Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, some legislators urge delay as Yates County authorizes on-site studies for public safety facility
Summary
After public commenters and several legislators urged more transparency, the Yates County Legislature voted 11–3 to authorize on-site geotechnical and property studies for a proposed public safety facility and gave the chair authority to sign agreements with parcel owners and consultants.
The Yates County Legislature on May 11 authorized agreements to conduct on-site studies and geotechnical investigations for potential parcels being considered for a new public safety facility, overcoming calls from residents and a minority of lawmakers to pause the effort.
Resolution No. 242-26, moved by Legislator Sarah Purdy and seconded by Legislator Dan Banach, gives the Legislature Chair authority to sign agreements with parcel owners so consultants can complete necessary testing. The motion carried on a roll-call vote of 11–3 (Jayne, Button and Willson voting no). The contract work will be performed by consultants already under county contract, including Pike Construction Services and SMRT Architects and Engineers, and the results will be provided to the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, Sheriff, County Administrator and Director of Finance.
Residents who spoke during the public-comment period said the process has felt rushed and urged postponement. Allison Stewart, a Yates County resident, asked the Legislature to delay the resolution: "On behalf of many Yates County residents, she requests that the legislature table Resolution No. 242-26, until further information is available to the public." Jack Ossent, another resident, said local farmers and lakeside property owners need clearer cost information and broader engagement.
Legislators divided over whether the on-site work is a necessary next step. Legislator Terry Button argued the public has not seen consistent cost figures and warned of large long-term debt implications, saying, "That's important. Before they do all this other stuff, get with the proper way to have a discussion and not shove something down his throat, because he’ll continue to just vote no." Supporters, including Purdy and Legislator Doug Paddock, said on-site testing is required to understand subsurface conditions and to produce realistic cost estimates for land acquisition and construction.
The resolution states the cost of on-site studies is included in existing consultant contracts (Resolution Nos. 276-25 and 453-25) and directs that results be shared with specified county offices. The next procedural step is execution of individual agreements with parcel owners and initiation of the geotechnical work.
