By V Fixmer-Oraiz, Johnson County Supervisor; Katie Freeman, Coralville City Councilor; Mandi Remington, Johnson County Supervisor; Mazahir Salih, Iowa City City Councilor
The proposed $94.5 million jail and sheriff’s office bond is the wrong plan for Johnson County: it would commit taxpayers to decades of debt before the county has demonstrated that this costly project is necessary, appropriately scaled, or better than the available alternatives. We urge voters to reject the bond on November 3 and demand a more transparent, fiscally responsible, and comprehensive approach to public safety — an approach that we want back on the ballot as soon as possible.
We recognize that the current jail and sheriff’s office have serious challenges; challenges that are and can continue to be fixed. For instance, the jail is currently under construction — the roof and HVAC are being replaced at the cost of $3.2 million. Employees deserve safe and functional working conditions, and people in custody deserve humane treatment. Acknowledging these needs, however, does not mean we must approve the jail bond.
This bond asks taxpayers to commit to a major, long-term financial obligation without first demonstrating that the proposed project is the most responsible way to meet our community’s needs. Before committing nearly $95 million in borrowed funds, plus an additional $30 million in interest, we should fully examine the alternatives, the appropriate size of a replacement facility, and the long-term costs of operating and maintaining it.
Public safety means more than building more jail capacity. It also means investing in the conditions that help people avoid incarceration in the first place: mental health care, substance use treatment, stable housing, diversion programs, and other community-based supports. These approaches should be part of a comprehensive public safety strategy, not afterthoughts.
Equally important, we must meaningfully engage the people most affected by these decisions, including those currently or formerly held in our jail and the Communities of Color that experience disproportionate impacts from incarceration. Their perspectives should not be sought merely to validate a plan that has already been developed. They should help shape the decision from the beginning: whether a new facility is needed at all, what alternatives should be considered, and what a facility should look like if one is ultimately warranted. If we are going to make a decision with consequences that will last for generations, the people who will live with those consequences deserve a genuine voice in it.
Voting no on this bond does not mean accepting the status quo. It means asking our county to return with a more thoughtful, transparent, and financially responsible plan — one that addresses immediate safety and infrastructure concerns while carefully evaluating renovation, appropriately sized facilities, detention alternatives, and investments in prevention and treatment.
We also recognize that rejecting this bond would not automatically fund those alternatives. They will require their own planning, public accountability, and funding decisions. But that is all the more reason to insist on a clear, comprehensive plan before asking taxpayers to take on this level of debt.
We owe our residents more than a choice between an aging facility and the most expensive bond in the history of Johnson County. We owe residents a public safety strategy grounded in evidence, fiscal responsibility, humane treatment, and a serious commitment to preventing harm.
As elected officials, we believe Johnson County can address its real needs without rushing into a commitment of this magnitude. We urge voters to vote NO on the Nov. 3 jail bond and call on county leadership to work with residents, employees, service providers, and local governments to develop a better path forward.
