The Capacity Question

At least five different capacity figures have been applied to the existing jail at 511 S. Capitol Street in public documents — ranging from 46 to 117. Three more figures describe the proposed replacement — 120, 140, and 240 — and those figures are themselves contested. There is still significant disagreement among County Supervisors about the desired capacity for any new facility.

Supervisor Rod Sullivan offered one account of how the existing jail's figures evolved, in an interview with the Daily Iowan (May 7, 2026): the jail was originally built to hold 46 and became 92 when the State of Iowa permitted double-bunking. Standards later changed — but Johnson County was grandfathered in under the old rules. Sullivan said Sheriff Kunkel has "chosen to cap it at about 65" because he has found the higher figures "completely unworkable." That choice directly affects County expenditures on out-of-county housing and the cost-comparisons in the Shive-Hattery needs assessment. Available records do not show "workable" to be a defined standard or to be driven by any specific documented concern (Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 50; State Inspector reports January 2025 and January 2026).

The State of Iowa's report lists "designed capacity" as 103 on page 7 (92 permanent beds plus 11 temporary holding cells) and as 117 on page 12 (92 permanent beds plus 25 temporary holding cells) of the same report. The difference is 14 temporary holding cells. No explanation for the discrepancy appears in the report.

Shive-Hattery describes an "operational capacity" of 65. This is the primary number used to frame the current jail as perpetually at or above capacity. Its origin is unclear, but Sheriff Kunkel's statements at meetings imply that the Sheriff unilaterally determines this number, based on factors like staff availability and perceived safety.

The 65 figure first appears publicly on May 29, 2024, when a Shive-Hattery presenter told the Board of Supervisors the jail was "running around 65 beds." It appears in no Iowa Administrative Code provision, no Iowa Department of Inspections record, and no formal Sheriff's Office written policy surfaced in the public record to date.

The "operational capacity" of 65 appears to be the limit maintained, according to average daily population counts. When the number of the population exceeds 65, people are transferred to facilities outside the county. For fiscal year 2027, the County expects to spend $800,000 on out-of-county housing — presumably based on exceeding operational capacity.

Shive-Hattery describes the 240 figure as: "Administration and miscellaneous functions, inmate processing functions, and support functions have been programmed to accommodate expansion of this facility to 240 beds." The same section adds that "the need for a 240-bed facility is beyond 30 years (2054)". The report also notes that a jail's lifetime is "generally between 40 to 50 years"

Meaning the building's mechanical, food service, intake, laundry, and central control systems are sized not to be used for the first 30 years of the building's existence. If the proposed expansion happens, it would have an expected lifetime of 10–20 years before requiring replacement.

The original report asked for 240 beds. I fought for 120 beds. I was focused on making sure that our jail was "right sized" according to the data.

We have never been talking about opening the doors with 240 beds. … Nobody's been talking about 240 beds from the get-go. It's been 140 the whole time.

The public framing shifted materially between August 2024 and April 2026. Shive-Hattery describes core support "sized for the full capacity" with housing pods added later to reach 240. By April 22, 2026, Sullivan and Sheriff Kunkel were clarifying on the public record that "expandable to 240 beds" language in materials was misleading: any expansion beyond 140 would require "a separate attached facility."

Whether the Vol. I core-support sizing survives into the current schematic design under Amendment 3 is not established in any published document.

A separate shift in public framing concerns the headline bed count. Through August 2025, the proposal was consistently described as a 140-bed facility. At the September 17, 2025 Board of Supervisors Work Session, Supervisor Green proposed 120 built-out beds with 20 shelled (framed but unfinished) beds, and Sheriff Kunkel agreed. By April 22, 2026, Kunkel was describing the proposal publicly as a "120-bed facility." The 20 shelled beds remain in the construction footprint and are included in the project cost; "120 beds" arguably understates what will actually be built and paid for.

Population — County vs. Sheriff

The University of Iowa Center for Social Science Innovation conducted focus groups for Johnson County. Participants were given a two-page document titled "Jail Quick Facts," which told participants: "Avg daily population — 2024 ADP was 86."

The Sheriff's Office publishes monthly control sheets listing in-house, out-of-county, and electronic-monitor populations. The FY24 control sheet (July 2023 through June 2024) yields:

The "86" figure does not match the Sheriff's FY24 fiscal-year total of 81.15. It is consistent with calendar year 2024 (January–December) total in-custody ADP of 86.14 — computed by combining the tail of the FY24 control sheet (Jan–Jun 2024) with the head of the FY25 control sheet (Jul–Dec 2024).

The focus-group fact sheet does not disclose this, and does not state that the figure is based on an ADP definition that includes those housed outside the county and those subject to electronic monitoring.

The fact sheet does not mention that out-of-county population spiked in September–December 2024 (averaging ~33/day, roughly double the first half of 2024 and significantly above any other time over the past 3.5 years).

Focus-group participants saw only that "2024 ADP was 86" before they were asked about "overcrowding" and whether they supported a new jail.

✕

The Sheriff's dashboard provides a "12-year trend" and labels the headline metric "Average Daily Jail Population," but the control sheet defines total in-custody ADP as in-house + out-of-county housed + electronic monitor (EM).

In FY24: 56.82 in-house + 16.98 OoC + 7.35 EM = 81.15 total. Roughly 25–33 of the ~90 blended figure are in other counties' jails or on EM at home.

The number physically in the building (~56–65) is at or below the Sheriff's stated 65-bed operational cap and well under the 92 rated capacity. The label "Jail Population" applied to the blended total is the same definitional issue present in the CSSI "86 ADP" fact sheet, which uses the same blended figure without disclosing the breakdown.

The trendline in the Sheriff's "12 Year Trend" chart slopes downward, but that slope depends almost entirely on 2020 — the single year COVID cut ADP in half. Remove 2020 and 2021 and eleven years of data show no directional trend: ADP averages ~96 across 2014–2019 and sits at 83–88 in 2022–2025, a level shift after the pandemic, not a continuing decline.

Over the same period, Johnson County's population grew from 142,874 (2014) to 160,044 (2025) — up ~12% (U.S. Census Bureau annual estimates, FRED series IAJOHN3POP). Jail population per capita fell while the county grew.

The chart below plots Sheriff's Office control-sheet data from FY15 through FY26 (partial) against reference lines showing the Sheriff's 65-bed operational cap, the State Inspector's 92-bed permanent capacity, and the proposed new facility's 120-bed built-out and 140-bed shelled capacity.

In-house ADP has been roughly flat just below the 65-bed cap since FY16. Total in-custody ADP declined from the mid-90s in FY16–FY19 to the low-80s by FY23–FY24, then rose to a 12-month rolling mean of ~89.6 (April 2025–March 2026, peak ~97 in July 2025). At no point in the data does total ADP reach the proposed facility's 120-bed built-out threshold. The Sheriff states a current operational cap of 65. The proposed expansion targets 120 built-out beds, expandable to 140, with infrastructure for 240.

ADP rose from approximately 85.0 in June 2025 to 97.0 in July 2025, coinciding with the CSSI survey field period (June 20–July 18, 2025). No explanation appears in the meeting record, the jail-stats page, or news coverage. Supervisor Fixmer-Oraiz described the trend as "declining" at the July 1, 2026 work session (Granicus clip 3692), which does not match the published figures for summer and fall 2025. Plausible neutral causes — seasonality, court backlog, fewer out-of-county transfers — are undocumented. Separately, 73% of bookings in 2025 (3,722 of approximately 5,051) resulted in release within 24 hours; only 52 stays exceeded 90 days.

The Sheriff's dashboard publishes a "12 Year Trend" chart (calendar years 2014–2025) with no trendline drawn. The charts above show that chart alongside a recreation using the same data with a computed trendline. The slope is approximately −2.6 ADP/year (R² ≈ 0.30) — a ~25% decline from 2014 to 2025. The May 2026 figure of 89.6 is a single-month data point, not a 12-month mean.

The May 2026 dashboard's "Population by Arresting Agency" column sums to 411 (Iowa City PD 196 + Sheriff 126 + Coralville 42 + U of Iowa 17 + North Liberty 9 + Univ Heights 4 + State Patrol 9 + DOC 8), while "Total Bookings" on the same page is 429 — an 18-booking gap. The age/gender breakdown on the same page sums to 429. The column is labeled "Population" but counts bookings, not the ~90 daily ADP. The cause of the 18-booking discrepancy is not stated.

Cost — A Moving Target

The $96M figure is the capital cost only. Financing terms — the repayment period and interest rate — were largely absent from the public record until June 10, 2026, and they materially affect what the bond ultimately costs. At 4.5% over 20 years, total debt service on $96M is approximately $147M; at the 10-year term confirmed June 10, total debt service falls to approximately $121M — but annual payments rise ~65%, from ~$7.4M/yr to ~$12.1M/yr. No Shive-Hattery report states an assumed term or rate. The county's $69.4M "savings" claim was derived without any financing costs at all (see Cost Analysis, Part 3).

The Shive-Hattery Vol. I Needs Assessment (August 8, 2024) presented two cost figures for two different scopes. A jail-only component at 57,500 GSF, escalated to 2025 dollars, was estimated at $48.88M (range: $46.7M–$51.1M). A combined Sheriff's Office and jail facility covering 111,300 GSF was estimated at $79.75M (range: $76.25M–$83.25M). These 2024 figures used construction rates that have not been updated in any published document.

By August 14, 2025, Shive-Hattery and OPN Architects presented a joint feasibility study to the Board of Supervisors exploring a combined Johnson County / Iowa City Police Department facility. That estimate was $104.5M–$106M, using updated rates of $612/SF for law enforcement and $800/SF for jail, projected to 2027 dollars. The joint approach collapsed in September 2025.

The CSSI focus-group fact sheet used in October 2025 stated the cost as approximately $80M. This figure was closest to the Vol. I 2024 combined stand-alone estimate. The focus groups were conducted October 6–8, 2025; the $104.5M–$106M joint-facility figure had been presented to the Board six weeks earlier, on August 14, 2025. No public document explains why the $80M figure appeared on the fact sheet after the stand-alone recalculation was underway.

The County's first formal capital-planning statement of the bond size, in the FY27–FY31 Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan presented to the Board on May 20, 2026, lists the Sheriff's Office and Jail Bond at $96M total — $6.2M in FY27 (design), $40M in FY28 (construction), $40M in FY29 (construction), $9.8M in FY30 (completion and move-in). An asterisk on the same table reads: "Dependent upon November 2026 bond referendum vote – Note the bond referendum amount is not finalized." The $16M affordable-housing component reported in earlier media coverage is not within the $96M; it is being financed through the separate essential-purpose bond authorized by Resolution 04-23-26-02 (April 23, 2026), which does not require voter approval.

The property-tax impact figure originates at the June 10, 2026 Board of Supervisors work session. Chair Jon Green, presenting work by Finance Director Dana Aschenbrenner , stated: "The number that goes in that blank is $107 … per $100,000 valuation, which is higher than what we’ve been discussing because in earlier discussions we had assumed a 20-year repayment. $107 is for a 10-year repayment." Green then worked the example live, estimating an average taxable valuation in Johnson County of $300,000, yielding $321 per year (~93¢/day). KCRG subsequently reported the figure as "$107 a year per $100,000 of assessed property value," rendering Green’s "valuation" as "assessed" — a distinction that matters in Iowa.

Iowa bond levies are applied to taxable value: assessed value multiplied by a state-set annual rollback before the levy rate is applied. Green’s use of "taxable valuation" is confirmed by arithmetic — $300,000 × ($107 / $100,000) = $321 — so $107 is unambiguously per $100,000 of taxable value, not assessed. This is consistent with an independent back-calculation: a 10-year bond at ~5.5% interest produces annual debt service of ~$12.7M; divided across Johnson County’s FY27 debt-service taxable valuation of $11.81B (FY27 Tax Calculation Worksheet, April 20, 2026), that implies a levy of ~1.08 mills, or ~$108/yr per $100,000 of taxable value. Using FY27 rollback rates from the same document — 44.5% for residential, 80% for commercial — the per-$100,000 figures by value base are:

• Per $100,000 of taxable value (post-rollback, all classes): ~$107–108/yr — Green’s stated figure; what the published notice will show.
• Per $100,000 of assessed value, residential (FY27 rollback: 44.5%): ~$48/yr
• Per $100,000 of assessed value, commercial (FY27 rollback: 80%): ~$86/yr

Green cited $300,000 as an average taxable valuation; for a residential property at the FY27 rollback that corresponds to roughly $674,000 assessed — above typical for Johnson County. A more grounded example: a home assessed at $300,000 carries ~$133,600 in taxable value and would owe approximately $144/yr. A commercial property assessed at $300,000 carries $240,000 in taxable value and would owe approximately $259/yr. Rollback percentages are reset annually by the Iowa Department of Revenue; effective amounts will shift over the bond’s life. No financing plan has been published; the interest rate assumption (5.5%) is an estimate. Green also noted that earlier, unpublished discussions had used a 20-year repayment schedule, which would have produced a lower per-$100,000 figure.

Pre-Bond Consultant Spending — Contracted Before Voters Weigh In

Johnson County has contracted at least $4.86M in consultant fees related to the jail project before the November 3, 2026 ballot, of which $4.26M is documented in specific Board resolutions in Granicus. The contracts span three vendors across a period beginning September 2023.

Shive-Hattery is an architecture and engineering consulting firm that self-describes as offering "360 Expertise in Architecture, Design, & Engineering." The firm has an active public safety and justice facilities practice and its website markets "teams of justice design architects" with expertise in correctional facility standards (ACA, ADA, PREA) and lists county jails, state prisons, and police stations among its completed projects. The firm is simultaneously contracted to assess needs, design the facility, and run a public awareness campaign.

Shive-Hattery's original contract (September 21, 2023, $75,000) covered facility and space needs assessment. Three amendments followed: Amendment 1 ($63,800, January 21, 2025) for a joint feasibility study with OPN; Amendment 2 ($13,000, November 14, 2025) for housing-unit redesign; and Amendment 3 ($549,000, February 23, 2026) covering schematic design, project delivery, site due diligence, and a "Public Awareness Campaign." The cumulative Shive-Hattery total is $700,800. The executed copy of Amendment 3 produced via open-records request has a blank client signature line.

CSSI / University of Iowa was contracted for $53,406 (signed April 9, 2025, Board approval March 13, 2025) to conduct the survey and focus groups documented in Section 7. The client signature line on the executed CSSI Statement of Work is also blank.

Axiom Consultants was engaged for stabilization construction — emergency structural repairs to the existing jail — at $3,230,395 (Resolution 11-13-25-01, November 13, 2025), plus an estimated design fee of approximately $280,000.

Shive-Hattery Amendment 3, Part 4 is a "Public Awareness Campaign" with deliverables scheduled for completion by October 14, 2026 — the first day of early voting in Johnson County. This work is covered in detail in Section 10.

An earlier draft of the ballot language named "refunding pre-development costs" as a bond purpose; the July 2 draft dropped it, leaving unresolved whether the >$4M already spent — and the reserve-funded land — would be reimbursed from bond proceeds if the bond passes.

Out-of-County Housing: The FY27 Question

When the Johnson County jail is at capacity by any operative measure, people are held in other county jails under contract. The County pays a per-diem or transfer rate to the receiving facility. The Sheriff's Office tracks these costs as SC349 — Inmate Housing - Out of County.

Four recent data points frame the FY27 budget question:

• FY24 actual: $303,120 — the lowest full-year cost in the dataset.
• FY25 actual: $440,380 — an increase of 45% while the out-of-county population remained stable.
• FY26 partial: $240,319 (six months, July–December 2025).
• FY27 budgeted: $800,000 — 2.6× the FY24 actual and 81% above the FY25 actual.

The $960K standing budget — a decade of unmotivated static carry-forward

The actual cost picture requires both numbers. The County's "Jail Inmate Housing Expenses" line (account 01-08-1050000-48615 in the FY26 budget worksheet; renamed SC349 in FY27) stood at $960,000 in every published budget through FY26. Sheriff Kunkel told the Board on November 25, 2024 that this figure has been "in place before I came into office" and is "always kept... static in case of emergency" (Sheriff's FY26 Budget Presentation, slide 20). Kunkel took office in January 2017. Actual spending has not approached the $960K line since 2015.

* FY26 projected from $240,319 partial through December 2025. For FY27, the line drops $160,000 (17%) without explanation beyond a "SC change for inmate housing" reclassification note. The figure remains roughly 2× recent full-year actuals. Source: Sheriff's Office FY26 Budget Presentation (Snapshot-26843), FY26 Budget Worksheet (Snapshot-26840), FY27 Budget Worksheet (Snapshot-29499). FY23 and FY24 actuals ($331,885 and $310,700) are from the Budget Presentation (slide 10); the control-sheet data underlying the OoC chart above shows $326,805 and $303,120 for the same years. Both sets of figures are primary-source; the discrepancy likely reflects accrual timing between the budget-presentation snapshot and the year-end control sheet.

The County stopped publishing comprehensive Budget Books after FY25. FY26 and FY27 publish only the Tax Calculation, State Form, and Total Expenses documents. The SC349 line-item history is not easily traceable across years from the published budget documents alone.

Bond History — Johnson County Voters Have Done This Before

The November 2026 ballot is not the first time Johnson County voters have been asked to fund a jail replacement. Three prior ballot measures reached voters; all three failed. The failures fall into two distinct categories: the 2000 attempt (35% yes) fell short of a simple majority while the 2012 (56% yes) and 2013 (54% yes) attempts cleared simple majority but fell short of Iowa Code §75.1's 60% supermajority requirement.

* 2026 $/bed computed on 120 built-out beds. The facility includes 20 additional shelled beds (framed but unfinished); if counted, per-bed cost falls to ~$686K.

The sharpest comparison is per bed. The failed 2012 Justice Center proposed 243 beds at $46.8M — approximately $193K/bed nominal, or roughly $354K/bed in 2026 dollars. The current proposal asks for 120 built-out beds at $96M project total — approximately $800K/bed for actually-built capacity. If the 20 shelled (framed but unfinished) beds are counted as delivered capacity, the figure falls to ~$686K/bed. The 2026 proposal is asking for fewer than half the beds at roughly 2.3× the inflation-adjusted per-bed cost of the 2012 measure. The standard defenses — "construction costs have risen" and "we right-sized the facility" — do not individually explain this gap; the two move in opposite directions and compound rather than cancel.

The 2000 standalone-jail proposal (255 beds, $19M) was a different category of failure: 65% voted no, far short of even simple majority. The 2013 ask was smaller than 2012's ($43.5M vs. $46.8M) but received a lower yes vote (54% vs. 56%) — suggesting the 2012/2013 rejections were not solely about the dollar amount.

Except as otherwise provided by law, the proposition to issue bonds shall be approved by sixty percent of those voting on the proposition.

The CSSI Survey — What 74% Does and Doesn't Mean

In December 2025, the University of Iowa Center for Social and Behavioral Research (CSSI) delivered its final report on a survey and focus-group project commissioned by the Johnson County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. The survey's headline finding: 74% of respondents said they would "definitely" or "probably" vote yes on a new jail bond.

Several features of the survey methodology are worth examining before the headline figure is treated as a reliable forecast of November 2026 ballot results.

The survey's Q10 asked respondents to rate the importance of six "issues identified by the Board of Supervisors." These functioned as a priming block — presented before the vote-intent question. The 60% Iowa supermajority threshold does not appear in Q10, in the vote-intent question, or anywhere in the survey instrument. The CSSI Final Report does not mention Iowa Code §75.1 or the distinction between majority and supermajority approval.

Average daily population is 86, they want 140 beds.

That paraphrase reflects the County's fact sheet verbatim. The figure is reconstructable: calendar year 2024 total in-custody ADP from the the Sheriff's control sheets is 86.14 — but it is a calendar-year figure, not the fiscal-year figure used elsewhere in the bond narrative (FY24 total in-custody: 81.15), and it is inflated by a Linn County contract ramp-up that drove September–December 2024 totals to 104–110 per day. The fact sheet names none of these choices.

The focus-group scope contracted for 36 participants across six groups — two groups each of community members, jail staff, and people with incarceration experience. Three groups were delivered with 17 total participants. The stratification was changed from community/staff/incarcerated to vote-intent-stratified (yes/maybe/no). No Board addendum or public record of this scope change has been located in Granicus or the County's online meeting documentation.

Mailing #2 in the survey outreach plan was cancelled mid-project; $7,700 was reallocated to focus groups. No public addendum to the CSSI contract authorizing this reallocation appears in the public record.

Sheriff Kunkel stated at the May 21, 2026 Board of Supervisors Formal Meeting: "They had input at every meeting. … We had incarcerated people on the meetings and we took a lot of public comment too. They have been directly involved the whole time." The record supports this for the full CJCC plenary, where public participation is documented.

It does not apply to the focus groups groups CSSI conducted, or to the subcommittee sessions where the survey instrument was designed. It also does not describe the design process that produced the Needs Assessment itself, which concluded in August 2024 — before the CJCC resumed meeting. Shive-Hattery Vol. I (p. 10) describes that process:

The consultant team interviewed law enforcement and jail staff stakeholders to explore and document system-wide operations that affect the size and composition of the law enforcement/jail population, conducted multiple site visits, gathered and analyzed quantitative data and participated in meetings with the sheriff's assigned personnel.

Supervisor V Fixmer-Oraiz cited this passage directly in a May 19, 2026 public letter, writing: "the $90 million-plus design now before us featured only a singular perspective: that of the sheriff's department."

IRB Classification: Quality Improvement, Not Research

An open-records request to the University of Iowa produced the HSRD (Human Subjects Research Determination) Form for the CSSI project — IRB ID 202503233, filed by PI Cassidy Branch. The form records the university's formal determination that the project constitutes quality improvement (QI) / program evaluation, not human subjects research under the federal definition at 45 CFR 46.102(d).

The federal definition of research is "a systematic investigation including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." The HSRD form answers "No" to whether findings are intended to apply beyond the population immediately studied (HSRD I.5), and states at HSRD I.6:

This project is seeking to assess community needs and perceptions to inform planning to replace the Johnson County Sheriff's Office and Jail facility and is not seeking to contribute to "generalizable knowledge" for research.

The form frames the work as data collection for "purposes of internal management" of the CJCC client — including "community needs, program evaluation, quality assurance, quality improvement, fiscal or program audits." Under that framing, the project did not require full IRB review or the informed-consent and participant-protection requirements that govern human subjects research under 45 CFR Part 46.

Several features of the project as delivered sit in tension with that classification. The survey sampled 3,859 Johnson County households using a purchased third-party address list — a systematic investigation of a defined public population, not internal staff or program participants. Demographic variables including age, race, gender, and ethnicity were collected (HSRD II.2). The form itself acknowledges that the project involves individually identifiable information (HSRD II.3: Yes) and obtains data from living individuals through direct interaction (HSRD II.1: Yes). The Final Report was publicly released in December 2025, and its 74% headline finding was cited in county communications, board presentations, and public bond advocacy — uses that extend well beyond the CJCC's internal management.

The QI exemption also requires that findings apply only to the population immediately studied. The population surveyed is Johnson County residents at large — a group that is largely disjoint from the population the facility improvement is intended to serve. The people most directly affected by a new jail are those who will be incarcerated in it: a population that has no vote on the bond, substantially no presence in the mail survey (the incarcerated-experience focus group, one of the original three stratified groups, was restructured and ultimately delivered only a fraction of contracted participants), and no documented role in designing the survey instrument. The "improvement" being evaluated is for one population; the opinions gathered are from another.

The HSRD form also answered "No" to whether the project would involve influencing participants' environment. Q10 of the survey instrument is a priming block — presenting six "issues identified by the Board of Supervisors" as stimuli before asking respondents to state their vote intent. The survey then included a follow-on question asking whether respondents' opinions had changed after reading that information. Measuring attitude shift before and after an informational stimulus is a standard experimental design for testing persuasive effect — a methodology that presupposes the stimulus is intended to influence. That structure is not consistent with a "No" answer on environmental influence.

The HSRD form lists the funding source as "Departmental." The $53,406 county contract that funded the work — approved by the Board of Supervisors March 13, 2025 — is not reflected in the funding disclosure.

The State Jail Inspector — Two Consecutive Zero-Non-Compliance Records

Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 50.6 requires the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) to inspect county jails annually. Inspector Delbert G. Longley conducted the Johnson County Jail inspection on January 7, 2025 and January 6, 2026.

Both inspections returned zero non-compliance items. The State's compliance standard for capacity — Iowa Administrative Code §50.6(5), "Designed capacity not exceeded" — was marked compliant in both years. The Inspector used 92 as the operative designed capacity figure.

Physical-condition issues were noted in both inspections: building deterioration (§50.4(2)), mattress wear (§50.9(11)), and housekeeping/vent dust (§50.14). The 2026 report noted that deterioration "continues to exist and appears to be worsening," and that the Axiom stabilization scope addresses the structural deterioration. None of these issues rose to a non-compliance finding.

The Johnson County Jail is the cleanest that I have observed. Staff is doing an exceptional job considering the physical restrictions of the jail.

The CSSI survey's Q10 — a priming block presented to respondents before the vote-intent question — listed six issues identified by the Board of Supervisors. Several map directly to the Inspector's record: "overcrowding" (§50.6(5) marked compliant both years using 92 as the operative figure); "failing HVAC / poor air quality and mold" (housekeeping and vent dust noted, no non-compliance); "structural concerns" (deterioration noted, compliant — Axiom scope addresses it); "significant liability" (zero non-compliance items either year). The framing in the Q10 priming block is not reflected in the State's zero-non-compliance findings.

Sheriff's Office Budget Growth

From $11.62M (FY22 actual) to $18.67M (FY27 proposed) — a 61% increase over five years, independent of any bond-funded construction. The FY22–FY25 actuals show annual growth of approximately $1.2M/year on average. The FY27 all-funds total is $20.73M, including a $600K FD30 increment for the Axiom stabilization work. Budget growth of this scale is worth noting as context for any bond-funded expansion. Sources: FY24 Budget Book (FY22 actual); FY25 Budget Book (FY23 actual); FY27 Tax Calculation worksheet (FY24–FY27).

The Public Awareness Campaign

Public Awareness Campaign support activities leading to a funding vote on November 3, 2026

The County's $549,000 Shive-Hattery Amendment 3 contract includes a Part 4 covering "Public Awareness Campaign support activities." Deliverables — Bond Calendar, Bond Presentation, Bond Marketing Materials, Community Presentations, "why this is an Essential Project" website collateral — are scheduled to be complete by October 14, 2026. Iowa early voting begins October 14, 2026.

Iowa courts have distinguished between "informational" expenditures by public bodies on ballot measures (permissible) and "advocacy" expenditures (prohibited under Iowa Code §68A.405A). Of the Amendment 3 Part 4 deliverables, "Bond Calendar" and "Community Presentations" are more easily characterized as informational. "Bond Marketing Materials" and the "why this is an Essential Project" website collateral sit closer to the advocacy line. The Board has not published a legal opinion on whether the Amendment 3 Part 4 scope satisfies the informational test.

Separately, records produced via open-records request (RR-005) show the County registered the domain johnsoncountyjailbond.com and an annual Squarespace subscription on March 3, 2026, billed to the Board of Supervisors. The County confirmed that $30,000 — the 5% "Public Awareness Campaign" share of the $549,000 Shive-Hattery Amendment 3 contract — funds this work, and that the site will be "released when we are confident the project is moving forward to the November 2026 ballot." A public-funded website named for the bond, launched on the campaign timeline, is the sharpest test yet of the informational-vs-advocacy line under §68A.405A. See the Records page (RR-005).

The PPI Critique

In December 2024, Prison Policy Initiative researchers Emmett Sanders and Sarah Staudt submitted a 19-page memo to Prairielands Freedom Fund analyzing the Shive-Hattery Vol I Needs Assessment. It was presented at the May 8, 2025 CJCC meeting by Elizabeth Rook Panicucci — the same meeting where the CSSI survey instrument was finalized. None of its findings appear in the CSSI survey or Final Report.