Big Crowd for Kent Municipal Courthouse Forum

A roundabout discussion over the did little Monday other than to further delay answering a question six years in the making: where should the new courthouse be built?

The meeting, prompted by Portage County Commissioner Tommie Jo Marsilio, was scheduled for the new building if it will save money on the project.

The meeting opened with retired municipal court judge Joseph Kainrad and former commissioner Titus Jackman and when that decision was made. Kainrad was a local member of the Ohio General Assembly in the 1960s when the law passed establishing Portage County's municipal court. .

But after giving background, Kainrad questioned why the meeting was being held.

"I’m somewhat puzzled about why we’re here," Kainrad said. "This court was set up in the late 1960s. It has worked fine ever since."

Marsilio, who served as moderator, countered by saying public input is part of the governmental process.

"I thought we were very clear why we were here," she said.  "We’re here of course to talk about the potential for building a new site to house the Kent municipal court."

Marsilio said she wanted to expand the county's options for sites when she first proposed the idea of building the courthouse outside of Kent at a meeting earlier this year. Monday she said that idea stemmed from the fact the site in Kent that seems most viable — the now-vacant lot on East Main Street behind — comes with a hefty $1.6 million asking price.

"Much has been made about convenience, and do I care about Kent and do I care about convenience," she said. "Of course I do. But this county is bigger than just the city of Kent. The question is, can we afford convenience? We have to be realistic."

Like Marsilio, Portage County Commissioner Maureen Frederick said the cost of that particular site is a concern for her because that site was presented as if it was the only option for the county.

"We shouldn’t be in essence restricted to one spot, and that spot started out with supposedly a $1.6 million price tag," Frederick said.

But two of Portage County's municipal judges, and Barbara Oswick, along with Portage County Commissioner Chris Smeiles, expressed dismay over the fact at least six sites have been studied as possible locations for the new courthouse.

Smeiles ticked down several, including the current courthouse property, and briefly discussed the issues that eliminated those sites for one reason or another as viable. A large sewer and water main runs underneath the existing site, and it would have to be relocated — at a potential $1 million cost.

"There’s been quite a bit of effort over the past few years to see what would work," he said.

Oswick said she's spent the past six years, since she served on the Kent bench, trying to find a suitable spot for the new courthouse.

"Convenience is not what it’s only about," Oswick said. “Please don’t think we’re going down the road with this Taj Mahal. It’s long overdue. My bottom line is, let’s get it done."

Construction of the new courthouse will be paid for through a special projects fund created by the county judges in July 2006. , which bolsters the fund and can only be used for construction of the new building. The fund has about $2.52 million in it.

The county would, however, have to issue a bond to pay for initial construction of the building. The bond would then be paid off by the approximately $550,000 the special projects fund accumulates each year. The fund had actually collected about $2.8 million since 2006, but about $300,000 was used to help balance some county budgets last year.

Portage County Clerk of Courts Linda Fankhauser said the fund is far ahead of what projections showed it would amass annually.

“Quite frankly, I was surprised when the moneys, the numbers didn’t go down when we had the big economic crash a couple years ago," she said. "But it does keep coming in. And we are way ahead of projections."

Poland said the annual collection in the fund is more than enough to pay any debt service on the construction bond.

"It will not cost the taxpayers one dime to build," Poland said.

Still, some members of the public in attendance insisted the courthouse will be paid for by county taxpayers — people who commit or are accused of commiting crimes and then have to pay the associated court costs. One person said only people who break the law will end up paying for the courthouse.

Yet another concern for the county will be the operational costs of the new building, which the latest designs have as a 25,000-square-foot facility. The existing building is about 10,000 square feet.

It's unclear what the next step is, as city and county officials have agreed to take another look at whether a partnership between the two can lead to a cost savings on the project for the county. That cost-savings could manifest in a land swap or some other agreement. Two prior attempts at a partnership between the two failed to produce an agreement.

And though the atmosphere seemed divisive at times Monday, both city and county officials insisted that both are cooperating on the issue and there is no "us versus them" mentality for either side.

Kent City Manager Dave Ruller said that, if nothing else, that's the one message he wanted the public to leave with Monday.

"I feel we had an extremely productive Thursday," Frederick said. "In that they pledged that they would work with us toward identifying a viable site."