residents pay $50, and non-Johnson county residence would pay a $100. Those who contribute an amount over the basic fee would be recognized for their donation. It was suggested that if a person were to contribute at the "platinum" level they would be eligible for a free parking permit. Commissioners agreed that if this plan is adopted it should be for only one year and be evaluated at that time. It was suggested that if this plan, with the lower membership fee schedule, is adopted then the Commission would need to assess an additional fee for classes in order to cover the potential shortfall in the operational budget. Casserly would like to see the Senior Center Commission members who are appointed by the County request an increase in funding from the Board of Supervisors. Motion to send the Johnson County appointed Commissioners to the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors to ask for an additional $25,000 or $100,000 total, to cover the FY04 operational budget. Rowley/Kelly Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Motion: If the Board of Supervisors agrees to provide an additional $25,000 the membership fee should be $10.00 per year. Rowley/Casserly. Motion failed, Schintler, Kelly, Rowley, Schoenfelder, Monsanto against. Motion to put the newly proposed fees (See attachment), as a sliding scale, into the draft revised version of the draft. Rowley/Monsanto. Motion carried on a vote of 6-2. Kelly/Casserly opposed. No other changes to the draft as proposed. The next Commission meeting will be held on 9AM March 24, 2003. The public meeting to discuss the draft will be held on Monday March 10, at 2:00 in the Assembly Room. MINUTES SEN IOR CENTER COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 DRAFT SENIOR CENTER UPDATE Operations-Kopping Planning for Change document discussed earlier in meeting. No additional Operations items to report. Programs- Seal Seal highlighted events happening in March. See the March Post for full details. The New Horizons Band Extravaganza was been held in Iowa City in 1999 and 2001. The band would like to host another Extravaganza in June of 2003. The budget is around $3,000. Seal requested that the Commission approve $750.00 again this year in order to support this function. Motion to contribute $750.00 of gift fund money to support the New Horizons Band Extravaganza. Rowley/Kelly Motion carried on a vote of 8-0. Volunteers- Rogusky Reported on progress made on the Center for Learning in Retirement. JANUARY COMMISSION VISITS City Council- Rowley Rowley Informed the Council on the proposed operational changes. The Council requested a copy of the next Center for Learning brochure. Board of Supervisors- Monsanto Monsanto reported on the status of the current draft of the Planning for Change document. Next month's visits and assignments Schintler will do the Post article and visit the Board of Supervisors meeting. Honohan will go to the City Council meeting. Motion to adjourn. Rowley/Monsanto Motion passed on a vote of 8-0.