Monroe County officials say jail can’t be renovated; staff cites Falk letter and schedules joint session with council

Commissioner 1 and county staff told the Monroe County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 15 that prior studies show the existing Justice Center cannot be renovated to meet constitutional care and safety standards and that attorney Kenneth Falk’s recent letter summarizes those findings.

Staff member Speaker 5 described the letter as a synthesis of prior reports, including work by RJS, RQAW and a DLZ review, and said Falk “pulled out the areas that they found where there were in compliance and where we were not in compliance” and noted that Falk was willing to consider a 90‑day extension. Speaker 5 said the letter highlights instances when the male population exceeded functional capacity and that Falk “points out in that letter that…functional capacity is different” from design capacity.

Commissioner 1 said the county has done extensive site and design work and favors building at the North Park site the council agreed to purchase in 2024. “DLZ spent of the approximately $8,000,000 they have expended so far…more than half of that $8,000,000 was spent to design for North Park,” Commissioner 1 said. The commissioner added that the county has spent additional design dollars and that proceeding without clear council backing could require redesign if the site changes.

Commissioner 2 emphasized values and safety in planning the replacement, saying a single‑story facility is preferable because it is “safer,” but also urged the parties to answer outstanding technical questions: whether the facility must be single‑story, whether the current justice center can be rehabilitated, and how co‑location would change operational costs. Commissioner 2 supported holding an evening joint work session with county council to get definitive answers.

Staff and commissioners discussed timing and legislative constraints, noting a looming April 15 timeline associated with the class‑action agreed order and uncertainty about whether special legislation or bonding relief (referenced in discussion as “SB 1”) will be available. Speaker 5 said Falk “left the door open that if we did come as a county and had a viable path forward…he would revisit that decision,” but also stressed the need for a clear site and plan before any extension could be secured.

The board directed staff to coordinate with the council office to schedule a joint evening meeting focused on five specific questions posted on the board’s agenda. The meeting will not take public comment and is intended to elicit council positions on site, design, co‑location and phasing so commissioners can determine next steps.