Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chautauqua County weighs replacing 1939 jail wing with 224‑bed facility after needs study
Summary
Sheriff and consultants presented a needs assessment and conceptual plan to replace the county's 1939 jail section, recommending a 224‑bed facility; projected cost estimates range roughly $114 million to $119 million in current dollars and the plan will return to committee for further work.
Get email alerts on the Corrections Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff Michael Quattrone and consultants from LaBella Associates and Justice Planners presented a needs assessment and conceptual design May 28 to the Chautauqua County Legislature that recommends replacing the jail's 1939 section and building a new facility sized for about 224 beds.
The study team said its forecasts used jail data from 2016 to 2022, court and district attorney records and Cornell population projections to model likely inmate populations. Alan Richardson of Justice Planners described the model and uncertainties, saying the forecasts depend on whether booking and length‑of‑stay patterns return to pre‑COVID levels. "A forecast is only as good as the information that we have at the time," Richardson said.
The consultants presented three population scenarios and a range of bed needs from a low of about 52 (without federal inmates, base forecast) to more than 316 (including federal inmates in a high‑growth alternate). The sheriff and consultants said the project team had coalesced around a 224‑bed option without federal inmates as the most plausible planning target. "The consensus came down to a 224 bed option," Richardson said.
LaBella Associates sketched a campus concept that would locate a new southern addition on the existing jail site, demolish the 1939 linear block after the new spaces are certified and reuse that footprint for parking. LaBella estimated program square footage at roughly 14,000 square feet for a completely new off‑site build but noted the on‑campus concept would be larger and less efficient; total project area for the on‑campus option was presented near 18,000 square feet.
The consultants presented cost ranges developed in 2023 and escalated to present dollars: the report showed a 224‑bed concept with a 2023 construction cost range near $103 million–$108 million and a projected 2025 cost range of about $114 million–$119 million. LaBella staff said post‑COVID market conditions and escalation pushed per‑square‑foot estimates substantially above pre‑pandemic numbers. "Post COVID' everything that we're seeing estimating ' they're pushing almost a thousand dollars a square foot," Mark Kukufka of LaBella said.
Legislators pressed for more detail. Legislator Flint Larson, who served as county attorney during the 2004–05 jail project and later as a criminal court judge, urged caution before asking taxpayers to fund a large bond. "A $16,000,000 bond 20 years ago would be $30,000,000 today or only 25% of the $120,000,000 being presented to the legislature tonight," Larson said, and he asked for a ten‑year history of maintenance spending on the 1939 structure.
Sheriff Quattrone defended the urgency, saying maintenance staff have kept the older section operating around the clock but that the building is "starting to fall apart" and that the county should treat inmates and staff with dignity and safety. "The punishment should be losing their freedom, not being in a housing facility that's subpar," Quattrone said.
Consultants and the sheriff identified next steps: refine the program with the sheriff's office (detailed space needs), reconcile site utilities and circulation (stormwater, radio shop location, tunnel connections), and develop schematic design and construction documents (a process LeBella estimated could take about 12 months, with construction mid‑point projected in the mid‑2027 timeframe under one scenario). The team recommended continuing community engagement and returning the proposal to the legislature's committees for further study.
The legislature did not take a formal vote on a project authorization at the meeting; members agreed to send the matter back to committee for further review and for staff to provide additional details requested by legislators.

