Chairman Shagnon, chair of the Chautauqua County Legislature’s Audit and Control Committee, opened a broad discussion on June 20, 2025 about next steps after a draft jail needs assessment presentation that produced a large cost estimate for replacement or major reconstruction.

"Where do we go from here? Wherever we go from here is gonna cost money," Chairman Shagnon told the committee, summarizing the problem and asking legislators whether to proceed to detailed design or to gather more analysis on alternatives and costs.

The committee has met repeatedly with consultants LaBella Associates and Justice Planners to develop an assessment of bed needs and facility conditions. The assessment presented options — including a full replacement that committee members said produced a headline figure in the range of roughly $120 million — and also considered operating needs, staffing and inmate flow. Committee members said the consultants produced bed projections from county-supplied data and that the committee adjusted counts during review.

Legislator Dan Pavlok, a member of the Audit and Control Committee, said the committee repeatedly challenged and updated the bed estimates during its meetings and that the numbers reflected committee input. The committee also discussed whether to continue housing federal inmates and how that decision affects long-term capacity planning.

Given the size of the cost estimate, several legislators asked whether county planning staff could help develop alternatives and provide a county-driven perspective before the legislature commits to formal design or construction. Mark Geiss, director of planning and economic development, told the committee he is willing to participate to help frame alternatives from a planning standpoint.

Committee members discussed a potential next-phase study or facilitated analysis that would examine alternatives (renovation, additions, phased construction or relocating capacity) and the financial and operational tradeoffs of each option. One committee member reported a ballpark estimate of about $100,000 for a study to define alternatives and recommend a preferred path. Members said that outsourcing more work to the county’s planning staff could reduce consultant costs but that some consultant participation would remain necessary to provide technical detail.

Legislators also cited building-condition concerns: the committee heard accounts of structural settling and dated infrastructure in the county’s older jail section and acknowledged that delaying action could raise long-term costs. The sheriff’s office and other committee members emphasized that any construction plan must consider how to house inmates and operate during construction — for example, whether inmates can be relocated within county facilities or transferred externally during work.

No formal decision to proceed to design or construction was made at the meeting. Chairman Shagnon said he would coordinate with the sheriff and the planning director to scope a recommended next step and that the committee could bring a resolution to the full legislature in the coming months to fund further analysis if necessary.

Committee members urged keeping the review moving so that the county does not lose momentum while also ensuring that the county "steers" the process and does not rely solely on outside consultants to define options.

Next steps identified at the meeting include a reconvened committee session with planning staff and limited consultant involvement to scope alternatives and a likely future resolution seeking county funds to pay for the defined next-phase work if the committee determines external contract support is necessary.