Tompkins County committee debates jail capacity, alternatives and juvenile holding during planning for future public safety building

Tompkins County legislators and public safety officials discussed jail population trends and options for a future public safety building at the Aug. 26 Public Safety Committee meeting, focusing on whether to add capacity, redesign space for flexibility, and how gaps in mental-health and substance-use treatment drive jail use.

The county’s head count fluctuated during the committee’s discussion: "Monday's jail numbers... there were 57 individuals in our jail," committee member Matt said, and Sheriff Derek Osborne reported moments later, "our head count right now is 55 and we have 0 board outs." Sheriff Osborne said the week-to-week movement is cyclical and attributed changes to factors including state transfers and inmates finishing local sentences.

Why it matters: the committee is beginning planning for a future public safety facility and must decide whether to add bed capacity, change the jail’s footprint for operational flexibility, or rely on programmatic alternatives such as expanded diversion and treatment. That decision affects long-term capital spending, operating budgets and how the county handles people who need treatment rather than incarceration.

Committee members, the sheriff and department staff outlined three themes. First, several members and staff emphasized that many jailed individuals would be better served in treatment or specialized programs. "There aren't enough beds to put people in for rehabilitative services," Amanda Kirch Gessner, a resident, told the committee during public comment. Legislator Shauna warned of the lack of local detox and long waits for state rehab beds and said she would not support expanding bed counts without considering alternatives.

Second, several legislators said the design and layout of the current jail — not only the number of beds — limits how the facility can be used. Mike (legislator) and Sheriff Osborne both recommended designing for flexibility: "You can expand at the jail without expanding the number of beds," Mike said, and Sheriff Osborne said the county needs "the ability to house people differently and move people around when we can."

Third, juvenile holding came up as a recurring operational problem. Sheriff Osborne and other members described occasional juvenile incidents that disrupt operations and noted the county currently must use costly out-of-county contracts when local space is unavailable. "When we do see [juvenile holding], which is maybe 4 to 5 times a year tops, it really disrupts our operation," the sheriff said.

Discussion vs. decisions: the committee did not adopt a formal change to capacity at the meeting. Members agreed to track jail numbers on a quarterly basis to spot trends and to re-evaluate decisions about courthouse and jail planning before any construction is authorized. Several members expressed an explicit preference against large-scale bed expansion without clearer evidence and alternatives: "I personally would not be for expanding our jail in the future conversations," Shauna said.

What officials want next: committee members asked for more disaggregated data (e.g., how many inmates are serving local sentences, how many are awaiting inpatient treatment, parole violations, and counts of violent vs. nonviolent offenders) and recommended reporting seasonal averages rather than daily snapshots. The sheriff and staff recommended treating planning as a joint capital-and-program question rather than a single-bed decision.

Context: committee members cited local programs — wellness court, drug court, and Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) — as part of the strategy to reduce unnecessary detention. Dan Cornell of probation provided historical ATI day-reporting counts showing increasing use since COVID-era lows. Committee Chair Rich (first name only in record) emphasized the county's intent to avoid "board outs" (sending people to other counties) but also the need to ensure capacity to hold those arrested locally.

Ending: no ordinance or budget change was enacted. The committee plans further data-driven discussion and recommended quarterly trend reports to inform any future capital decision about the public safety building.