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 blended figure is now a talking point. At the July 9, 2026 meeting of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC), Supervisor Sullivan described the jail population as "Right about 90 every day." By the Sheriff's control-sheet accounting, that ~90 is total in-custody: in-house plus out-of-county plus electronic monitoring (FY24 split: 56.82 + 16.98 + 7.35). About 7 of the 90 are at home on monitors; 17–25 are in other counties' jails. "Steady at 90" invites comparison to local bed capacity while counting people who occupy no bed in the building. This is the same definitional issue as the dashboard label and the fact-sheet "86."

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 bond-election resolution states the $96M plainly as an estimate the Board can revise:

The Board of Supervisors intends to undertake the Project at an estimated cost of $96,000,000. In accordance with Section 331.442 of the Code of Iowa, this cost figure is an estimate and shall not be binding on the Board in later proceedings related to the Project.

The property-tax impact figure originates at the June 10, 2026 Board of Supervisors work session and appears in no agenda packet; the packet record supports only the $96,000,000 cost figure and the November 3, 2026 election date. 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 documented commitments and payments to date of $2,934,399.64 tied to the jail project before the November 3, 2026 ballot: $700,800 to Shive-Hattery, $53,406 to CSSI / University of Iowa, a $1,885,400 stabilization construction contract with Peak Construction Group, and $294,793.64 in Axiom design/engineering payments to date. The figure mixes contract values with payments made so far, so it understates the eventual total. It spans four vendors across a period beginning September 2023.

Correction (2026-07-09): an earlier version of this page put the documented total at $4,264,601 and described $3,230,395 as a stabilization construction engagement of Axiom Consultants under Resolution 11-13-25-01. The primary record shows that figure was Axiom's engineer's estimate; the resolution only approved plans and specifications and requested bids. The construction contract was awarded January 8, 2026 to Peak Construction Group for $1,885,400. The correction cuts the documented total by roughly $1.3M. See the corrections log.

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 ($63,800.00 "+ expenses," January 21, 2025) for a joint feasibility study with OPN; Amendment 2 ($13,000.00 "+ expenses," document date November 14, 2025, considered at the December 4, 2025 formal meeting) 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 executed Amendment 1 in the January 29, 2025 work-session packet reads "TOTAL (for Amendment One Service) $63,800.00 + expenses," an open-ended reimbursable term on top of the flat fee; Amendment 2 carries the same "+ expenses" term, and its fee table applies a −$5,190.00 credit against Amendment 1 for meetings no longer required. Amendment 3 moved through the public record over three weeks: discussed at the February 24, 2026 work session, considered at the March 5, 2026 formal meeting, and reflected in the minutes in the March 12, 2026 packet "in the amount of $549,000" (February 23, 2026 is the amendment's document date). The cumulative Shive-Hattery total is $700,800 at face value — $695,610 after the Amendment 2 credit, plus whatever expenses have been billed. 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) to conduct the survey and focus groups documented in Section 7. The proposal was discussed at the February 19, 2025 work session — where the executive summary quoted a price range of $32,783.27 to $77,295.99 — and considered at the March 27, 2025 formal meeting; the work finalized at $53,406. The client signature line on the executed CSSI Statement of Work is also blank. The work is billed quarterly as "CJCC Jail and Sheriff's Office Facility Evaluation": $12,053.68 on the October 16, 2025 register (Q3 2025) and $21,744.68 on February 12, 2026 (Q4 2025), for $33,798.36 paid of the $53,406 contract to date.

Axiom Consultants is the design and engineering firm for the existing-jail stabilization work, engaged under a proposal approved October 17, 2024. Its jail-related design and construction-administration payments in the claims registers total $294,793.64 to date — already above the $280,000 the site previously listed as an estimate. Axiom's full design contract value has not been confirmed in the extracted documents.

The construction itself is a separate contract, and the record does not support attributing a $3,230,395 construction cost to anyone. The figure traces to Axiom's building condition investigation, presented at the September 17, 2025 work session, whose repair-option tables estimated exterior building shell and facade repair at $1.825M to $3.65M. That range became a $3,356,000 stabilization budget. Resolution 11-13-25-01 (November 13, 2025) then approved plans, specifications, and the form of contract and requested bids; the $3,230,395.20 in that item is Axiom's engineer's estimate, not an award. Four bids opened December 4, 2025 — Peak Construction $1,714,000; McComas-Lacina $1,762,000; Tricon $1,846,000; Woodruff $1,883,700 — all 43–47% below the estimate. On January 8, 2026 the Board awarded the contract to Peak Construction Group for $1,885,400 (the $1,714,000 low bid plus 10% contingency). Pay applications in the registers total $655,170.67 to date, about 35% of the contract, drawn from Fund 30 — the annual ≤$600,000 Emergency Basis Building Restoration borrowing described later in this section. Sources: the September 17, 2025 work-session packet (Axiom condition report, Packet Pg. 85 region); the November 13, 2025 packet (item E.8, Executive Summary Pgs. 197–198); the December 10, 2025 work-session minutes (December 18, 2025 packet, Pg. 66); and the January 8, 2026 award memo (Pg. 89) and Axiom bid-tabulation letter (Pg. 103), with adoption confirmed in the January 8, 2026 formal-meeting minutes (January 15, 2026 packet).

The claims registers also show three Shive-Hattery payments memo'd "Sheriff's Office Space Needs Study: referendum services" — $36,048.03 (May 14, 2026), $109,800.00 (June 4, 2026), and $124,544.55 (July 2, 2026), totaling $270,392.58. Amendment 3 disclosed only $30,000 for a "Public Awareness Campaign," so the "referendum services" payments run nine times that line. What that memo covers is examined in Section 10. Adding earlier jail/Sheriff's-Office Shive-Hattery items in the registers — housing-unit revisions ($11,255.25 and $9,091.50, both April 9, 2026) and Innoprise-era "Architect Fees/Jail" ($9,303.70 on May 15, 2025 and $45,675.30 on September 18, 2025) — brings cumulative jail/SO Shive-Hattery payments visible in the registers to $345,718.33 of the $700,800 contracted.

Analysis: a June 17, 2025 register entry pays $84,852.24 to the Johnson County Auditor (claim 25-021651, invoice reference "PI-GPS-PROGRAM", account 01-08-1050000-49205 MISC FEES/JAIL) with the note "REIMBURSE ARPA FOR PROGRAM INCOME." The most consistent reading is an interfund true-up crediting the ARPA fund for program income generated by the ARPA-funded pretrial GPS program. It matches the ARPA fund revenue line 35-35-1050000-44301 "Prisoner Reimb/Work Release Fees/ARPA Prog. Revenue," with an FY25 re-estimate of $90,000.

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.

A fifth commitment is now scheduled for a vote: a $141,750 municipal advisory agreement with Piper Sandler & Co., "for financial advisory services related to the planning, financing, and construction of a new Sheriff's Office and County Jail Facility." The agreement is on the July 22, 2026 work-session agenda, with a formal vote scheduled July 23. The Board Office collected quotes from firms in June 2026; three firms responded; an internal review team drawn from Finance, the County Attorney's Office, and the Board Office picked Piper Sandler. Chair Jon Green described the selection meeting (July 8) in his July 9 chair report and said the advisor's "contractual fiduciary duty" will "help us to prove out some of those numbers." If approved, the agreement raises documented pre-vote commitments to about $3.08M. The agenda packet does not state the fee structure.

The separate no-vote financing track has moved from authorization to issuance. The June 11, 2026 formal agenda includes the resolution approving issuance of a $16,134,450 Taxable General Obligation County Purpose Bond, Series 2026A, the essential-purpose bond that does not require voter approval, authorized by Resolution 04-23-26-02 on April 23, 2026.

The Board also approved a second land purchase on July 9, 2026: $5.5 million for the block west of the County's Health and Human Services Building (the former CarQuest property), 4-0 with Supervisor Remington abstaining over "process concerns and unanswered legal questions." Green said after the vote that the price will be "paid over three years" and that the County has pursued the parcel "since at least 1996." No source connects this purchase to the jail project. Its relevance here is cash context: about $7.6 million in land purchases in eight days by a county proposing to bond $96 million. Remington's abstention statement said she supports "the intended use of this land more than the assumed use of the other land." She called the IWV/Slothower parcel's jail purpose assumed three weeks after the Board approved an agreement that names "a County jail and sheriff's office" as the intended use.

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 ~$2.9M in documented pre-bond commitments — 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 same FY23 actual $331,885, FY24 actual $310,700, and FY25 budget $960,000 appear in the Dept 08 FY26 Budget expense sheet (February 4, 2025 packet, item C.1.f, Packet Pg. 38, account 01-08-1050000-48615 "JAIL INMATE HOUSING EXPENSES"; DocumentViewer, clip 3091), which confirms the $960,000 budget line verbatim. 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.

Where the payments go — by receiving county

A line-item extraction of the weekly claims registers (item C.1.a of every BOS formal-meeting packet) shows which county received each housing payment. These figures are on a payment/cash basis — the date the County cut the check — and so differ from the accrual fiscal-year figures charted above. On this basis the full FY2025-26 out-of-county housing total is $500,329.32, which is consistent with the accrual projection of about $500,000, though a payment-basis actual cannot confirm an accrual estimate. The July–December 2025 payment-basis equivalent is $226,876, against the County's $240,319 accrual figure for the same half-year; the two figures cover the same months on different bases, which accounts for the difference.

Analysis: the receiving-county mix is shifting from Linn toward Washington County. Washington passed Linn as the largest single destination in 2026.

Coding note: October and November 2025 housing lines were coded to spend category SC486 instead of SC349 ($53,095.20 total), so queries that filter on SC349 alone understate housing for those months. Source: weekly claims registers (item C.1.a) in every BOS formal-meeting packet (Granicus archive) — Innoprise-era account 01-08-1050000-48615 "Jail Inmate Housing Expenses"; Workday-era CC08/FC1050000 SC349 "Inmate Housing - Out of County" (and SC486 lines memo'd "Inmate Housing," October–November 2025 only).

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.

The CSSI focus-group transcripts are also a packet-published primary source: they appear in the December 11, 2025 work-session packet (DocumentViewer, clip 3489).

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 — considered by the Board of Supervisors March 27, 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 stabilization work addresses the structural deterioration. None of these issues rose to a non-compliance finding.

The April 23, 2026 County borrowing resolution (04-23-26-02) describes the building it funds as the "dilapidated County jail building," authorizing an emergency loan "for the purpose of paying the cost, to that extent, of making emergency basis building restoration" to it. The January 2025 and January 2026 State inspections of the same building each returned zero non-compliance items.

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 — the stabilization 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 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).

For dated context on the diversion side, the May 7, 2025 work-session packet (item C.2.a, Packet Pgs. 16–17) gives the jail-alternatives program composition as of May 2025: Work Release 24%, OWI Continuum 30%, Probation 2%, Special Sentence 5%, with average stays such as 4.2 months for Work Release. The composition shifts over time.

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).

Referendum preparation also runs through an internal committee. Board Office Executive Director Erin Shane told the July 9, 2026 CJCC meeting: "we met on Monday internally when we're trying to get everything ready for bond referendum." On July 16, Supervisor Green-Douglass named the group in her supervisor report as the "Johnson County Sheriff's Office Planning Committee" and said "we will have a website soon that can be accessed." No public notices, agendas, or minutes exist for the committee. The domain johnsoncountyjailbond.com, bought with public funds on March 3, 2026, is still password-gated on July 21, 2026.

The campaign calendar is public. At the same July 9 CJCC meeting, Shane announced three community engagement sessions: August 11 at Solon City Hall, September 1 at the Health and Human Services Building, and October 6 at North Liberty City Hall, each at 6 p.m. The Sheriff opens each session; Shive-Hattery staffs them, produces the printed graphics, and compiles the feedback. Shive-Hattery's Michael Lewis described the schedule as presentations "we've been working through from a public awareness campaign standpoint." Asked what happens to the feedback collected at the sessions, Shane said: "I haven't really thought about, you know, what do you do with it? I haven't thought that through yet."

The same meeting addressed the referendum timeline. Lewis said Shive-Hattery has "been considering getting the RFQ process started before a referendum" for the construction manager at risk. Chair Green said voters will have "an incomplete picture or a sketch" when voting. The meeting also tabled an agenda item on "forming a CJCC similar to Polk County" without discussion; the next CJCC meeting is September 10.

The claims registers show a second set of payments. Three Shive-Hattery payments in cost center CC05 (Board of Supervisors) are memo'd "Sheriff's Office Space Needs Study: referendum services" — $36,048.03 (May 14, 2026), $109,800.00 (June 4, 2026), and $124,544.55 (July 2, 2026), totaling $270,392.58. That is nine times the $30,000 "Public Awareness Campaign" line disclosed in Amendment 3. The registers record only the memo line and not the work behind it, so what "referendum services" covers is unresolved. The phrase may describe advocacy-adjacent work, or it may be internal shorthand for Amendment 3 schematic-design tasks billed under the same project. Either reading matters under §68A.405A, and the registers alone do not settle it.

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.