Iowa City, Johnson County Officials Review Feasibility Study for Joint Law‑Enforcement Facility and Authority

At a joint meeting of the City of Iowa City Council and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, county and city staff reviewed a feasibility study for a proposed joint law‑enforcement facility that would combine separate police and sheriff spaces and include a new jail. County and city officials emphasized the study is a starting point for discussions about site, scope, governance and financing ahead of a possible bond question on the ballot.

The study presented by Michael Lewis of Shive Hattery and supporting materials from OPN estimate a 138,000‑square‑foot total project, including a 140‑bed jail and 77,000 square feet of joint law‑enforcement space. Lewis summarized the programmatic analysis and said the joint law‑enforcement portion “ended up being 70,000 square feet of space, compared to the separate numbers that were 16,000 larger,” and that the combined plan produced an estimated $10,250,000 in savings compared with two standalone projects.

Why this matters: the county is budgeting for building repairs and has been studying facilities needs since the early 2010s; any construction would likely require voter approval and long‑term financing. Ryan Moss, assistant county attorney, told the bodies the legal vehicle commonly used in Iowa for shared capital projects is authorized by state statute (Iowa Code section 346.27) and would create an independent, three‑member joint authority that could own the building and issue revenue bonds.

Study findings and cost estimates

Jeff Pruett, city manager for Iowa City, described the city’s space‑needs work: the Iowa City Police Department currently occupies about 14,000 square feet downtown and the city’s space study recommended roughly 40,000 square feet to meet current and future needs, with a 2024 baseline estimate of about $32 million for that police facility. County presenters described a 2024 county space study that identified a 101,000‑square‑foot building to house a 140‑bed jail plus sheriff operations.

Michael Lewis reviewed a candidate Riverside Drive site and the cost estimate. He said the total project cost in the packet is about $106,000,000 and that construction costs were estimated at roughly $96,080,000. The presentation noted site constraints (an old landfill in part of the parcel, airport flight path height limits and flood‑plain considerations) and engineering allowances (roughly $800,000 for auger‑cast piles for foundation work on portions of the site). Lewis described a design that would place secured patrol parking under the jail and three stories of joint law‑enforcement space above.

Lewis and county staff outlined a preliminary apportionment of baseline costs (not a final agreement): about $74.8 million allocated to Johnson County and about $31.4 million to Iowa City under a simple split of the net savings. County staff also said the 140‑bed figure reflects programmatic assumptions and projected needs over decades, and that the analysts expect the 140 beds would not be required for about 30 years.

Operational details and shared spaces

Study authors said sharing some spaces (training, parts of the public lobby, certain interview and support rooms) reduces overall square footage by about 16,000 square feet compared with fully separate facilities. Lewis said the analysis itemized rooms and apportioned space: "when we went through that entire analysis, ultimately, it means, 100,650 square feet of the total building... the sheriff's office is 72.93% and the Iowa City Police Department is 27.07% (37,350 square feet)."

Sheriff Chad Kunkel (introduced in the meeting as the county sheriff) framed the problem as twofold: aging, monitored building infrastructure and ongoing overcrowding. Kunkel said the county has budgeted for needed repairs and that monitoring (crack gauges and prisms) is ongoing. He described logistical benefits for county patrol, saying the Riverside site "gives me a lot more flexibility in how we get to where we need to go" compared with the current downtown location.

Dustin Liston, chief of the Iowa City Police Department, said he shares the sheriff’s view about the site’s access and said the department would probably maintain a small downtown footprint for liaison and outreach work: "I think it's a good location for us. I do think we would maintain some sort of small footprint downtown."

Public comment and community concerns

Three members of the public used the allotted public comment time. Clara Ryman (identified to the clerk during her appearance) urged the Iowa City Council to reject a joint‑entity approach and argued the county should pursue a county‑only bond. Ryman criticized the sheriff’s office culture and said the city should retain separate oversight of its police department.

Leslie Carpenter of Iowa Mental Health Advocacy testified to a different view, saying she has seen the sheriff’s office support diversion and treatment programs and that she supports a joint facility. Another commenter identified only as a mental‑health crisis counselor opposed the city joining a joint law‑enforcement facility.

Survey and outreach

County staff described a public opinion survey contracted to the University of Iowa Center for Social Science Innovation (CSSI) at about $55,000. The county said CSSI purchased a representative sample of Johnson County (using 2020 census distribution across municipalities and rural areas), conducted phone follow‑ups and a web survey, and reported a roughly 20 percent completion rate (about 751 completes). Staff said translation services were available by phone and web (they reported no completed non‑English responses), but printed translated surveys were not distributed.

Governance, financing and the joint authority

Ryan Moss gave an overview of the statutory process for forming a joint building authority under Iowa Code section 346.27. He said the law allows creation of a quasi‑public corporation with its own articles of incorporation and bylaws and a three‑member governing board: one member appointed by the county board of supervisors, one by the city council, and a third appointed jointly by the two bodies (or appointed by the governor if the bodies cannot agree). Moss said the authority would issue revenue bonds; repayment would be structured through lease payments by the city and county to the authority, and those payments would be the revenue stream to pay bond debt.

Several council members and supervisors expressed concern about how much decision‑making authority the independent entity would hold. Councilor Josh Moe asked whether savings per square foot could be roughly translated to a taxpayer savings; Lewis replied that $10.25 million was the refined savings estimate. Council members asked whether the city’s land contribution would be counted as value, and county staff said land acquisition was not included in the presented cost estimate and that, if the city provided a site, that contribution would be part of later negotiation.

Council and supervisors discussed whether the council could require an appointed commissioner to return to the council for approval of major decisions. County and city attorneys said the statute does not itself require that kind of reporting but that articles of incorporation, bylaws, or the intergovernmental agreements could be drafted to impose reporting or approval requirements.

Timeline and next steps

Moss and staff outlined a compressed timetable tied to ballot deadlines: ballot language for a revenue bonding question must be finalized months before a November ballot, and the packet presented planned for a November 2026 referendum and construction estimates based on bidding in 2027 with roughly two years of construction. Staff repeatedly described the packet as a starting point for negotiation, not a final plan. County staff said materials and supporting documents (survey methodology, reports) are posted on the county website and offered to provide them to council members and supervisors.

No formal action to form an authority or approve a site or scope occurred at the meeting; the agenda itself was approved by unanimous consent at the start of the session. Councilors and supervisors asked for more time and additional information before any binding commitments.

Ending

Both county and city officials said they would make themselves available for further briefings and that the counties’ materials would be shared. Officials emphasized the study is a beginning for a larger discussion about whether to form a joint authority, what role each jurisdiction would play, what the ballot language would ask voters to approve, and how to apportion cost and governance.