Cuyahoga County design team keeps expansion capacity while officials press for on-site firing range and stakeholder input

Cuyahoga County officials and the project design team said core systems for a proposed detention facility are being sized to allow expansion to 2,400 rated beds, even as council members raised questions about whether the planned initial buildout should include an on-site firing range and more formal participation from the prosecutor’s office and the chief judge.

The capacity and operations details surfaced during a meeting of county officials and the design team, where council members also pressed for clearer plans on police integration, animal access for working dogs, potential bird-safe glass, and a public timeline for design decisions.

Council member (unnamed) noted the project’s expansion history and current sizing: "You'll recall that going back to the original steering committee recommendations, even when it was 1,600, it was expandable to 2,400. . . . We have always said to the design team, you have to accommodate possible expansion to 2,400 rated capacity." The speaker and other officials said the initial housing-unit build-out under the current plan is 1,904 beds, while kitchen, laundry and sally-port systems are already sized to support the larger footprint.

Design-team representative Jeff confirmed the core systems were sized for future growth, saying that those core services "are already sized for that larger facility" and that adding beds should not require enlarging those systems.

Several council members and other attendees urged adding an on-site firing range so law-enforcement personnel can conduct qualification training without being sent off-site. One speaker said officers now travel to a Tri-C campus for weapons qualification and estimated such trips take about a half day per officer. The speaker added that a range could save overtime and travel costs and potentially be offered regionally to nearby jurisdictions.

An administration presenter said a firing range is "not part of any plan going forward" at this time but acknowledged there had been concept layouts showing where police operations might fit. The presenter agreed to share the concept drawings with council members on request.

Mister Applebaum, identified in the meeting as a member of the project team, responded to questions about the building envelope and bird strikes, saying, "I will make the commitment, Councilman Simon, to find out everything about that." The council asked the design team to investigate bird-safe glass options if portions of the facility will include extensive glazing.

Participants also confirmed that the facility concept includes outdoor access for working dogs; one attendee said at a previous meeting they had made sure "the dogs would have outdoor access, quiet outsourced outdoor access." The administration said that detail would be worked on.

On stakeholder involvement, a council speaker asked that the prosecutor and the chief judge be included in ongoing discussions. The administration reported it had spoken with both offices and that they "will be in contact with the administration as far as their concerns to date," and pledged to have a representative in future architect and administration meetings so court operations and prosecutorial needs are considered.

Other technical and planning details discussed included the site acreage (participants referenced a roughly 70–72 acre parcel and a lower-level area that is part of that total), and that expansions would extend north on the current plan’s jail core. The administration emphasized time and cost implications of late-stage changes and asked the council to provide requested materials so the design team can finalize cost estimates and move toward a fixed 2025 budget figure.

Next steps identified in the meeting: the design team will provide concept drawings and requested materials to council members; the project team will check options for bird-safe glass; the administration will ensure prosecutor and chief-judge participation in future planning sessions; and the group will schedule additional meetings to arrive at a finalized cost estimate and timetable.

If further substantive decisions are taken (for example, adding an on-site firing range to the current contract or formally changing the initial bed-count), the meeting record shows those items will require explicit direction and likely additional budget approvals.