New jail consultants promise different approach results

It’s back to the drawing board for the Montgomery County Jail committee, but this time, there is the promise of a different approach, and hopefully, different results.

“I don’t think you just want to go through the actions of producing another study,” Doug Prochaska of Prochaska and Associates said at last week’s meeting. “One of the things we have to look at as consultants, is what do you really expect. If I were sitting on your side of the table, I would expect a solution, not another study.”

Studies are one thing the county has plenty of. In fact, since 1995, 10 others have been conducted, ranging from topological surveys, to overall assessments of the aging jail facility, which was built in the 19th century.

So far, those studies have cost about $48,000 including the $15,000 pledged to Prochaska, $3,600 paid to Durrant, which had its contract terminated with the county about a month ago.

“You’re not going to get different results by following the same process. And I would tell you we want different results for you,” Prochaska said. “We don’t want you to be unhappy after you work with us for a few weeks or months. We don’t this to result in a nice study that sits on a shelf. ”

The jail’s deteriorating condition has been a constant source of criticism from Iowa Department of Corrections’ inspectors since 1994, which is when the committee first formed to consider replacing the facility.

While the deficiencies included lack of lighting, unsanitary conditions, and security liabilities for the staff, inspectors first threatened to close in 1999. That threat has been repeated several times through the years, but never followed through on by the state.

Steve Riley, an architect with Prochaska, said there was one common denominator in the inspections.

“Even though they always close with their boilerplate statement thanking everybody and saying if you do all of the above you will be complaint, it makes you think there is a possibility of that,” Riley said. “But in the end, its not possible. And just about every consultant you have used … has said that particular building has ceased to be functional as a jail.”

Accepting that premises, Prochaska made a unique suggestion.

“I think we need to start at the end and work backwards,” he said. “And by the end, what I mean by that is there is a financial threshold your constituency will see as reasonable, and beyond that, it will simply die.”

He added projects are frequently doomed when committees think too big.

“You ultimately see how much you can build, and that’s where things start to go awry,” Prochaska said. “Because I think fundamentally what you should ask yourself is this: what is the least we can build, and not be foolish in doing so?”

By building a smaller facility, Prochaska said the county could always consider expanding it if the need arose. Also, a smaller facility carries a lower price tag, which may be more palpable to the voters.

“We need to screw this thing down to the very austere, and I mean not austere to the sense it’s going to have a damp dank basement with cobwebs, but austere in the sense there is no fat, this is all bone and muscle, and lean meat,” Prochaska said. “If we focus on the money and also focus on shrinking this to the acceptable minimum that [sheriff] Joe [Sampson] says okay, … I think the public is going to read that, and understand that, and accept that.”

The committee also discussed various funding options, which basically came down to one: a public bond issue financed by a tax levy increase.

Prochasaka conceded the committee will have a “horrendous” time passing a bond, but Board Chair Donna Robinson doesn’t believe it’s an impossible task.

“One of our biggest responsibilities is to educate, inform the public it is our responsibility,” she said. “This isn’t something that we are just doing because we think it’s a good idea. We are responsible as a county to provide a jail. And I think it’s time to provide a safe environment for the staff, the inmates and the public.”

Committee member Brad Wright said the committee would need to stress the costs of not taking action, which would eventually result in prisoners being transported and housed at other county facilities.

“We have to show them taking no action is still a decision. If we decide to take no action, we have to show the cost of that decision,” Wright said. “If we take no action and have to transport, how are we going to pay for that? With the current operating budget, that’s not possible.”

Prochaska will take the information gathered at the meeting, and devise a study which will be discussed at a Jan. 13 meeting, starting at 6 p.m.