|
The Ad Hoc Jail Study Committee of
the DeKalb County Board met on Thursday, July 10, 2003 @ 7:00p.m. in the
Legislative Center’s Gathertorium. Mrs. Allen called the meeting to order.
Members present were Ray Bockman, Ken Campbell, William Feithen, Michael Haines,
Gary Hanson, Robert Hutcheson, Kenneth Johnson, Lt. Joyce Klein, Sheriff Roger
Scott, Ruth Anne Tobias Ronald Matekaitis, Don Thomas and Jerry Thompson. Mr.
Jeff Metzger, Linda Swenson and Sue Leifheit were absent. Others present were
Mark Goldman, Len Witke and Leona Ketterl, Debbie King, Peter Paulsen, Greg
Millburg, Steve Slack, Brian Adams, Thomas Woodstrup, Dan Campana, Bonnie Miller
and various people from the surrounding neighborhood of the Sycamore Campus.
PRESENTATION BY DURRANT AND MARK GOLDMAN & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Len Witke of Durrant and Mr.
Mark Goldman of Goldman & Associates presented the various options to the
committee members.
Mr. Goldman began by reviewing
alternatives to incarceration. These programs generally are more cost effective
than incarceration. They looked at information from the various justice
departments and basically the bottom line is that they feel the County could
save about 53 beds after alternative methods are implemented. Full savings
would take about 5 years. Over time, after implementing all of the
alternatives, those numbers should increase and that after 30 years the County
should see a savings of $16 million dollars.
They then looked at different
scenarios and trends over the last ten years, court filings, arrests, etc., and
projected the average daily population in the jail and bed needs to the year
2025. They also looked at different scenarios as to whether or not the county
should expand the existing jail or keep it at the current capacity of 89 beds,
etc. If the County implements the alternatives and reductions are made then by
2025 the total beds saved would be 131. They also looked at two different
options. One of those is to keep the existing jail and add more beds to it.
When you add more beds you will also need to add more support areas. There
would also be a need to comply with new standards like a new recreation space,
visiting space, showers, etc.
The other option that they looked
at to construct a new jail. It doesn’t make sense, they feel, to have two
jails. The biggest cost of any jail is staffing, Mr. Goldman said. Initial
capital costs usually are 6% to 10% of what a 30-year lifecycle costs.
Mr. Witke said that expanding the
existing jail is Option #1. The plan/footprint would be to build one-story
along the entire perimeter of the building and then along the angled area to add
two more stories for a total of 3 stories east of the site. This would add an
additional 75 beds to the facility. It also includes areas for foodservice,
loading areas, drive through sally port, central control, mezzanine and housing.
The first floor areas would be for services and the second and third floors
would have the new housing areas.
Mr. Witke continued by stating that
as they looked at the existing site option they came up with pros and cons of
the idea. The pros for the site would be that there are good sightlines in all
inmate areas. They would make use of most of the existing jail beds. There are
no housing units on the first floor except requested by Trustee Unit. And
finally, it does not require purchase of additional property.
The cons of the site would be that
it uses most of the available site area; the proximity of it to the library;
higher staff means larger annual operating budget; and it has limited
flexibility for future expansion without crossing Exchange or Locust Streets.
If the county would need to expand
(around 2015) the areas for expansion are limited. You would need to expand
upwards and out, said Mr. Witke. The project description would have staffing
numbers at 49.7; number of beds increased by 75 beds added to the existing 57
for a total of 132 beds; square footage of the new building area of 62,240gsf;
the project cost of $11,446.00 for construction with PSB 2nd floor
upgrade and radio tower and $2,862.00 for soft costs for a total amount of
$14,308,000.00. Both of the options include what they call “soft costs” which
include items such as soil tests and surveys, construction contingency, moveable
equipment and A/E design fees.
Mr. Witke said that Option #2 would
be to build a new jail on a new site that would be a two-story facility. The
positives of doing this project are: good sightlines into all inmates areas;
flexibility and site area to add future beds is better than other options; less
staff means lower annual operating costs; site allows for development of other
County functions in the future as well; smaller housing groups permit ease of
access to programs; new construction free of issues with existing PSB interface;
and solution allows existing PSB to be utilized for other County functions.
The negative side of doing this
option is: it is a remote location from existing Courts and related functions,
and it is the more expensive option initially. If no courts move with the jail
it would require transport of all inmates back and forth to court each day. The
consultant’s recommendation is to keep the new detention alternatives in place
with this option.
The project description showed that
the staffing would be at 49.2; the number of beds would be at 132; the building
area is 90,600gsf; and the project costs consists of $15,344,000 for
construction and $3,500,000 for soft costs for a total amount of $18,844,000.
This option includes the costs of constructing a new Sheriff’s Department and
911 & Emergency Government area in the building.
Mr. Goldman said that Option #3 is
to Not Build anything. This means to maximize the existing jail and not to do
any renovations or additions. This means that the jail would be used as it is
now, with a maximum capacity of 89 beds and any inmates beyond the 89 beds would
be shipped to other counties. The county would need to then lease beds at an
estimated cost of $63.00 a day, per inmate. This would be another big cost
problem because of the transportation issue. This would mean that for every 20
inmates transported another staff person would be needed. Adding this all
together, by the year 2015 the operation costs would equal $4,000,000 and by the
year 2025 it would be about $10,000,000. Without the alternatives in place then
it would cost even more.
The question that the consultants
pose to the committee is two-parts. Does the county want to build or not
build? If the county wants to build then which option do you want?
Ms. Allen opened up the meeting to
discussion by the committee first and then the public.
Mr. Matekaitis asked Mr. Goldman to
please explain his methodology as to how he and Mr. Witke arrived at their bed
reduction projections? Mr. Goldman said they first did a population profile and
researched various programs that are working in other areas. They talked to
people in the justice system and arrived at their best guesses. He said that it
is a soft science to arrive at these figures. Mr. Matekaitis asked if the bed
numbers were ambitious? Most of the alternatives are not in place yet, said Mr.
Goldman, and that it always affects the staff when changes and alternatives are
implemented. He felt, however, that the bed reduction numbers were realistic.
Mr. Haines said that his concern is
opposite of Mr. Matekaitis, that is, that the prediction of beds that we need is
too great for twenty year out. He feels that we are committing today’s money on
future doubts. He would like to not build for a little while and implement
alternatives to see if it works. This way the county could see if growth meets
projections.
Mr. Feithen asked how long will it
take to start the programs to begin construction? Mr. Goldman said that it
would take two years time when taking the referendum route. If the county waits
and looks at the alternatives and then it takes 2½ years to build – we are now
looking at approximately 5 years, overall, as a time frame. Mr. Witke also said
that he felt that he and Mr. Goldman were conservative with their projections.
Mr. Thompson asked if the county
vacated the existing jail what would it be used for? Mr. Witke said that the
County could convert it over to office space and rental space. Mr. Bockman said
that the County would like to do a space needs study first, like with the
Circuit Clerk’s Office, the State’s Attorney’s Office, Court Services, who all
have already run out of space.
Mr. Feithen asked if the Jail were
vacated could the county think about doing something like housing juveniles in
it as a detention center, like what’s being done in Kane County. Mr. Bockman
said that the County has never looked at that option because our numbers have
never gotten to the point that we felt that we wanted to own and operate a
juvenile detention center. He said that our Intergovernmental Agreement is a
draw down account and that it should be ending in about 3 years. He said to
remember that schooling and recreation would be a requirement. He also said that
in essence the same staff that you have in a facility of 200 would be needed for
a daily population of 6 or 7 kids here. The one way that we could feasibly look
at it would be as a profit center where we could house our own juveniles and
other from outside the county. However, do we want to mix our kids with those
outside of the county- that is another question that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Woodstrup, from the audience,
asked if on the new site, if the inmates have visitors near the new shopping
area of DeKalb/Sycamore that it would have economic factors to look at. Does a
new jail have windows in it? Not being able to look outside and see what kind
of day it is everyday would be hard to live with. Mr. Witke said that the
standards require that there be natural lighting in the building.
Another person asked, from the
audience, if there would be any problems with filling extra beds? Mr. Witke
said that the county could see rentals early on, but just don’t plan on it to
last forever. It lasts about 3 to 5 years as an average.
Mr. Paulsen asked that with the
expansion option, would the radio tower need to be moved? Mr. Witke said yes
and that it would move to additional land owned by the County.
One woman from the audience stated
that she just moved here and was concerned about seeing prisoners crossing the
street so close to the downtown and that she was wondering if that would hurt
businesses economically with people traveling through the downtown and seeing
the prisoners.
Mr. Kenneth Johnson, DeKalb County
Public Defender, asked if anyone had given any thought to a tunnel being
constructed to walk from the PSB to the Courthouse? Mr. Bockman said that there
are a lot of people, including himself that liked that idea, but no one knows
exactly what’s under the highway and then we would need to reroute that traffic,
no one knows what the costs will be either. It is something that could be
looked at though.
Mr. Bockman further said that the
county doesn’t like prisoners crossing the street for a number of reasons. One
of those being security, appearance, dangers to the officers and prisoners
because of the traffic, and our own attorneys that need to cross the street
everyday for court.
Sheriff Scott said that with Video
Bond Call that has reduced inmate traffic flow a lot. If the judges expand the
arraignment to more than just bond call then crossing the street with inmates
will be reduced even more. Mr. Haines asked if there was any substantial space
for a courtroom? Lt. Klein said that she is concerned about how much the
courtroom would be used. She also felt that the tunnel was a good idea.
It was moved by Mr. Matekaitis,
seconded by Mr. Feithen, and it was carried unanimously to say yes to build and
to forward it to the full board for consideration.
It was asked if there is a timeline to begin this next step of the project? Mr.
Bockman said that the county board is in charge of the project including
timing.
Mr. Ken Johnson, DeKalb County
Public Defender, asked the Sheriff what was his opinion of whether or not it
would be better to build offsite or expand on the current site? Sheriff said
that the issue is really the complex and all the departments that go along with
the jail like the courthouse/judicial, circuit clerk, state’s attorney, public
defender, court services, need to be centrally located. Transporting by buses
to the city each day creates significant security issues and traffic issues. If
we are going to go offsite, then we need to with everything, otherwise we need
to stay together. He also doesn’t feel that the departments in the courthouse
are going to be moving.
Mr. Bockman said that he prefers
the expansion option because it continues the County’s commitment to this campus
and very many of the same reasons that the Sheriff pointed out. To split those
services needed would be very costly. Things seem to work better with all of
the departments located in one area. The land north and east of the current
facility, acquired by the County, could be expanded upon and the Jail could go
upwards. There could be parking converted on the land east of the facility
recently acquired by the County and it could be done immediately.
Ms. Allen then asked the committee
for the vote on the second question, which is whether or not we build on a new
site or the expansion option? It was moved by Mr. Bockman, seconded by
Sheriff Scott, and it was carried to recommend the Expansion Option and to
forward it to the full board for consideration. Mr. Jerry Thompson
opposed. Motion carried.
Mr. Bockman said that now the
recommendation would go before the county board for consideration but before
that there would be a workshop held especially for this project. Chairman
Pritchard and Ms. Leifheit wanted to be here this evening, he said, but that
they asked him to thank everyone for all the time and effort that the committee
members have put into this. He also thanked the consultants for all their hard
work and the public for coming this evening.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Mr. Haines, seconded by
Mr. Feithen, and it was carried unanimously to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________
Marlene Allen
________________________________
Mary C. Supple, Secretary |
