Fact-checking the county's bond website

“No Longer Meets Standards”; checklist row “Meets Iowa Jail Standards: ✗”, sourced “Iowa Administrative Code, Chapter 50”

The State Jail Inspector, applying Chapter 50, found zero non-compliance items in both 2025 and 2026 (184 and 186 compliance items; 70 N/A each year), certified designed capacity under 50.6(5), and wrote that the jail is “the cleanest that I have observed.” The county's likely defense: the checklist compares the unrenovated portion of the facility to current standards — the ones a new building must meet — and the housing areas don't meet those. That is a real distinction, and the county's homepage states it correctly (see the next entry).

“The current jail's cells are approximately 70 square feet, meeting standards established in 1981. Current standards require additional space for multiple-occupancy cells.”

Per Shive-Hattery's July 9, 2026 CJCC presentation (Granicus clip 3697), the new facility's single-occupancy cells “work out to be 70 square feet” — the same approximate size as the current cells. Two-person cells are 92 square feet under the unencumbered-space calculation. The change current standards drive is occupancy math, roughly 35 versus 46 square feet per person in a double cell, not materially larger rooms. A reader of the county's page would reasonably infer the new jail has bigger cells; for single cells it does not.

FCI 104.8%; “An FCI above 60% is considered ‘Very Poor’”

The number is verified against the 2022 Faithful+Gould Facility Condition Assessment, and the deterioration is real. Two omissions: First, the index is a 2022 snapshot pricing total deferred maintenance against replacement value; the county has since let a $1,885,400 stabilization contract (Peak Construction Group, January 2026) addressing the structural shell, roof, and HVAC — the very deterioration behind the number. Citing the pre-repair index in 2026, without noting the repair spending in progress, presents a condition the county is actively remediating as if untouched. Second, the State Inspector's only physical-condition concern in 2025 and 2026 was the building deterioration covered by that same stabilization scope. The county quotes the 2022 index and omits that it is spending against it.

“Leaking pipes and an aging HVAC system lead to poor air quality and mold, creating health and safety risks”

No air-quality or mold finding appears in either state inspection, and no environmental testing has been published. The physical deterioration (leaks, HVAC condition) is documented; the health-outcome claim is not.

“The building does not meet accessibility guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act”, linking a 2018 evaluation

The 2018 WT Group audit (257 findings) is real. What the page omits: the county has held that audit and its phased remediation plan — Phase 1 marked “should be completed immediately” — since February 2019, and the public record shows no transition-plan execution in the six years since. Deficiencies preserved unremediated are then cited as grounds for replacement.

“Exceeded its functional capacity for more than 30 years”

True only against the 46-bed 1981 design. Against the 92-bed rated capacity, the jail has been under in every fiscal year on record (monthly peak ~97, July 2025). Against the 65-bed “functional capacity” — a figure with no documented origin before May 2024 — the claim projects a 2024 number back three decades. The fact sheet does not say which capacity it means.

“The building has a total of 28,500 square feet”

Shive-Hattery Vol. I — the county's needs assessment — states the building is 27,000 square feet. The Need page says 28,500 and cites nothing. A reconciliation may exist (an ancillary structure or garage could account for the difference), but no county document provides one, and the July 9, 2026 CJCC transcript, where Shive-Hattery walked through the new facility's floor areas in detail, contains no 28,500 figure for the existing building. Until the county sources the number, its needs assessment and its campaign site disagree.

“To meet today's operational needs and classification requirements, the capacity is 65 inmates”

The 65 figure appears in no Iowa Administrative Code provision, no Iowa Department of Corrections document, and no written Sheriff's policy surfaced to date. Its earliest public appearance is a Shive-Hattery presenter on May 29, 2024. The budget consequence of the cap has been the subject of an explicit records request: RR-003 (May 2026) asked for the justification and methodology behind the out-of-county housing appropriations the cap drives, and the county produced no responsive document — the Auditor's office stated informally that the line exists to “allow room in the budget for unforeseen circumstances.” Whether the cap is a written rule subject to Iowa Code §356.44 judicial approval is unresolved. See the Records page.

“The building was not designed or built to accommodate any expansion. The footings are too shallow for upward expansion and the current facility is landlocked, preventing outward expansion.”

The words “footings” and “landlocked” appear in no published county document: not Vol. I, not the 2022 Facility Condition Assessment, not the 2023 or 2024 Axiom structural assessments. Vol. I's scope required “recommendations on renovating existing facilities versus building new facilities”; the delivered document contains no renovation-versus-new analysis. The claims may be true — a downtown parcel is genuinely constrained — but the FAQ cites nothing, and the county's actions complicate “landlocked”: on July 9, 2026 it paid $5.5 million for the large block west of its Health and Human Services Building, a few hundred feet from the jail at 511 S. Capitol Street, adding to existing county holdings on that block. Whether any nearby county land could support jail expansion is a question no county document addresses. An engineering basis for the footings claim, if one exists, has never been published.

“The kitchen and mechanical components of the building will also be sized to accommodate expansion of the jail to support an additional 100 housing beds if needed in the future.”

An accurate and consequential disclosure: 140 design capacity plus 100 equals 240 — the Vol. I §IV.H core-support sizing, confirmed on the county's campaign site. It contradicts Sheriff Kunkel's May 21, 2026 statement that “nobody's been talking about 240 beds from the get-go.”

“Estimated tax impact: $100,000 home taxable value — $88 per year / $7.33 per month”

Three problems: The number is presented as the tax impact, but it is the output of a 12-year financing scenario that appears in no adopted document — the term will be set after the election, and neither the site nor the fact sheet states any term, rate, or interest total. The number is a ceiling engineered as one (the Finance Director's stated goal was a figure “I could confidently state regardless of the ultimate financing terms”), computed at zero valuation growth against the county's actual 3.6–4.7% growth — a first-year worst case presented as the impact. And the county's legal notice recites the same $88.00 per $100,000 of actual value, the §331.442 basis, on which the county's calculator returns $41.74 — two county publications differing by a factor of 2.1 for the same house. The page's stated basis (taxable) is the honest one; everything around the number is withheld. See the Cost Analysis page for the full chain.

The online tax impact calculator

Verified: the embedded calculator applies the 12-year scenario levy rate (0.87998 per $1,000) and the residential rollback (47.4316%) correctly, with homestead, senior, and veteran exemptions. It is the county's most accurate public tool — and it contradicts the county's mailed notice.

“The total cost of the project is $94.5 million”

It is the adopted bond cap — which the resolution itself calls a non-binding estimate. It excludes interest ($25.0M–$51.6M depending on a term set after the election), ~$3.08M in documented pre-vote commitments, the ~$2.1M reserve-funded land purchase (reimbursable from proceeds under the “acquiring land” purpose), and any operating pro-forma, which has never been published.

“In 2025, the jail averaged 20 inmates housed out of county daily… This has cost Johnson County over $1,844,755”

The 20 average is accurate. The dollar figure is defensible only as a cumulative: “has cost” is literally true of any total over any period. But the page states no period. The figure matches the FY2021–FY2025 five-year cumulative (budget-presentation actuals sum to $1,844,325, within $430) — and nothing on the page explains why five years rather than one, three, or ten. The same page already carries a labeled cumulative ($16.6M, 2001–2025), so this second, unlabeled total does no work except to sit directly after “In 2025, the jail averaged 20 inmates housed out of county daily” — where it reads as 2025's cost. The true 2025 figure is ~$464K in payments (20 × $62 × 365 ≈ $453K as a check), roughly one quarter of the number printed beside it.

“$16.6M on housing inmates out of county from 2001–2025” (Need, fact sheet) vs. “over $17 million in bed costs” (Home)

Two different cumulative totals for the same thing on the same site. The order of magnitude is consistent with county records; no schedule supporting either number has been published.

Out-of-county destinations: “Linn, Henry, Washington, Iowa, Jackson, and Muscatine” (Home) vs. “Cedar, Henry, Jackson, Linn, Muscatine, and Washington” (Need)

The two lists disagree (Iowa County vs. Cedar County), and neither matches the payment registers, which show Linn, Washington, Henry, Cedar, and Lee — no Iowa County, no Jackson or Muscatine in any FY25–FY26 register extracted, and Lee County on neither list.

“The county is currently spending $3.2 million to stabilize the structure and replace the roof and rooftop HVAC system”

The stabilization construction contract is $1,885,400 with Peak Construction Group — cited on the Need page two sentences before the $3.2M reappears. All four bids came in 43–47% under the $3.23M engineer's estimate. The county presents the superseded estimate as current spending without itemizing the ~$1.3M gap.

“The current average bed cost is $62 per bed per day”

Consistent with contract rates and invoice-level payment data.

Roof replacement “will cost between $427,500 and $712,500” per a 2024 assessment

Matches the 2024 Axiom property condition assessment.

The CJCC is “a 17-person committee that meets monthly… CJCC continues to meet and meetings are open to the public”

The CJCC voted itself to quarterly meetings on February 12, 2026, citing capacity constraints, and has not met since July 9, 2026. The same paragraph states the committee's mission as creating a plan “to replace” the jail — a mission that presupposes the outcome the committee was nominally advising on.

“An independent public opinion survey” (CSSI)

The survey's information block was client-authored; the instrument was shaped across four subcommittee meetings with no public notices or minutes; the county paid $53,406, billed as “CJCC Jail and Sheriff's Office Facility Evaluation.” Notably, the county site nowhere cites the survey's 74% headline figure.

“August 28, 2025: Johnson County formally asked the City of Iowa City to consider a joint law enforcement facility… This joint facility is no longer being considered.”

Nothing stated is false; what is omitted reverses the impression. Iowa City's council voted 4-3 in favor of the partnership on September 16, 2025; Sheriff Kunkel withdrew his support the next day (“any support I had has ended”). The timeline reads as mutual quiet abandonment; the record shows a partner that said yes and a sheriff who walked.

“March 2026: The county entered into a contract with Shive-Hattery for planning and referendum support services”

An accurate self-description with consequences: the county's official public description of Amendment 3 ($549,000) now matches the claims-register memo line (“referendum services,” $270,392.58 paid to date) — on a campaign-styled website funded from the same amendment's $30,000 Public Awareness Campaign line. Iowa Code §68A.405A governs the use of public funds in ballot campaigns.

“An internal planning committee meets weekly to coordinate updates, planning efforts, and next steps”

Accurate, and an admission: the body — called the “Johnson County Sheriff's Office Planning Committee” (July 16), the “Jail Bond Committee” (Finance Director, July 29), and the “Jail Planning Committee” (August 12 agenda) — recommended the CMAR procurement and produced the tax-impact calculation, with no public notices, agendas, or minutes under any of its names.

“Previous jail bond referendums were in 2012 and 2013… 56% approval in 2012 and 54% approval in 2013”

Both figures are correct. Omitted: the 2000 referendum, in which a standalone jail received 35% yes — the historical data point least favorable to a larger ask.

Community sessions: Solon August 18, HHS September 1, North Liberty October 6

Current as stated. The Solon session was announced to the July 9 CJCC as August 11 and moved to August 18 without visible correction.

The IWV/Slothower parcel “was selected for its location and is intended to serve as a long-term asset for future County development needs, including a new sheriff's office and jail”

The purchase facts (July 2, 2026, ~35 acres, ~$2.1M) are accurate. The “long-term asset” framing understates the executed agreement, which names “a County jail and sheriff's office” as the intended governmental purpose and makes the bond referendum a waivable buyer contingency. The adopted ballot's “acquiring land” purpose permits reimbursing the purchase from bond proceeds.