Cost Analysis

Debt Service

Johnson County's existing bonds are nearly paid off. The FY27 Tax Calculation Worksheet shows the Debt Service Fund (Fund 65) with FY27 tentative revenues of $36,038 — effectively zero. The county is at or near the end of its current bond obligations.

The term history runs through three stages. On June 10, 2026, Chair Green presented Finance Director Dana Aschenbrenner's $107/$100K figure on a 10-year, 5.5% basis. Aschenbrenner's later written summary (July 29, 2026 work session packet) describes those assumptions as intentionally "aggressive": his goal was "to set a 'ceiling' that I could confidently state regardless of the ultimate financing terms agreed upon." On July 29, Piper Sandler & Co. presented a maturity matrix — eleven scenarios, 2037 to 2047 final maturities, at market-based yields of 4.17% to 4.49%. On August 5, Green announced that he and Supervisor Sullivan had "settled on a 12-year repayment"; Green-Douglass pressed for 15 or 20 years and then accepted 12; Fixmer-Oraiz and Remington opposed. The 12-year term was never placed in the resolution, the notice, or the ballot. The notice explicitly states its estimate on property taxes is based on a repayment term that is subject to change. Iowa Code §76.1 caps GO retirement at 20 years from issue; §76.2 requires a levy resolution naming a repayment period before issuance — a post-election decision by whichever board then sits.

Source: "summary of options with tax impacts 2026-07-23 v2," July 29, 2026 work session packet (Granicus clip 3736), p. 9. Download the packet (PDF), including the Finance Director's Executive Summary. All rows assume $94.5M borrowed against the FY27 debt-service taxable valuation of $11.81B with zero valuation growth for the full term — a conservative assumption; the county's worksheets show the base grew 3.57% (FY26) and 4.71% (FY27). Estimated proceeds available for construction are ~$94.9M in every row: the term choice changes what taxpayers pay, not what the project receives. Bonds are callable from 2033–2035 depending on scenario. Costs of issuance ($744,100, including the Piper Sandler fee) are paid from bond proceeds.

What the ballot and notice do not say

The proposition voters will see is fixed by statute — §331.442(2)(b) prescribes the form, with blanks only for the county name, amount, and purpose — so interest could not lawfully appear on the ballot. Fixmer-Oraiz's August 6 amendment to add "an additional $30,000,000 in interest" failed 2-3 on bond-counsel advice, and on the ballot form the advice had a statutory basis. But the notice, the county's website, and its fact sheet are not statutorily constrained, and none of them states a term, a rate, or an interest total. Five things a yes vote authorizes that no county document tells voters:

1. The levy is mandatory (§76.2) and sized to principal plus whatever interest results; §76.3 says a bond proposition's dollar limit restricts only the amount of bonds issued, not the taxes levied. The total authorization is therefore roughly $120M to $146M at the matrix's assumed rates, wider if rates move before pricing.
2. The 12-year figure is a two-supervisor agreement recorded in work-session minutes. The notice itself says the estimate "may be adjusted down depending on the final repayment schedule." The named mechanism for lowering the annual figure, a longer schedule, raises the total cost: 15 years adds $7.8M of interest over the 12-year scenario, 20 years adds $21.4M. Publishing a planning term is neither difficult nor unusual: the City of Urbandale's information page for its November 3 bond includes it (published July 1, 2026; retrieved August 11).
3. The notice's $88.00 was computed per $100,000 of taxable value and recited per $100,000 of actual value. The difference is the 47.4% residential rollback. See fact check.
4. The notice calls the estimate "the maximum taxpayer cost"; the Finance Director told the Board the published figure "establishes the maximum amount that may be levied." §331.442 calls it an estimate; neither ch. 75 nor ch. 76 makes it a cap; Ahlers & Cooney's client guidance on the disclosure law describes it as a disclosure. No legal authority for the ceiling claim has been cited in any county document.
5. "Acquiring land" is an adopted bond purpose; the ~$2.1M IWV/Slothower parcel was bought from reserves in July 2026 and could be reimbursed from proceeds after passage.

The Land Is Being Bought Outside the Bond

On July 2, 2026, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve a definitive purchase agreement for approximately 35 acres at the SW corner of IWV Road SW & Slothower Road, inside Iowa City limits. The price is $60,000 per acre of gross land area — approximately $2.1M total, with the exact figure to be set once a survey and replat record the final acreage. The purchase is funded entirely from County reserves; it is not part of the $94.5M bond. reserves; it is not part of the $94.5M bond.

The ballot proposition names "acquiring land"

The adopted ballot proposition (Resolution 08-06-26-03, August 6, 2026) authorizes bonds "for the purpose of acquiring land and constructing, equipping and furnishing a new sheriff's office and jail facility." Land acquisition is a named purpose of the $94.5M bond — yet the actual site was acquired first, from reserves, before any vote. Land acquisition is a named purpose of the $94.5M bond — yet the actual site was acquired first, from reserves, before any vote.

The most likely mechanism is reserve-then-reimburse: the County fronts the purchase from cash and, if the bond passes, reimburses reserves from bond proceeds. No document confirms this for this specific purchase; it is an inference. The County has done it before: the FY25 budget included "$1,044,000 Bond Proceeds for Affordable Housing" reimbursing an earlier reserve outlay. The May 6, 2026 draft ballot Options 1 and 2 expressly listed "refunding pre-development costs" as a bond purpose, which would have covered the ~$2.9M in documented pre-bond consultant spending and construction commitments paid from current funds. The adopted proposition names "acquiring land" but dropped "refunding pre-development costs" — so the land can be reimbursed from proceeds; the consultant spending cannot, absent a broader reading of the construction purpose. current funds. The adopted proposition names "acquiring land" but dropped "refunding pre-development costs" — so the land can be reimbursed from proceeds; the consultant spending cannot, absent a broader reading of the construction purpose.

The bond vote is a waivable contingency

The purchase agreement includes a bond-referendum contingency, but contingency (i) allows the County to waive it: passage of a referendum "may be released by Buyer and Buyer may elect to proceed to Closing notwithstanding, and at any time before or without, the holding of any such referendum." The County can close whether the bond passes, fails, or is never held.

At the public meeting, Supervisor Fixmer-Oraiz voted for the purchase as "a land option and not for any particular specific purpose." Chair Green described the jail as "the most likely outcome … regardless of what ends up being developed there, if anything." The executed contract warrants the County's ability to "use and develop the Property for its intended governmental purposes, including a County jail and sheriff's office." The purchase agreement is available for download on the Records page.

Price, assessed value, and the easement

The County is paying approximately $60,000/acre. The Iowa City Assessor's 2025 reassessment values the land at approximately $31,590/acre (all land; $0 improvements). The last recorded sale was May 13, 2021: $2,450,880 for the whole tract, implying roughly $60,000/acre if the parcel was approximately 40 acres at that time. Both figures are in the public record.

The agreement includes a 350-foot vegetative buffer easement, plus other easements and rights-of-way, counted in the gross acreage but limiting the area the County "may lawfully construct" on. The 35-acre figure is gross area, not buildable area.

The subdivision structure

The seller, IWV Holdings, LLC, owns a two-lot subdivision recorded as IWV Commercial Park. The County is buying Lot 1, which the agreement describes as the current Lots 3–8 of Melrose Commercial Park, to be replatted as Lot 1 of IWV Commercial Park. The seller retains Lot 2. Lot 1 is approximately 61% of the subdivision by area; Lot 2 is approximately 39%. The shared grading and detention-basin costs are split in that proportion. The detention basin sits on Lot 1 and serves both lots.

Costs and constraints beyond the purchase price

The $60,000 per acre is for gross land. The agreement's Land-Use Obligations article assigns the County additional costs and limits how much of the parcel can be built on.

• The 350-foot vegetative buffer easement encumbers part of the parcel and restricts construction within the buffer. The agreement states it may reduce the buildable acres. A 350-foot strip along one edge of the parcel would cover roughly 8 to 14 acres, depending on the final geometry.
• The stormwater detention basin is located on the southerly portion of the parcel, which removes additional land from the buildable area. The County pays not less than 61.04% of the cost to excavate and grade the basin. The basin serves both lots. The seller pays about 39% of that cost and provides no land for it.
• Master grading, the rough grading of Lot 2 and Lot 2 to the approved subdivision plans, is allocated to the County at not less than 61.04% of the cost, based on acreage. This is a floor, not a cap.
• The seller pays the full cost of extending sanitary sewer to Lot 2.

After the buffer, the detention basin, and internal roads and setbacks, the buildable area is likely in the low 20s of acres rather than 35. The 61.04% shares of grading and basin construction are separate from the $60,000 per acre. The exact buildable acreage and grading cost depend on the recorded plat and the approved subdivision construction plans, which have not been published.

The Iowa City Assessor lists the property as Class "C - Commercial," noted explicitly as "for tax purposes only. Not to be used for zoning." The purchase agreement requires Iowa City approval "including any necessary re-zoning and site plan approval" (contingency (j)) before closing. The parcel is inside Iowa City's corporate limits; the city holds full zoning authority.

The joint jail project collapsed in September 2025 when Iowa City's Mayor vetoed a proposed Riverside Drive site after a 4-3 City Council vote. The current purchase is contractually contingent on that same city's approval.

This parcel is immediately south of the Historic Poor Farm (4811 Melrose Ave, Iowa City), in the same far-western corridor the Board rejected as a jail site on April 22, 2026. Supervisor Sullivan cited "transportation challenges" among the reasons for that rejection. A bond rationale the County has cited is keeping incarcerated people near family — Bill Waldie (July 2, 2026): "so they're near their folks, near their family." No written transit or accessibility requirement for site selection has been identified in a primary source; this note will be updated if such a document is found.

Status Quo vs. New Facility

The Shive-Hattery analysis frames the choice as Build New (~$212M over 20 years) versus the forced-closure scenario (~$282M over 20 years). Neither scenario represents continuing to operate the existing jail.

The County FY27 budget projects continued operation of the existing jail with $800,000 in OoC overflow. Shive-Hattery's forced-closure scenario projects $4.8M/year average on the same line item — 6× the County's actual operating-plan figure — because the consultant assumes the jail closes and everyone moves out. The County is not planning to do that.

The new facility eliminates perhaps $440K–$800K/year in OoC costs while adding ~$10.4M/year in average debt service (12-year scenario; ~$7.3M at 20 years, with $21M more total interest). The net debt-service burden relative to today is approximately $9.6–10.0M/year depending on whether the FY27 budgeted OoC figure ($800K) or the FY25 actual ($440K) is used as the baseline. Shive-Hattery has not published a pro-forma operating budget for the proposed facility, so the all-in annual cost cannot be calculated from available primary sources. As a reference point: if total operating costs held flat at the current $6.386M/year (most costs are personnel — you don't reduce staff simply because more people arrive), total annual cost would be approximately $16.8M/year (~$10.4M debt service + $6.4M operating). Whether the new facility achieves lower per-person operating cost depends on assumptions that have not been disclosed.

The Shive-Hattery analysis does not present this comparison. The document's Build New figure (~$10.6M/year annualized at their $48.88M basis) already represents a ~47% increase over the current operating baseline — not a savings relative to today. At the adopted $94.5M, that annualized figure rises further.

Transport, Staffing, and Composition

Scope beyond the jail

The Shive-Hattery Vol I Needs Assessment (§IV.E / Appendix E) documents the full space program: a replacement Sheriff's Office, training facilities, courtrooms and offices for the County Attorney and other staff, and approximately 12,000 SF of Vehicle Maintenance and Storage for law-enforcement fleet repairs. Vol I does not reference the existing County Fleet Shop.

At the April 24, 2025 formal Board of Supervisors meeting (Granicus clip 3174), the Board passed a resolution for the "Fleet Shop Expansion Project, located at 4810 Melrose Avenue, Iowa City" — three additional bays, designed by Vantage Architects, estimated total cost $1,325,000, bids solicited May 15, 2025. The IWV/Slothower parcel fronts Melrose Avenue (purchase agreement, access clause), placing the proposed new building across the street from the fleet shop just expanded. The proximity is verifiable on an aerial or parcel map.

At the July 9, 2026 CJCC meeting, the County confirmed the overlap and removed the program from the building. Lewis said vehicle maintenance "is essentially now across the street or in your current facilities." Supervisor Green-Douglass said the program was removed "because across the street we have vehicle maintenance."

The deletion did not shrink the building. Total floor area stayed at 118,500 SF; the deleted program's space became mechanical rooms, loading, and unassigned area.

Overcrowding is a declining share of transports

The County's 2025 transport snapshot reports 484 of 1,211 transports (40%) as overcrowding-driven.

The 2022–2024 data uses three categories (Jail Transfers, Mental Transports, Transport Court Order). The 2025 infographic uses five — adding Warrants (228) and Juvenile (109) categories that mechanically reduce overcrowding's percentage share without changing the absolute count. Overcrowding-driven transports peaked at 426 in 2022, fell to 313 in 2024 (a 27% decline), and rebounded to 484 in 2025 — tracking the Linn County contract ramp-up. None of this is broken out in the Sheriff's 2025 infographic.

The forced-closure scenario is sometimes read as a lean fallback. The staffing numbers say otherwise.

Shive-Hattery describes these 30 positions as a minimum: "FTE's staff positions will increase as transportation growth occurs due to inefficiency and capacity issues of existing facilities." Those 30 positions cost ~$145M over 20 years — more than the $96.3M in OoC housing they exist to manage. Johnson County would also pay both the per-diem ($89.3M) and the transport logistics ($7M) as separate line items.

The document explicitly excludes liability from the model: "The scenarios projected do not consider the increased liability concerns associated with transporting people to other facilities. Liability is a significant factor for consideration in future evaluations, both for staff and incarcerated people." This is the only scenario-specific cost that carries a formal disclaimer.

FTE's staff positions will increase as transportation growth occurs due to inefficiency and capacity issues of existing facilities.

Staffing numbers

Four staffing figures for the jail and the Sheriff's Office are given:

Vol. I plans 24 positions for a 140-bed facility; the State counted 41 people staffing the current jail. Nothing published says whether the ~17-position difference is cut, reallocated, or absorbed, and no first-year staffing budget for the new facility has been released.

Supervision model does not explain the differences. Vol. I states: "Podular-indirect supervision has been selected as the preferred method." The current jail is not direct supervision, and neither is Washington County's; the same State inspector marked both accordingly. With the supervision model constant across all three, the staffing-cost variable is the deputy-versus-non-sworn choice. Washington County operates an 84-bed jail and the county dispatch with 16 non-sworn staff.

The 5,000 SF locker and wellness block in the proposed building is sized to the full roster of about 130, not to on-site attendance. Jail shifts run 6 to 8 staff on days and 4 to 7 at night, per the State inspection form. Asked for the calculation behind the 130, Lewis said he would have to look it up. A hardened storm shelter is cited as a code driver for the block; that requirement covers hardening, not program size. The specific code section has not been verified.

Is the 18 transport FTE estimate defensible?

The figure is stated in one sentence with no supporting breakdown. The current baseline, from the Sheriff's Programming Questionnaire (Vol I Appendix, p. 101), is four part-time transport drivers for a ~56-person in-house population with ~22 people held out of county. The forced-closure scenario calls for 18 FTE. The raw headcount rises from 4 to 18 (4.5×), but the comparison also involves a change in position type — from part-time to FTE — which typically carries a different cost structure. Neither the Vol I Appendix nor the Supplemental discloses the compensation basis for the current part-time positions or for the proposed 18 FTE: no hourly rate, salary range, or benefits eligibility is stated for either. The true cost difference between the current baseline and the forced-closure staffing model is therefore larger than headcount alone indicates, but by how much is not established in any published document.

An independent check using the NIC Staffing Analysis Workbook methodology — which Shive-Hattery itself uses for the Build New staffing calculation — yields a range of 15–22 FTE for a full-closure scenario with 83 ADP distributed across multiple counties, applying a standard two-officer minimum per vehicle (per ACA standards as incorporated in USMS Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, and consistent with Shive-Hattery Vol. I staffing methodology) and standard single-watch shift relief factors. The 18 FTE figure falls within that range and is not obviously inflated. However:

• The population math is inconsistent: 18 FTE sized for 83 ADP, but $89.3M in per-diem implies ~170 ADP. If the document uses 170 ADP for the cost projection, transport staff would need to grow proportionally.
• Closer counties (Linn, Henry) are 30–55 minutes away. Lee County (Fort Madison) and Clinton County are 90–95 miles away — 3–4-hour round trips per Sheriff Kunkel's public statements (The Gazette). If closer counties fill up, the same 18 FTE cannot maintain the same transport volume.
• Linn County ended its U.S. Marshals agreement in part due to capacity constraints. A full-closure scenario requires guaranteed long-term contracts with enough combined spare capacity for all 83 people — an assumption the document treats as given.

The 2018 ADA Audit

The county's bond site cites a 2018 accessibility evaluation as evidence the jail "does not meet accessibility guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act." WT Group inspected the building on November 29, 2018, and delivered a 260-page report on February 3, 2019, with 166 numbered findings. Read the full report (PDF).

What was actually audited

The report is organized into area sections, each covering a run of numbered findings:

The section labeled "Jail" is the report's last section and its smallest claim on the word: every finding in it is the kitchen, the kitchen restroom, the jail control room, or a stairwell and sink in those spaces. None of the 166 findings mentions a holding cell, a housing cell, an inmate shower, a dayroom, or the booking area, and none cites 2010 ADA Standards §232, the detention-facilities section that sets the minimum accessible-cell count. The secure housing units — where the people the county says the audit concerns actually live — were not inspected.

What the findings recommend

Of the 166 findings, at least 43 are deferred: "leave as is, employee work area pursuant to 2010 Standards 106.5 Defined Terms, until an employee with a disability works here." At least 11 more findings report the element already compliant, with a recommendation of "None." The remaining roughly 110 findings call for an actual fix.

Some of those fixes are minor and cheap: repainting a parking access aisle to 5 feet (as-built 51 inches), adjusting door closers to 5 lbf, relocating a protruding towel dispenser, remounting a thermostat or hook into reach range, insulating lavatory pipes. Others are structural and real, and the county's strongest reading of the audit rests on these: door maneuvering-clearance and 30-inch door-width deficiencies recur across dozens of findings; at least three rooms have insufficient turning space; at least three restrooms are flagged "not nearly compliant," missing required clear floor space and grab bars (findings 48, 81, 152); neither staff locker room has an accessible shower (findings 140, 144); there is no accessible route to the mechanical room, reachable only by a steep interior stairway (finding 128); and the elevator is missing a compliant audible signal, visible signal, and jamb-mounted floor star (findings 17–19).

The unpublished transition plan

The report's cover letter defines five remediation phases and states that phase assignments for each finding exist in "an Excel document that is easily modified... and easily searched in many different ways." The sheet is not part of the published PDF and has not otherwise been made public. Phase 1 is defined as findings that "should be completed immediately... little or no cost, were in violation of the codes at the time of construction, or pose an imminent safety threat." Whether any findings have been remediated in the seven years since the report is unknown; the inclusion of the report on the jail bond website suggests no remediation. A records request for the transition-plan spreadsheet and any remediation invoices since February 2019 is outstanding (see the Records page, RR-009).

The legal standard under Title II is program access, not full-facility compliance, and the bond site's framing does not draw that distinction.

Data Gaps

The following information would materially change the analysis if it were available and has not been published or produced in response to open-records requests as of August 2026: open-records requests as of August 2026:

• A repayment schedule with any legal force. The bond resolution was adopted August 6, 2026 (08-06-26-03, $94.5M), but the term exists only as a 12-year scenario in work-session minutes; the §76.2 levy resolution that will actually name a period comes after the election. Also outstanding: the written bond-counsel advice behind the notice's actual-value/taxable-value basis substitution (records request pending).
• The daily population count Shive-Hattery used to generate the $89.3M OoC per-diem projection. This is the load-bearing undisclosed variable in the $69.4M savings claim.
• The assumed bond interest rate in the Shive-Hattery Life Cycle analysis. Without it, the capital figures in the Build New scenario cannot be independently verified.
• A pro-forma operating budget for the proposed new facility. No such document has been released.
• OoC per-diem rate for Lee County. Rates for Washington ($60), Cedar ($65), Linn ($60), Henry ($60), and Clinton ($55) are known from Snapshot-26843 (slide 10). Lee County is the only OoC destination with an unconfirmed rate.
• The internal FY27 budget justification for the $800,000 SC349 (OoC housing) line — specifically, what calculation or policy decision drove the $160K cut from the decade-long $960K carry-forward. This was requested via open-records request RR-003 (May 2026, covering the FY2022–FY2027 appropriations); no written justification or projection was produced. The Auditor's office redirected to public budget materials and stated informally that the line exists "simply to allow room in the budget for unforeseen circumstances." Sheriff Kunkel's FY26 budget presentation confirms the $960K figure predated his tenure; the FY27 worksheet offers only a reclassification note. See the Records page.
• Updated construction cost rates for the stand-alone $94.5M scope. Shive-Hattery's Vol I rates ($612/SF law enforcement, $800/SF jail, 2024) were developed for the joint facility. The August 2025 joint feasibility study updated rates for the combined scope, but no published document provides a stand-alone rate-and-scope buildup explaining the increase from $48.88M (Vol I) to the $94.5M adopted amount. explaining the increase from $48.88M (Vol I) to the $94.5M adopted amount.
• The composition of the MCIP's "Sheriff's Office Repairs" line: $600,000/year (FY27–FY29, Bond fund), described only as "Repair building as needed; annual monitoring." It is unclear how this relates to the stabilization work — a $1,885,400 construction contract awarded to Peak Construction Group on January 8, 2026 (against a $3,356,000 budget) — or whether the $600K/year represents a separate ongoing maintenance obligation on top of that remediation.
• A quantified projection of civilianization savings in the new facility's operating budget. The FY27 Budget Planning Information confirms the Sheriff is actively replacing sworn Detention Officer positions with civilian Corrections Officers at lower wages, but no pro-forma applies this trajectory to the proposed 24-FTE Build New scenario.
• Daily peak occupancy counts. The control-sheet data provides monthly averages (ADP), which understate the peak crowding episodes that drive transport decisions. Peak-day data has not been released.
• The Piper Sandler & Co. fee structure. A Municipal Advisory Services Agreement ($141,750, "financial advisory services related to the planning, financing, and construction of a new Sheriff's Office and County Jail Facility") appears on the July 22–23, 2026 agendas. The packet summary does not state the fee structure or whether any portion is contingent on bond issuance.
• The staffing model for the new facility — sworn deputies or non-sworn detention officers — and the first-year jail-division FTE and payroll. Four staffing figures are in the record (24, 30–35, 41, and ~120 Sheriff's Office-wide) (see Part 8).
• The dollar-year basis of the cost figures. Vol. I was "escalated to 2025 dollars"; the August 2025 rates were "projected to 2027 dollars"; the basis of the $850/SF figure is unstated (see Part 2).
• An updated total from the cost estimate update announced at the July 9, 2026 CJCC meeting, running on the 118,500 SF basis.
• The funding source for the $5.5M purchase of three parcels at Capitol and Benton Streets, approved July 9, 2026. No source ties that purchase to the jail project; the funding source is undisclosed.