Location of New Kent Courthouse May Not be County's Decision

Where the new Kent municipal courthouse will stand is a decision that may rest with Kent officials and not Portage County judges or administrators, who are ultimately responsible for the building's construction and maintenance.

Two statutes in the Ohio Revised Code — sections 735.14 and 735.15 — give control over the location of public buildings, such as a courthouse, constructed within city limits to the city's director of public service. Ohio law states the public service director shall employ three people — at least two architects — to determine the location.

Kent Law Director Jim Silver said the city became aware of the statutes in October and notified the Portage County Prosecutor's Office.

"(The statutes say) the director of public service shall have control of the location of public, municipal or county buildings erected on ground within the limits of the city,” Silver said. “There isn’t guidance from a court on how it’s interpreted. So at this point I’m just left with the plain language, and that’s what it says."

Though the city notified the county prosecutor, all three members of the Portage County Board of Commissioners said this week they were unaware of the statutes potentially giving the city final say on the new courthouse location until the question was raised by Kent Patch.

Newly elected Portage County Commissioner Tommie Jo Marsilio, a former county prosecutor, said the board has asked the prosecutor's office to try and determine if state law indeed gives the city power to dictate or veto the location of new public construction in Kent.

“We have asked the prosecutor’s office for an opinion,” Marsilio said. She declined to comment further.

The prosecutor's office did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Kent Patch.

A county-level committee has been meeting for more than two years to discuss replacing the current A special court fee created to pay for construction of the new courthouse has collected more than $2 million so far.

County officials point to problems with the current building's structure, security and capacity as the primary reasons for replacing the existing courthouse, a former post office dating to the early 1900s.

The county has hired architect Richard L. Bowen and Associates for the project and is studying several possible locations and configurations for construction of the new courthouse, including the current site.

Maureen Frederick, president of the county commissioners board, said in an e-mail the contract with the architect stipulates only a few sites be studied as possible final locations.

"It would certainly be a waste of money had they looked at sites that the city council may subsequently reject," she said.

The statutes say the public service director would have control, but the service director in Kent reports to members and they would likely have final authority if the decision does in fact rest with city officials.

Two primary locations being considered for the new courthouse are the existing site on South Water Street and the former Campus Inn Apartments site — adjacent to Jimmy John's sandwich shop — on East Main Street. Other sites that have been considered include land near Summit Street and S.R. 261 and a block of buildings between Day and Summit streets next to the Kent police and fire stations.

Silver said, at the least, the statutes suggest the city would have to sign off on whatever final location the county selects for the new courthouse.

“That’s what it sounds like from the statute(s)," he said. “I think when the county gets serious about building, serious about location, we’ll have some conversations. I don’t believe it’s the city’s intention — although this is my opinion and not anybody else's — that we’re here to tell the county what to do, where to do it and how to do it.”