Black Hawk County weighs shared evidence-processing center with Waterloo, eyes $750,000 placeholder

Black Hawk County supervisors discussed a proposed shared evidence-processing and crime-laboratory facility with the City of Waterloo at their April 29 meeting, with county and Waterloo law-enforcement leaders presenting details and the board agreeing to a follow-up work session.

The discussion focused on a draft intergovernmental 2080 agreement that would let the county partner with Waterloo on a new building that would include lab space, shared storage and technician capacity. Sheriff’s and police department representatives said Waterloo would contribute equipment and staffing; the county would share building space and operating costs. The county’s initial placeholder figure discussed by supervisors was $750,000, and participants discussed options for a recurring annual payment to sustain operations. The county attorney and staff will prepare a revised draft agreement incorporating changes discussed by supervisors and city staff.

Why it matters: supporters said a shared facility could avoid duplication of expensive lab equipment and shorten turnaround time for forensic processing, while reducing long-term capital and operating costs compared with building and equipping a separate county-only lab. Opponents and cautious supervisors said the timing is difficult because the county budget and reserves have already been committed for the year, and they pressed for clearer cost allocations and funding sources before committing.

Key details: Waterloo officials said the city already owns and will contribute significant lab equipment (presenters estimated more than $1 million in equipment). Board members and staff estimated that basic operating costs for a county-owned lab could be roughly $10,000 per year. Participants discussed a proposed term length (the draft used 15 years; both parties discussed 50 years as an alternative) and the split of occupied space (Waterloo would take more storage space; the county would use roughly 40% of the functional space in rough estimates provided). Supervisors and staff also raised questions about payment schedules, warranty/maintenance responsibilities, and contractual protections if either party’s funding situation changed.

Next steps: the board scheduled a focused work session to review a revised draft agreement and cost language; supervisors said they aimed for a work session on May 13 (staff noted scheduling constraints) and a possible final vote at the regular meeting on May 20 if the draft is ready. County staff will circulate a revised draft to supervisors before sending it to Waterloo city staff to preserve time for review.

Ending: County staff and Waterloo representatives said both sides want a cooperative agreement that preserves each entity’s legal and financial interests; supervisors stressed they need clearer, itemized funding commitments and legal language before any formal county appropriation or binding commitment.