Morrow County officials weigh Boardman annex against keeping courts in Heppner as staff flag $1.5M geotechnical costs

Morrow County commissioners spent a work session reviewing alternatives for a new courthouse after staff reported geotechnical concerns at an earlier site and Judge Hill outlined an annex option to expand services in Boardman.

County staff (Speaker 2) told the commission that geotechnical work at the Kinzer/Millside site could require excavation “between 5 and 10 feet” and that the work could add “about $1,500,000” to the project budget, plus any remediation that might be uncovered. Speaker 2 said that those cost and subsurface risks were a primary reason the county should consider alternate approaches, including an annex model.

Under the annex model described in the session, circuit-court functions would remain on the second floor of the historic Heppner courthouse while a new annex—sited in Boardman in the proposal—would provide an additional large courtroom, judicial chambers and staffing space. Speaker 3, who presented the operational rationale, said a Boardman annex could improve access for the county’s North End residents and increase the county’s chance of obtaining an additional judicial position through the legislature. Speaker 3 estimated adding roughly three to four staff positions to operate the annex and said the change could improve docket management by reducing the need to move judges between counties.

Justice-court staff (Speaker 5) told commissioners the annex would help ease scheduling conflicts and jury-trial congestion but would not fully resolve justice-court scheduling challenges. The justice-court representative said many hearings have been shifted to the North End to accommodate conflicts at the higher court, and that an annex could reduce travel burdens for residents in that area.

Commissioners and staff discussed case mix and backlog. Speakers at the meeting described civil cases consuming substantial courtroom time and noted that a small share of cases ultimately go to trial but that many cases are set for trial, producing scheduling pressure. Meeting participants also cited juror-availability data, with an attendee noting roughly 65% of registered voters (potential jurors) live in North End ZIP codes—an argument used in favor of locating more court services in Boardman to improve juror turnout.

On site selection logistics, project staff (Speaker 2) said the county had initially screened nine candidate sites, narrowed them to five and later to three for deeper review. Staff noted that using the county-owned two-acre Boardman parcel currently in the plan would allow the project to move more quickly because programming work had been completed for that site; choosing a different site would require restarting programming, design and additional site negotiations and could add time and expense.

Several commissioners emphasized transparency and public notice: they said a final site selection would not be made that day, asked staff to present alternative sites and cost comparisons at the next meeting and encouraged public awareness about where the process stood. One commissioner asked staff to evaluate centrally located options — for example near city hall or a senior center — should the county decide the owned site is not the preferred location.

No formal action or new vote occurred during the session; staff noted the commission had previously voted 2–1 to consider Judge Hill’s annex proposal and the issue will return to the commission agenda for further direction. Commissioners asked staff to bring more modeling and site information to the next meeting so the board can consider whether to proceed with the county-owned Boardman site, pursue an alternate site, or continue investigation.

What’s next: staff will prepare cost comparisons, alternative-site programming and a schedule for the commission; the commission signaled it expects the matter back on a future agenda for a possible decision or more detailed direction.