Maureen Soss, a resident of Iowa City, told the Johnson County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee on Thursday that a new jail would worsen public-health risks and that incarcerated people are already disproportionately vulnerable. “Making a new jail while repaying the same to states will only endanger our community further,” Soss said during public comment.

The comments came during the committee's regular meeting about possible plans for a new public-safety facility and a proposed joint county-city authority. Soss cited the American Public Health Association's 2024 declaration that current incarceration conditions are a public-health crisis and referenced the Eighth Amendment when describing care shortfalls in detention settings.

Izzy Kibitz, who identified herself as a property owner in Iowa City, told the committee she opposed an "$80,000,000 new jail" and criticized a county survey that, she said, did not disclose the project's price. "If you ask questions a certain way, you'll get polling responses a certain way," Kibitz said, urging clearer public information about costs.

A third public commenter, identifying as Nicks, said advocates oppose building a new jail and instead want upgrades to the existing facility and investment in alternatives. Nicks read a list of demands, including that the Johnson County Jail not accept inmates from other agencies for payment, that any update not increase bed space "under the guise of anticipating 'rising demand,'" increased in-person access to counsel and visitation (not solely video), free phone calls for incarcerated people, and facilitated access to community resources such as mobile crisis response.

Committee members acknowledged the public remarks. Supervisor responses during the meeting emphasized that diversion, housing and mental-health investments are ongoing county priorities and that those efforts and jail planning are not mutually exclusive. Several elected officials asked for additional documentation and clarity on cost and capacity before making major commitments.

No formal action was taken in response to the public comments; the committee proceeded to staff presentations and a discussion of the legal steps for forming a joint authority.

Why it matters: Residents framed the jail decision as both a public-health and fiscal choice, urging the county to prioritize alternatives (housing, mental health, diversion) and to be transparent with the public about costs. The committee is considering a path that will require formal votes, public materials and, potentially, a ballot measure, so public sentiment could influence timing or design choices.

The meeting next steps described by supervisors include compiling questions for the design consultant and scheduling additional briefings; no changes to the project timeline were decided during the public-comment segment.