By Joe Bachman
Multimedia Editor

STEVENS POINT — After over two decades of discussion, officials are one step closer to a resolution for addressing outdated county facilities.

An early sketch and possible outline of new county facilities. (Photo: BWBR/Newberry Architects)

On Tuesday, June 18, County officials approved a move that will kickstart the process of design services of new county facilities at the East Park Commerce Center. It is important to note that the approval does not include specific costs or designs at the moment.

Once designs are fleshed out, they will be brought back to the board for further discussion and votes.

The resolution outlined agrees to have BWBR/Dewberry architects create a master plan for design services of a 20-25 acre space at the East Park Commerce Center, east of County Highway R and north of County Highway HH.

However, after over two hours of discussion and community input, including a presentation by County Executive Chris Holman, some residents were left a little befuddled and notably quiet after the final votes were cast.

After the debates were closed, the resolution passed by a vote of 13-10, with two members absent. Most notable in the vote is how the votes were split:

Nearly all supervisors in districts 1-10 (Stevens Point/Park Ridge areas) voted “NO” with the exception of District 7, which lies close to County Highway HH. However, Districts 11-23 voted “YES” with the exception of District 17 (Whiting). These districts represent the outlying communities outside of Stevens Point.

Downtown vs. East Commerce Park Center

During his presentation to board members, Holman revealed his research into the potential move and concepts behind it. He points out that according to BWBR/Dewberry, it’s much easier to build out than up.

“It really takes a lot of forward-thinking.” Holman said in regards to board’s vote, regardless of where the votes were cast. “My ultimate goal is progress.” he later added.

“[This] puts the county in the complicated position of trying to find a path forward that can address both the county’s infrastructural needs and the increasing costs associated with those needs as that infrastructure continues to deteriorate or remain out-of-compliance.” Holman stated in a commentary on the matter.

Key benefits of a possible move near County Highway HH include: 

-Potential savings of $10-15 million dollars when comparing building a new long-term facility versus upgrading/remodeling current facilities and infrastructure.
-Easier access for deputies and first responders to major highways.
-Better access for surrounding communities (Almond, Amherst, Hull, etc.).

“We owe it to the taxpayers to come up with a long-term plan.” stated District 12 Supervisor Mike Splinter.

Splinter pointed out that those in his district (Town of Hull), would actually have easier access to a new courthouse and jail located on HH. Other supervisors called for the move, and their consensus is to remind others that Portage County is not just Stevens Point, and that all residents should be thought of.

Former Portage County Judge John Finn speaks at the County Board meeting on June 18. (Joe Bachman Photo)

However, concerns were expressed by over a dozen residents who spoke out against the resolution.

This includes former Portage County Judge John Finn, who advocated for a long-known plan of building the courthouse across the street adjacent to the Annex. In this concept, they would be connected, and would only sit at two stories.

Finn told board members that his idea would call for four courtrooms on the second floor, with clerk offices on the first.

“That would require other court-related offices, such as the district attorney, to move over to the annex,” said Finn. “…And those persons who were displaced by that movement would come back over here to a renovated second floor.”

Above all, most residents who spoke at the meeting simply wanted to keep the courthouse and jail in the downtown area. Most believe that the “heart” of Portage County is in downtown Stevens Point. This also includes those without vehicle access as many pointed out.

“The population in the center of the city is a large population of people who don’t have access to a car.” said resident Mike O’Meara.

Expressed concerns of moving county facilities include:

-Losing business for the downtown area due to an absence of county workers.
-Urban sprawl could lead to traffic congestion and environmental impacts.
-Low-income persons, students, and the elderly could be at a disadvantage for traveling purposes.
-Lawyers could be pushed to move their locations to be closer to a new courthouse.

District 9 Supervisor Chai Moua spoke out on not only the difficulties that a move could pose for low-income residents that need adeqate transportation, but talks of decarcerating the jail population.

A screen of where county supervisors landed their vote. The resolution was passed by a vote of 13-10. (Joe Bachman Photo)

“Why put the energy into looking what’s possible in a space where we’ve heard the majority of people tell us ‘no’?” asked Moua.

“We talk so much about money, and how much can be saved here and there, and how money we’ll spend renovating or building new, but one thing I keep saying that I don’t hear from folks is what the impact on people will be.”

There was also sporadic discussion throughout regarding an upgrade to the current public transit system for busing those without vehicle access to the courthouse in a new location. This resolution was also passed without an official confirmation of the proposed property swap between the city and county.

In this potential swap, the city would receive the annex building and law enforcement center, while the county would receive the Portage County Public Library, the Aging and Disability Resource Center, and the aforementioned 20-25 acres of land at the East Park Commerce Center.

While seemingly unpopular, the resolution creates a direction for the county to follow. However, whether or not the new county facility will ultimately come to fruition is likely many meetings and resolutions away.