The proposed new Yates County Jail has been reduced in size since its initial concept was presented in April, while adding required program space and improving operational efficiency, according to project manager Lance Lowell of architecture and engineering firm SMRT.
Speaking during a special meeting of the Yates County Legislature on Wednesday, Lowell said the design team has spent the past several months refining the project after legislators selected “Option 3” to move forward into schematic design.
Lowell said the project’s mission remains unchanged: to provide a safe, secure public safety facility that complies with current New York State Commission of Corrections regulations while creating a healthier work environment for staff and improving operational efficiency and employee retention.
Since April, the design team has completed preliminary site and floor plans, updated the design to comply with New York’s 2024 building code, toured another correctional facility, met with the Commission of Corrections, and continued refining the building’s layout and space needs. Work is continuing on updated cost estimates and the construction schedule.
One of the biggest changes has been a reduction in the building’s overall size. The original proposal called for approximately 66,750 square feet of usable space and about 73,400 gross square feet. The refined design reduces the net program area to about 59,300 square feet and the total building size to roughly 70,600 square feet — an 11.9% reduction in net space and a 3.75% reduction in overall gross square footage.
The current design places nearly all operations on a single level, eliminating the need to move incarcerated individuals up and down stairs, which Lowell said creates safety concerns in the current facility. A mezzanine would be used only within the housing units.
The facility would feature a single public entrance with security screening, including metal detectors and package scanners, serving visitors to the Sheriff’s Office, Probation Department, 911 Center and jail. A new arraignment courtroom would allow judges to conduct hearings at the jail rather than transporting inmates elsewhere, while a public viewing room would provide access for families and others attending proceedings.
The proposed building would also relocate the county’s Probation Department into the public safety complex. Lowell said co-locating probation with the Sheriff’s Office would improve coordination while relieving space constraints in the courthouse. Shared locker rooms, training areas and break rooms would also be used by multiple county departments.
Within the secure portion of the building, the intake and release area has undergone multiple redesigns following discussions with the Commission of Corrections. Lowell said the updated plan provides greater flexibility for separating inmates based on security classifications while adding medical isolation space, a feature that became increasingly important following the COVID-19 pandemic. Adjacent health services areas would provide space for medical evaluations, medication storage and treatment.
One of the most significant additions compared to the current jail is expanded programming and visitation space. Lowell said the new facility would include dedicated areas for educational, religious and other community-based programs, along with secure visitation rooms that would better accommodate family visits while allowing multiple activities to occur simultaneously.
The housing portion of the jail has also been revised. The current plan calls for three housing pods totaling 64 beds, down from the 72 beds included in the original concept. Lowell said the reduction followed discussions with the Commission of Corrections and matches the county’s current operational capacity before several beds were taken out of service in recent years. The housing units will include recreation areas, day rooms and direct-supervision layouts that comply with state correctional standards.
Several members of the public who attended Wednesday’s special meeting again voiced their concern about the proposed jail.
Gene Mitchell of the Town of Jerusalem questioned whether the county needs a larger jail, saying the proposal “kind of boggles my mind.” He said much of the jail population consists of federal board-in prisoners rather than Yates County inmates and asked whether the county is building a facility to meet local needs or to expand its role in housing federal inmates. Mitchell also questioned adding probation offices to the project, noting probation had previously moved out of the jail and that its former courthouse space has reportedly been repurposed. Referring to the jail’s average daily population, he said, “If you’re talking 10 inmates for an average daily population, come on.” He added that he does not believe housing federal prisoners benefits the community because it brings additional visitors and inmates “that are not great for the community.”
Jack Ossont of the Town of Starkey argued that the proposed jail size was based on projections rather than current needs and questioned the planning process. He said more than $422,000 had already been spent and warned the Legislature was on a “railroad track” toward approving the project, arguing that continued spending would make it increasingly difficult to stop. Ossont urged lawmakers to halt additional expenditures and open the proposal to broader public discussion, saying he believes that would result in a jail more closely aligned with the county’s actual needs. Drawing on his experience working with consultants, he expressed skepticism about the planning process, arguing consultants have a financial incentive to support larger projects. He also said he believes there is little public support for the proposal and urged legislators to “stop the financial outlays at this point in time, and let’s open this up for public discussion.”
Alison Stewart of the Town of Jerusalem questioned the scale of the proposed jail project, saying it resembles “an industrial complex” rather than a facility intended for a small rural county. She asked whether Yates County wants to move in that direction and also expressed concern about the project’s costs, saying she had hoped to hear how much money had been spent and what the expenditures covered. Calling the proposal “mind-boggling,” Stewart questioned whether such a large facility is appropriate for the county.
Legislator Sarah Purdy suggested the county consider holding public informational sessions about the proposed jail project to give residents a better understanding of the issues driving the proposal. She said legislators have access to information about modern correctional requirements, public safety operations and the limitations of the current jail that many residents may not have. Purdy said providing that information outside the formal legislative setting could help “bridge the divide” over the project and give people across the political spectrum a better understanding of why county officials are considering a new facility. She said elected officials have a responsibility to examine the facts, understand the challenges facing law enforcement and correctional facilities, and ensure the county is meeting its obligations to both the public and those in the sheriff’s custody.
Legislature Vice Chairman Edward Brunson responded that public information sessions are already planned once the schematic drawings for the proposed jail are completed. He said he has heard repeatedly that those sessions will take place and expects the county to follow through. “It’s not a new thing. It’s on the horizon,” Brunson said, adding that the project is not yet at that stage and asking the public to “please be patient with us.”
Barbara Craig of the Town of Milo said she toured the Yates County Jail with Sheriff Frank Ryan and jail staff, and came away believing the current facility has significant operational limitations. Drawing on her experience working in hospitals, she said it is difficult to provide proper care when facilities and equipment are inadequate. Craig also said the tour answered questions she had previously raised with the Legislature, leading her to question why more of that information had not been shared publicly. She praised Legislator Purdy’s suggestion for additional public information sessions, saying it showed respect for residents and could help educate the community about the project’s needs. Craig urged lawmakers to provide the public with the same level of information she received during her tour, arguing that informed discussion could narrow disagreements and allow residents to evaluate the proposal more fairly.
