The Ad Hoc Jail Study Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on Wednesday, December 11, 2002, @ 6:30p.m. in the Legislative Center’s Gathertorium.  Chairman Sue Leifheit called the meeting to order.  Members present were Marlene Allen, Ray Bockman, William  Feithen, Michael Haines, Robert Hutcheson, Kenneth Johnson, Lt. Joyce Klein, Ronald Matekaitis, Jeffery Metzger, Sheriff Roger Scott, Linda Swenson, Ruth Anne Tobias and Donald Thomas.  Mr. Jerry Thompson arrived later @ 6:40p.m. and Mr. Kenneth Campbell arrived at 6:50p.m.  Others present were Debbie King, Mr. Peter Paulsen, Ms. Kelly, Brian Adams, Dan Campana and Don Bennett.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Moved by Mr. Hutcheson, seconded by Mr. Haines, and it was carried unanimously to approve the minutes from the October 22, 2002 meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Moved by Mr. Metzger, seconded by Mr. Feithen, and it was carried unanimously to approve the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ms. Kelly who lives off of Sycamore Avenue said that she was concerned about getting notice to the neighbors about what the county is going to do with the neighborhood, especially with regards to the jail and the expansion of it or whatever.  Chairman Leifheit said that as far as the houses coming down in the neighborhood has nothing to do with the jail situation.  As far as how this committee was formed, the Sheriff came to another standing committee in June and informed them that he had a problem and that he might have to ship people out and he might need money to do that.  As far as the homes being bought by the county in the neighborhood, that is from a county board policy that was set some time ago. This policy states that whenever property becomes available, when people came to us, that we should consider buying that property for future use.

Ms. Debbie King said that she is concerned about the safety of the neighborhood. 

Mr. Bennett said that he was concerned about the traffic in the area now.  When you are going to build a new jail are you going to land-lock us? He felt that if a new jail is being thought of then it should be moved.  Chairman Leifheit said that this is not a “done deal” and that she doesn’t know where that idea came from.

Mr. Peter Paulsen, read a letter from a constituent and then voiced his own thoughts.  He encouraged the committee to look at every possible solution to the overcrowding issue, that is, put a courtroom in the jail, lower the amount of days in the jail for the lesser crimes, video conferencing, etc.

PRESENTATIONS BY THE JAIL STUDY CONSULTANTS

DLR Group  Mr. Joseph Haines and Mr. Corey Wieseman of the DLR

Introduced themselves to the committee and briefly explained their firm and what they have to offer to the project.  Mr. Wieseman said that they are known nationally and that they are one of the largest firms in justice experience in the nation.  He highlighted various jail projects that they have worked on in the past.  One in particular was the one is Scott County, Iowa that is similar to our county’s situation.  There are 90,000 people in their county.  They had 264 beds in their jail that was expanded to 324 beds.  It has 150,000 gsf (Jail plus LEC) and is in a downtown location. 

Phase I of the project would verify the planning team, kick-off workshop with the County planning team (they would create the mission statement and plan goals), gather statistical information and physical plant analysis.  They would determine the facility needs and jail bed projections.  They would do this by having a planning team workshop that would discussion the population projections, staffing analysis, classification and physical plant analysis report.  They then would make a presentation to the County Officials and Ad Hoc Jail Study Committee.

They would then do a space program development. This would be done with the planning team workshop.  They would develop facility solutions (alternatives) like no-build options, renovate the existing space, expanding the current facility, new construction or share space somewhere. 

They then would look at Capital/Operational Cost Development.   These projects will cost money.  The operational costs are over 70% in staffing impact, professional fees.  They also consider, furnishings, fixtures, equipment budget and contingency costs.  How to minimize staffing will be suggested.

The final point is the Final Report/Presentation.  They will present a final building program, a staffing analysis, site suggestion, concept design and project budget.  They will make the presentation to the County Board and the Ad Hoc Jail Study Committee.  They recommend 90 days for Phase One.

Mr. Haines said that they would come up with jail financing options.  The county could look at general obligations bonds or municipal bonds, private partners team with public entities, team up with federal law enforcement.  He summarized by stating that they have a very good national reputation, they understand the operational costs, they have experienced leadership, professionalism, seamless delivery of services and owner focused process, and they listen.

Mr. Jerry Thompson asked what they thought the range of costs would be for Phase 1?  Mr. Haines said between $25,000 to $40,000.00.  He said that Scott County, Iowa was a similar project to DeKalb County and that project cost them $43,000.00.

Mr. Hutcheson asked Mr. Haines about the percentage of change orders they have with their various projects?  Mr. Haines said that normal construction change orders are about 1 – 1 ½ %, which he thought was not unusual.

Durrant/Mark Goldman & Associates.  Mr. Len Witke and Mr. Mark Goldman introduced the team of “players” that would be working on this project if they are chosen.  Mr. Hall Farrier is the Operations/Funding Director, Ms. Leona Ketterl, is the Project Manager assigned to this project, Mr. Ashraf Sadek is the Cost Estimator.  Mr. Steve Nolan, who is a long term Jail Administrator, over 30 years in jail administrator and law enforcement.   Mr. Mark Goldman is a Principal and Correctional Planner for the project.  Mr. Len Witke is the Principal in Charge and Correctional Planner.  He and Mr. Goldman have approximately 25 years of experience on a variety of criminal justice projects.  Most recently they have worked on projects in Lake County and Winnebago Counties.  They are committed professionally to look at both sides of the problem. 

Mr. Goldman said that in Winnebago County they suggested a Day Reporting Program as an alternative, Domestic Violence Day Programs, Drug Treatment Programs, etc.  They said that we also need to look at High Security vs. Low Security for the jail layout.  They would also look at the best way to provide additional beds.  Mr. Goldman further said that under Phase I they will study how much this project will cost?  They will develop a thorough cost plan and architectural program.

Mr. Len Witke, said that in the Design issue they will look at parking and security issues, utility issues.  They will bring ideas to the County with regards to whether or not we should expand the existing facility; how we could utilize the space even better than we are currently doing; if there is a need for a minimum-security facility offsite; is there a need for a remote site; etc. 

Mr. Hal Farrier, informed the committee that Durrant has a financial institution that could offer another funding option if the County needed to consider one.  The name of this company is Foresite Capital Corporation.  This firm is a not-for-profit organization that owns the facility.  It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Durrant Group, Inc. It secures financing and develops real estate projects and provides lease or lease-to-purchase financing without raising taxes.  They draw up a contract between DeKalb County and Foresite.  The Lease is approved annually by the County.  The County’s lease payments go toward the purchase of the facility.  Other examples of funding are Bond Referendums and applied sales tax.

In summary, Mr. Witke, stated that they will provide the County with a balanced solution of diverse programs, jail improvements and construction.  DeKalb County will be a part of their planning team throughout the project. He said that they will design a jail that is efficient in terms of staffing and operations and will explore funding options, include Foresite Capital.

Mr. Hutcheson asked Mr. Witke what their change order percentage is on their projects?  Mr. Witke said that with normal construction it would be between 1% and 2%. 

Wold-Kimme.  Mr. Roger Schroepfer, Director–In-Charge of Wold Architects introduced their team to the committee. It consists Mr. Kimme who is the Principal of Kimme and Associates out of Champaign, Illinois who will be working with the County on Phase I Planning.  Mr. Brian Kerner will be the Project Manager assigned to this project if they are chosen and will be working with the County on Phase II.  He said that they bring to the table experience, familiarity with detention design and DeKalb County, reliability and leadership.  He said that Wold works with the Illinois  Department of Corrections on seven (7) correctional projects and five (5) jails projects in Illinois.

Mr. Schroepfer stated that after visiting with DeKalb County staff they listed the jail challenges that the County faces.  They are housing the daily flux in the female population; creating flexible & ADA compliant classification/segregation housing; accommodating existing programs such as attorney visiting & programs; maintaining the flexibility of staff positions to adjust to the need; continue to utilize programs such as home monitoring as to not get into “build it and they will fill it”; look forward 20 years as to not paint the County into a corner with other needs such as courts and sheriffs; and phased construction in an occupied facility if an addition option is selected.  Mr. Schroepfer said that finally it comes down to two things that the project entails which is listening and questioning to gain a mutual understanding. 

Mr. Kimme stated that his firm has done projects in 25 states and that they have staff experience in 50.  They have master planned 28,000 beds and designed 6,300 beds, average size is 180 beds for a project, over 40 law enforcement projects, Mr. Kimme is the author of Jail Design Guide for NIC/DOJ in 1998 and Trainers at NIC events.  Their recent Illinois projects are:  Will, Kankakee, LaSalle, Kendall and Livingston.    They are a small, constant, firm with comprehensive jail planning capabilities. 

Mr. Kimme said that in Phase I his firm will do a needs assessment for the County and Option/Cost Analysis; Building & Site Evaluation; Space, staff, operations programming; facility design & security systems; staff needs updates; manager & line staff training; operational transition; and post-occupancy evaluation.  He also said that they will seek DeKalb County’s participation, which they feel is critical to the project being a success. 

Mr. Kimme said that some of the questions that will need to addressed under Step 1 of the Needs Assessment are: how many beds … and what kind; how do we expand after this project; does the facility sharing make sense; do they need to renovate or add on or possibly do new construction; if the County doesn’t renovate - what to do about the old jail; how many staff; what is it going cost to build and operate; what’s the best option, etc.  He also stressed that detailed staffing cost estimates need to be done.  Overtime staff and operational costs are far greater than the facility costs. 

Mr. Brian Kerner, Project Manager, assigned to this project then discussed the programming for the project.  He will lead the team in keeping promises to the community on cost, time and quality.  He has an in house design team and engineers.  He said that cost estimates follow the trends.  He will keep our goals in mind for the project to come in on time, stay within our budget, complete documents, no change orders, follow the county process and standards, produce a quality building and quality systems.   

Mr. Hutcheson asked Mr. Kerner what their firm’s change order policy is?  Mr. Kerner said that if it is our fault then less than 2%. 

Mr. Haines asked what their firm would charge for this Phase I?  Mr. Kimmer said that it depends, anywhere between $40,000 - $80,000.00. 

After all the firms were finished with their presentations, Mr. Bockman passed out Ranking Sheets to rank the consultants 1^st through 3^rd, with the 1^st being the chosen firm.   The Committee ranked Durrant/Mark Goldman as 1^st place, Wold-Kimme as 2^nd place and DLR as 3^rd place.  Lt. Klein said that Durrant/Goldman listened the best to problems that the county officials told them and did the least amount of talking.  They addressed the county’s questions and concerns the greatest and showed the most concern for the community’s concerns.  Mr. Don Thomas said that he felt that Durrant/Goldman are specialists in this field and that Mr. Goldman is an expert in programming and that he was impressed with their financing expertise.  Mr. Ken Johnson said that he liked them suggesting sentencing alternatives and that they are willing to find funding mechanisms.  He also liked the fact that they did not suggest a new building right away and that they have a neutral party (Mr. Goldman) involved to ask if they can do something else instead of building a new facility right away.  Mr. Matekaitis said that he liked the fact that when they came to visit him they really “picked his brain”. 

Moved by Mr. Feithen, seconded by Mr. Haines, and it was carried unanimously that the committee award the Phase I – Planning Process, at this point, to Durrant/Goldman firm and 2^nd place to Wold.  In case the County cannot negotiate a contract with Durrant then the county will move negotiations to the 2^nd place consultant.  Mr. Bockman also suggested that if negotiations do breakdown then this committee should direct him to come back to the committee and talk about what the options would be at that point.

Chairman Leifheit asked if the committee should set a next meeting date?  Mr. Bockman suggested that he will check with Durrant/Goldman to see when they feel is the appropriate time to get back to the committee with their findings.  The committee agreed with this.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Mr. Matekaitis, seconded by Mr. Thomas, and it was carried unanimously to adjourn.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        _________________________________
                                                                        Sue Leifheit, Chairman

_______________________________
Mary C. Supple, Secretary