Kent Council Responds to County Commissioner's Courthouse Gaffe

One Portage County commissioner's remarks regarding sparked a firestorm of retaliation by members Wednesday.

Members of council responded during their meeting to comments from Portage County Commissioner Tommie Jo Marsilio, who said Tuesday that she wants to change state law so the county is not required to build a new courthouse in Kent as current state law mandates.

Kent City Councilman Erik Valenta said the city didn't learn of Marsilio's comments at a county commissioner's meeting Tuesday until late that evening, well after the meeting had ended. Marsilio said publicly she hadn't broached the idea with Kent administrators or elected officials before discussing it at the county meeting.

"It’s fine to look at different things," said. "But there’s a system that works and a decorum that you follow in terms of notification of entities involved … and when you’re not following that it just goes against good will.

“My father used to tell me you put your mind in motion before you put your mouth in gear, and I wish that would have happened in this situation,” Ferrara said.

Marsilio's remarks come as the new courthouse seems further from construction. All three members of the commission have been unable to come together on a location for the new building. That discussion has been taking place for more than two years.

And city officials learned in October that — further complicating the site selection process.

The commissioners agreed on Tuesday to hold a public meeting March 31 at 3 p.m. in the Portage County administration building at 449 S. Meridian St. in Ravenna to discuss Marsilio's idea.

Kent Mayor Jerry Fiala said he is hopeful the commissioners can start to work together.

"Something I don't think they're doing," Fiala said. "Kent has the most in the county to offer anybody, and I can’t think why anybody would want to change state law … whatever the reason is, it’s just a poor one."

Valenta pointed to the ongoing downtown redevelopment efforts — possible thanks to cooperative efforts by the city, Kent State University, Ohio Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, the Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority, Kent City Schools and private developers — as one of many reasons to keep the courthouse in Kent.

“I was very upset our city was informed of the county’s decision by phone to the city manager late (Tuesday) night," Valenta said. "Kent has the county’s largest population, hosts the largest employer and is in the midst of building the largest redevelopment project.”

Ferrara said the public-private aspects of the downtown redevelopment efforts are moving forward on thin margins and will rely heavily on foot traffic — something that could decrease if the courthouse is moved out of the downtown area.

“It’s incumbent upon our council to make a show of force on March 31," Ferrara said.

Council voted to send a letter to the county commissioners expressing their displeasure with the idea of moving the courthouse location out of the city.

To counter the heated remarks, Kent City Councilman Robin Turner looked to serve as the voice of reason Wednesday by reminding his fellow council members no decision had been made to actually build the new courthouse outside of Kent.

"I think we have to be a little cautious regarding the matter," Turner said. "Right now, from what I’ve been able to determine, that was one commissioner’s feeling about discussing the matter. The other two have not indicated support for moving the courthouse away from Kent.

"While I think it’s important for us to make our position known ... Let’s not put the cart before the horse, indicating the commission has made a decision which they quite frankly haven’t made yet,” he said.