Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Yates County committee for transparency on proposed 72‑bed jail
Summary
Public commenters urged more transparency about plans for a new Yates County public safety facility, questioning the need for a 72‑bed design, the ad hoc committee's closed meetings, and ongoing land acquisition; the sheriff said the department has not been approached by ICE and will comply with law.
Public commenters at the Yates County Public Works Committee meeting on June 1 pressed county officials for clearer information about the proposed public safety facility — and raised alarm about process and timing.
Barbara Craig, speaking during the public comment period, summarized her concerns in three points: public dissatisfaction with how the project is progressing, questions about why a 72‑bed facility is being planned when the county's current 60‑bed capacity is not full, and why the ad hoc committee has held private meetings. "It has become abundantly clear that the Yates County citizens are not happy with how this is progressing," Craig said, and asked how residents can obtain more public input.
Several commenters urged greater transparency and for the Legislature to consider public sentiment. Jack Ossent said the lack of public input is the "biggest, anger‑creating issue" and warned that opponents may circulate a petition if they believe the county is moving forward without sufficient public engagement.
County project staff and the Ad Hoc Public Safety Facility Committee reported that schematic design work is underway and that 47 people participated in recent walkthroughs of the existing facility. Doug Paddock said the ad hoc committee is advisory to the Legislature and does not make final decisions; he also said Attorney Falvey is reviewing records to respond to FOIL requests.
Questions at the meeting ranged from bed-count justification to whether the county should pursue land acquisition before finalizing design. Jack Ossent asked why land acquisition is progressing if alternatives could reduce costs; committee members responded that site suitability, utilities and buildability must be evaluated before acquisition.
Concerns about immigration enforcement also arose. Ossent asked the Legislature to consider a resolution opposing coordination with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Sheriff Frank Ryan clarified the department has not been approached by ICE about the facility and said the sheriff's office will act within the law: "they will comply with the law, and they will do what the law tells them they can do." The meeting record does not show any formal action on an ICE resolution at this session.
Committee members and staff said the design phase and associated contracts cover current consultant costs and that more information is available in Laserfiche and at future public meetings.
