Monroe County judge urges purchase of secure storage building, proposes limited juvenile holding space

Monroe County Judge Dwayne Thomas told commissioners on March 26 that the county needs a dedicated, secure storage facility near the justice center to protect juvenile files and other long‑term records, and to create limited local holding capacity for nonviolent juvenile offenders.

Thomas, introduced with Court Clerk Dwayne Martin, said current archives are scattered and unsecured and that unauthorized access to juvenile files can be a felony. “Anytime evidence is touched, and when we say touched legally, touching is being in the presence of evidence,” he said, describing the chain‑of‑custody problems that risk losing cases.

He laid out a conceptual plan for a metal building roughly 120 by 40 feet with a 40‑by‑40 office end that could be fitted for records storage, workspace for youth services officers (YSOs) and probation staff, and two small holding rooms for short stays. Thomas said a vendor quoted roughly $160,000–$165,000 for the building materials (insulated shell, doors and basic insulation); those estimates exclude labor and interior fit‑out. He suggested phasing the work and pursuing grants, including Department of Justice opportunities targeted to juvenile facilities.

Thomas said the county currently pays about $200 per child per night to house juveniles out of county and that the county’s juvenile caseload has grown: “We fill that up that quick,” he said, adding that some juvenile offenses now outnumber adult cases in his docket. He described operational needs — secure, locked storage for juvenile files and a separate workspace so YSOs do not meet children in the main courtroom — and said local storage would improve audit outcomes and access for youth seeking records for military or employment purposes.

Commissioners and staff asked practical questions about insurance, sprinkler/filtration needs for paper archives, whether the building should be split into a pure-archive structure plus a separate office, and what the procurement/bid process would look like. Thomas said the vendor preferred to provide material quotes and would not bind the county; he recommended a vendor presentation and suggested some site prep could be done in‑house using inmate or highway‑department labor where legally allowed.

The judge asked the board either to form a committee or authorize the mayor’s office to seek presentations and price‑per‑square‑foot estimates so the county can plan ahead. Commissioners agreed to schedule follow‑up work: staff said they would set up a planning session in the coming weeks so the commission and county staff can gather more information before the next meeting.

Next steps: commissioners directed staff to research available funds and coordinate a briefing/workshop to scope costs, procurement steps and grant opportunities; no formal appropriation or contract was approved at the meeting.