Clark County commission discusses consolidating county attorney’s office; officials cite security, records and $50,000 in savings

Clark County commissioners on July 22, 2025, discussed plans to consolidate the county attorney’s office into county-owned space on B Street, with staff citing extensive security and records-retention requirements tied to DOJ criminal justice network (CJN) guidance and an estimated $50,000 in annual rent savings.

The commission’s chair opened the discussion, noting the agenda item on office consolidation and asking staff to begin planning. An agency official representing the county attorney’s office said recent public information had not made the office’s operational needs clear and emphasized that ‘‘we run the risk, everything they send out every year, you know, at any time they can come and audit our office. If we're not up to speed, they can pull our CJN requirements for access and, you know, then we can't access police reports. We can't access people's history. We can't prosecute people’’ (Agency official).

Why it matters: staff framed the move as both a security and fiscal issue. The agency official said two existing off-site tenants each pay about $25,000 in rent and that consolidating those tenants into county space ‘‘saves, you know, $50,000 for the county. That's someone that the commission doesn't have to lay off’’ (Agency official). Commissioners pressed for specifics on timing and costs and urged careful planning so the county attorney’s office can remain fully operational during any transition.

Sequencing and timeline: staff described a phased move. MSU Extension would move into B Street first because of IT needs, followed by the health department; after renovations to the south side of the building and work on the basement, the county attorney’s office would occupy the freed space. Commissioners and staff mentioned possible target windows including September and December/January, with an additional ‘‘three or four months’’ of work after January before an actual move could occur.

Security, records and space needs: the county attorney’s office representative said the office has requirements similar to law enforcement for handling confidential criminal records, plus additional confidentiality obligations as a law office. Staff noted the current front-desk configuration and storage arrangements would not be secure enough and described common secure features such as a buzz-in glass window, escorted access and locked vaults. The agency official also said the office includes four attorneys (one part-time) and a victim coordinator who requires separate secure space.

Staff and commissioners discussed available vault space in county facilities, off-site records-retention options governed by state statute, and the practicalities of moving sealed case files (which may require certified staff escorts). The CJN administrator told the commission the DOJ guidance had recently been updated and is ‘‘almost 600 pages’’ and offered to identify the specific physical-security pages for the commission’s review (CJN administrator).

Next steps and requests: the chair asked the county attorney’s office to send an email listing non-negotiable requirements for the new location — for example, how many private offices are needed, vault specifications and other security must-haves — so the commission can attach costs. Commissioners also asked staff to check lease-termination terms for current off-site space and to provide details on any notice or penalties. The meeting ended after the chair moved to adjourn; no formal vote on consolidation was recorded.

The commission’s immediate actions are procedural: staff will compile and submit the office’s required list of non-negotiables, the CJN administrator will locate the relevant DOJ guidance pages, and staff will report back on lease terms and cost estimates to inform budgeting and the timeline for a future move.