Cnty. of Herkimer v. Vill. of Herkimer
| Decision Date | 27 January 2016 |
| Citation | 51 Misc.3d 516,25 N.Y.S.3d 839 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of COUNTY OF HERKIMER, Petitioner, v. VILLAGE OF HERKIMER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Thomas West, Esq. and Alita Giuda, Esq. (of the West Firm, Albany), for Petitioner.
Michael Longstreet, Esq. (of Longstreet and Berry, Syracuse), for Respondent.
The controversy before this Court concerns the construction of a new county jail in Herkimer County. For the last 15 years, the County of Herkimer and the Village of Herkimer have sparred over where to build this facility. The Village of Herkimer does not want the facility built within the Village limits and has taken steps to amend its zoning law to block such construction. The County of Herkimer argues that the former P & C site, which is located in the Village, is the best location for the facility and that the County's need to site the new jail trumps the Village's grounds for zoning out correctional facilities.
This case, which was initially filed in December of 2011, started as a hybrid proceeding-a Declaratory Judgment Action under Article 30 of New York Civil Practice Law and Rules () and a Petition under Article 78 of the CPLR. Herkimer County (hereinafter referred to as the "County") sought to set aside the Village of Herkimer's (hereinafter referred to as the "Village") denial of sewer services among other things (under Article 78), and an order declaring that the Village must provide sewer services for the proposed site (under Article 30). The action was later amended to seek additional relief, including a further action for declaratory judgment, e.g. an order declaring any local law that would exclude correctional facilities from locating within the Village to be null and void.
On August 22, 2012, this Court ruled, to wit, that under the state pre-emption doctrine, the amendment of February 6, 2012 to the Village of Herkimer's Zoning Ordinance and any local ordinance that resulted in the exclusion of correctional facilities and jails from the state-approved location was null and void. This Court also ruled that the remaining issues would be held in abeyance while the County submitted application for sewer services as required under Village law.
The Village subsequently appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. On September 27, 2013, the Appellate Division issued a Memorandum and Order in In the Matter of County of Herkimer v. Village of Herkimer, 109 A.D.3d 1166, 971 N.Y.S.2d 764 (4th Dept., 2013). The Appellate Division modified and affirmed the judgment rendered by this Court on August 23, 2013, and ruled that the zoning ordinance was not null and void under the pre-emption doctrine. However, the Appellate Division held that the County may be immune from the amendment to the zoning law nevertheless. The Appellate Division held that the record before the Court was inadequate to permit the appropriate balancing of public interests necessary to determine whether the County is immune from the requirements of the zoning law. The Appellate Division remitted the case to this Court for a determination, "based upon a more complete record, whether the County is immune from the requirements of the zoning ordinance." The Appellate Division stated, in part:
"The factors to be weighed in making that determination are the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the interest to be served thereby, the effect of local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact up[on] legitimate local interests[,] ... the applicant's legislative grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas, ... alternative methods of providing the needed improvement[,] ... intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard.' " County of Herkimer v. Village of Herkimer, 109 A.D.3d 1166, 971 N.Y.S.2d 764, citing Matter of County of Monroe (City of Rochester), 72 N.Y.2d 338, 343, 533 N.Y.S.2d 702, 530 N.E.2d 202 (1988).
The Appellate Division has charged this Court with the task of declaring the rights of the parties, to wit, is the County immune from the requirements of the Village Zoning ordinance? After the parties' completion of discovery, the Court held a trial commencing on July 20, 2015, and ending on July 27, 2015, for the purpose of establishing a factual record from which the Court could perform a balancing of public interests as required under Matter of County of Monroe (City of Rochester), 72 N.Y.2d 338, 343, 533 N.Y.S.2d 702, 530 N.E.2d 202 (1988).
The Court heard the testimony of several witnesses and received documentary evidence during the trial. Counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent have submitted post trial memoranda which has been also considered by this Court.
Every county in New York State is under a statutory obligation to maintain a county jail. See, County Law § 217. The county jail serves an important governmental function in protecting the safety of its residents and in providing safe and secure housing for inmates. The New York State Commission of Correction (the "Commission") is the state agency responsible for overseeing the operation of all correctional facilities in New York State. See, County Law § 216. The Commission is charged with the authority of approving all new sites for correctional facilities as well as inspecting existing facilities for compliance with health and safety regulations. See, County Law § 216 ; New York Corrections Law § 500–c(4) ; New York Corrections Law § 45.
The Herkimer County Jail (hereinafter referred to as "HCJ") has been located within the Village of Herkimer (hereinafter referred to as the "Village") since approximately 1834. In the late 1970s, the County received federal funding to construct a new facility which has remained in operation to date. The jail is located within the Village limits, next to the Herkimer County
Courthouse and County Office Building.
County Administrator James Wallace testified that in the late 1990s/early 2000s, the Commission began to tighten the regulation of boarding of inmates at HCJ. HCJ became faced with serious overcrowding issues. Under Commission guidelines, HCJ was permitted to house a maximum of 41 inmates at the jail. Given the increases in jail population since the 1970s, HCJ was required to board inmates at outside correctional facilities on a regular basis in order to comply with these regulations. Currently, HCJ boards out an average of 30–50 inmates per day to outside facilities.
Testimony at trial established that in 2000, the annual cost of "boarding out" was approximately $100,000. By the year 2015, the costs of boarding out had increased to over $1.6 million per year. In addition to the direct costs of boarding inmates, the County incurs additional expenses in transporting inmates to outside facilities and accessing legal and mental health services at outside facilities. Herkimer County, unlike some other counties, does not have a "road crew," so it was required to purchase vehicles and employ additional staff to transport inmates to and from outside facilities. The County must reimburse host facilities for the cost of any mental health services and assigned counsel services for inmates while boarded at outside facilities. The County Administrator testified that these transportation costs alone exceeded $120,000 annually as of 2014.
In late 1999/early 2000, the County Administrator, HCJ Captain, and County Sheriff elected to attend a training program at the National Institute of Corrections in Colorado to learn about necessary considerations in the design and construction of correctional facilities. Thereafter, in February of 2000, the Herkimer County Legislature resolved to create an advisory committee to evaluate the needs of the County to determine if it would be necessary to build a new jail and to study all phases of the jail siting and building process. The committee included the County Administrator, Jim Wallace, the Herkimer County Sheriff, the Captain of HCJ and several County legislators.
Between 2000 and 2005, the relationship between the Commission and the County became more strained. The Commission would visit HCJ on a weekly basis to inspect the jail and operations. At this time, the Commission began cutting back on the number of inmates that could be housed at HCJ and required HCJ to board out an increased number of inmates.
During this period, the County made efforts to reduce the jail population by initiating an ankle bracelet program, which permitted the early release of certain prisoners under supervision. Mr. Wallace and Sheriff Farber indicated at trial that this program was very successful, and did reduce the population by more than 100 inmates, but it was insufficient to address all of the concerns with the existing jail.
In order to further evaluate the overcrowding issues, the County engaged LaBella Associates (an engineering and architectural firm specializing in the siting and construction of correctional facilities, hereinafter referred to as "Labella") to conduct a population study to determine what size jail would be adequate to meet the County's future needs. Two other firms were also engaged. Based upon the information provided in the sizing studies, the County concluded that it would be necessary to construct a 130 bed facility with room for further expansion.
In 2006, the Commission informed the County that, due to substantial lack of compliance with the Commission's building requirements, HCJ must close its inmate housing unit and be used only as a holding area for no more than four inmates. The Commission cited a number of serious structural issues at HCJ, including but not limited to: overcrowding; poor air quality; inadequate recreational area; and a defective roof. The Commission directed the County to repair the existing facility to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Ellery v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation
... ... 72 N.Y.2d 338, 343, 533 N.Y.S.2d 702, 530 N.E.2d 202 ; County of Herkimer v. Village of Herkimer, 51 Misc.3d 516, 532, 25 N.Y.S.3d 839 ). The ... ...