Officials object to relocation

Chardon city leaders say Geauga board lacks legal authority to move office

Chardon city leaders are protesting a portion of Geauga County commissioners’ plans to relocate some county offices.

A letter was sent Jan. 21 to Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz by city-retained Stephen W. Funk of Roetzel & Andress law firm to formally object to the proposed relocation of the commissioners’ offices from the county seat.

The county seat is defined as “the place in a county where the principal county offices are located, where primary affairs and business of the county are conducted, and where court is held,” according to the letter.

“Here, Chardon has long been the county seat of Geauga County, and under the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code, any attempt to relocate the county seat is not permitted unless approved by the General Assembly and the voters of Geauga County,” it continued.

It indicated that the process for relocating the county seat involves submitting a petition that must be approved by the General

Assembly and then the electors.

“In this regard, the Geauga County commissioners recently produced documents that show that (they intend) to move forward with plans for the construction of a new county administration building at a new location that is not located in the county seat.”

According to information obtained Jan. 16 by the city via a public records request, the new building would contain new offices for the commissioners and all of the offices and departments that operate under the supervision and control of the commissioners, along with new offices for the Title Division for the Clerk of Courts, the Geauga County Elections Board and the county health district.

“While the Geauga County prosecutor has obtained an Attorney General opinion … that addresses whether it may relocate the board of elections, the clerk of courts and the health district outside of the county seat, this … opinion does not address whether the board of county commissioners can remove its office from the county seat, as they are now proposing to do,” the letter says.

It goes on to say that three Ohio Revised Code statutes demonstrate that the board must provide an office for the commissioners in the county seat.

“In particular, RC305.09 provides that ‘all the proceedings of the board of county commissioners shall be public, at the office provided for the board in the county seat, or at another location,’” under certain circumstances.

The Revised Code permits commissioners to relocate one or more of their regular and special “sessions” at alternative locations outside the county seat only if there is a “properly adopted resolution and reasonable public notice of the action.”

“There is nothing in (the Revised Code) … however, that permits the county commissioners to relocate their ‘office’ outside of the county seat,” the letter states.

The letter also indicated that commissioners lack authority to relocate their regular or usual office from the county seat.

“Indeed, we note that no court has ever held that a board of county commissioners may vote to remove the commissioners’ offices from the county seat,” the letter says. “Based upon our research, in fact, all of the county commissioners (or the county executives in charter counties) maintains an office in the county seat in all 88 counties of Ohio.

“If the county commissioners were to move forward with their proposed plan, therefore, Geauga County would become the first county in Ohio where the county commissioners did not maintain any office in the county seat.”

The letter concludes by saying, “We respectfully request that the board therefore consider the city’s legal position in deciding whether to move forward with its proposed construction project.”

Flaiz responded with the following statement: “It is unfortunate and unproductive that media outlets received this letter the same day I did. The Commissioners have repeatedly expressed to me their desire to make services more accessible to the entire county within the framework of existing law. We will be responding to the City’s letter when appropriate.”

On Jan. 13, commissioners interviewed four manager at risk companies for a building project at 12611 Ravenwood Drive in Claridon Township.

The facility is intended for service-oriented county offices, such as the Building Department, Veterans Services, Health District, Board of Elections, Title Bureau, etc., county Administrator Gerry Morgan said.

The offices would be relocated from their current home at 470 Center St. in Chardon.

The project is estimated at $26.7 million. The plan is to award the work by early February and complete the building by mid-2022.

Commissioners announced in 2018 that they would move forward with a building project that will result in the vacating of all county buildings within the city, entailing the sale of 470 Center Place, and the courthouse Annex and Opera House buildings on Chardon Square.

Commissioners had looked at renovating existing buildings, building new on 35 acres at the southern end of South Street in the city or new construction split between South Street and Ravenwood.

In March, the city presented a proposal to build

new offices on the northwest corner of Chardon Square in the Chase Bank building location.

The city authorized a $20,000 study by Cleveland-based LDA architects and Richard L. Bowen & Associates, which has investigated alternatives for county commissioners.

Current county offices face space and parking constraints, lack security and would be costly to renovate, Bowen determined.

The Chase building could be purchased, razed and replaced with a 65,000-square-foot, threestory structure for offices and additional parking. One-third of the parking could be housed under the building at street level.

In addition, the project would renovate more than 15,000 square feet of the existing courthouse and add 4,200 square feet to the rear to provide secure access.

It includes provision for new “customer service-oriented” county offices on the Ravenwood/Merritt Road campus.

The option is estimated to cost $51.7 million, which is roughly $1.7 million more than the option commissioners had reportedly been leaning toward — building new on South and Merritt.

The new office project is anticipated to be completed within three years and without raising taxes.

The Revised Code permits commissioners to relocate one or more of their regular and special “sessions” at alternative locations outside the county seat only if there is a “properly adopted resolution and reasonable public notice of the action.”