Black Hawk County supervisors weigh contribution to joint evidence lab with Waterloo

Black Hawk County supervisors on Wednesday discussed whether to contribute county funds to a proposed joint evidence-processing and storage facility the county would share with the City of Waterloo.

Sheriff Nate Nef of the Black Hawk County Sheriff’s Office told the board the county’s existing evidence-processing and storage space is unsafe and inefficient and that a new shared building would improve employee safety, chain-of-custody integrity and turnaround time for crime victims. “Our current facility just isn't safe for the employees to work in,” Nef said, summarizing assessments and insurance concerns that have driven the discussion.

The sheriff and his investigators outlined how the county now handles evidence and why local capacity matters. Sergeant Heather Dolan, investigations, said evidence processing needs are unpredictable and cited burglary counts across six recent years to show variability in demand. “Each one of those burglaries has the potential of needing the evidence space,” Dolan said, adding that vehicle processing and major violent-crime scenes especially require a controlled environment and can tie up patrol resources when processing must be done on-scene.

Detective Bill Weiser said vehicle storage and processing done off-site adds cost and delay: “When I checked it was a hundred dollars a day to store a vehicle inside and then $50 a day to store it outside,” he said, noting storage fees can accumulate and be passed on to victims. Sheriff’s staff and witnesses also described evidence exposed to weather, rodents and occasional flooding at current county storage areas.

County and city staff presented cost estimates and a shared design. Presenters said earlier planning estimated roughly $1.5 million as the county’s portion under an earlier, county-only concept; current total-project estimates have risen and were described in the meeting as “right around $3 million to $3.5 million,” including building and equipment. The proposed facility in the Waterloo plan is about 14,000 square feet in current renderings, with roughly half the space designated for evidence storage and processing shared between the two agencies.

City and county staff flagged legal and financing constraints. County counsel and staff said state law limits the total project cost that a county may bond without a public referendum (a figure cited in the meeting as $1,560,000 for county-bondable projects), so bonding for the county's share likely would require a public vote under current rules. Staff discussed alternatives including paying from county fund balance, staged payments, or placing a bond measure on the November ballot. County finance staff reported unassigned fund balance figures and warned that recent commitments had reduced available reserves.

Supervisors asked for details and signaled differing levels of willingness to commit county funds. Two supervisors publicly said they could support up to $750,000 from county reserves as a starting point to let the project scale, but no formal motion or final vote was taken. Supervisors asked for revisions to the draft intergovernmental agreement (referred to during the meeting as the 28E agreement) so it addresses payment timing, verification of construction milestones and the facility’s useful-life protections.

Rob Duncan, Waterloo’s police chief, said the city has already committed to architectural costs and that the city-owned site would be used for the facility. “The land is city owned,” Duncan said, and he described the city’s near-term schedule for starting construction if partners and funding are confirmed.

Board members directed staff to continue negotiating the draft intergovernmental agreement and to return with a revised draft and additional financial scenarios; they asked for that follow-up within two weeks so the board could consider whether to refer bonding to the public or to identify a fund-balance payment plan. No final county commitment or vote occurred at the session.

The discussion focused on three central trade-offs: the operational and public-safety benefits of local evidence-processing capacity; the rising cost of the planned facility and how much the county should contribute; and legal constraints on county bonding that may force a public referendum if bonding is used. Supervisors emphasized they wanted clearer cost breakdowns, tighter agreement language on payment and term length, and numbers the county could defend to taxpayers before making a formal pledge.

If the county and Waterloo finalize a 28E intergovernmental agreement and a county funding plan, staff said the city would continue design work and the agencies would refine the facility size and equipment lists to match the county’s confirmed contribution. For now, the project remains in planning and negotiation with a follow-up slated after staff returns a revised agreement and cost scenarios to the board.