Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislature authorizes schematic design for new Yates County Public Safety Facility after heated debate
Summary
After public comment and internal debate, the Yates County Legislature voted to authorize schematic design work for Option 3 of a proposed Public Safety Facility. The roll-call vote carried 10–4; opponents called for greater transparency and cost clarity.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Yates County Legislature voted on April 13 to authorize SMRT Architects and Pike Construction Services to proceed with schematic design of Option 3 for a proposed Public Safety Facility, a step that moves the county from conceptual review toward design documents. The motion carried on a roll-call vote with 10 members in favor and 4 opposed (Yes: Killen, Bronson, Paddock, MacKerchar, Flynn, Banach, Holgate, Lawson, Harper, Church; No: Button, Willson, Purdy, Jayne).
The decision followed an extended discussion tracing back to a special legislative meeting April 8 that presented three options: renovate and expand the existing site, new construction on the existing site with demolition, or a new-site new construction (Option 3). Critics of Option 3, including Legislators Terry Button and Rick Willson, said the proposal did not yet account for land acquisition costs, the expense of any new communications tower, or opportunities to collaborate regionally. Supporters argued Option 3 would be timelier and more efficient for meeting state requirements. During the floor discussion, Mr. Paddock challenged a circulating cost figure, saying, "It's not inconsequential, it's slightly less than $300,000, but it is not $980,000 spent so far," clarifying what the county has spent to date on consulting and design services.
The motion authorizes the contracted firms to proceed with schematic design under existing agreements and directs staff to provide documents to the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, Sheriff, County Administrator and Director of Finance. The Legislature did not adopt a construction contract or site purchase at this meeting; opponents and proponents alike noted the board may stop further work at any phase and that additional public engagement may occur as design work proceeds.
