Portage Commissioners Sue Geauga for $292,649

January 27, 2025 by Allison Wilson

Portage County officials have filed a lawsuit against Geauga County Commissioners Jan. 22 regarding the commissioners’ decision to pull out of a cost-sharing contract with the Portage-Geauga Juvenile Detention and Rehabilitation Center. 

The complaint lists three claims against commissioners — one for declaratory judgement, one for breach of contract and one for unjust enrichment/breach of implied contract.

Commissioners voted to withdraw from the agreement in September of last year in an effort to save tax dollars, former County Administrator Gerry Morgan said at the time.

Geauga County was responsible for a percentage of the overall operational costs of the facility, with the amount paid each year determined by the percentage of bed-nights used by each county the previous year. 

Under a new agreement, juveniles from Geauga County are now either sent to the Lake County Juvenile Center on a per-night basis, costing $225 per bed-night, or the Richland County Juvenile Center for long-term placements, costing $100 per bed-night.

Per the complaint — which Portage County Commissioners filed in the Portage County Common Pleas Court — Geauga County did not have the right to withdraw from the joint agreement without Portage’s approval, citing 2152.41(D) of the Ohio Revised Code. 

“The board of county commissioners of any county within a detention facility district, upon the recommendation of the juvenile court of that county, may withdraw from the district and sell or lease its right, title and interest in the site, buildings, furniture and equipment of the facility to any counties in the district, at any price and upon any such terms that are agreed upon among the boards of county commissioners of the counties concerned,” the statute read.

Geauga County officials did not attempt to reach any agreed terms with Portage before their withdrawal, the complaint alleges. 

Portage commissioners passed a resolution in December approving Geauga County’s withdrawal effective Dec. 31 and declaring the joint detention center would be operated as a single-county detention center.

“This action was necessary to provide for the continued operation of a juvenile detention center in Portage County since Geauga County has refused to meet in a joint session regarding the joint district,” the complaint read.

The counties are currently in dispute over the proper method to calculate the value of Geauga County’s interest at 8000 Infirmary Road in Ravenna, where the detention center is located.

“For its part, Geauga County maintains that it should be paid for its proportionate interest in the Infirmary Road property based on the Portage County auditor’s appraised value of the property,” the complaint said.

This position is inconsistent with a 1998 agreement on the ownership interest of the facility, established to record both counties’ interests in the center should either decide to leave. It is also inconsistent with prior dealings between the two parties, which have relied on private appraisals, the complaint said.

“Consistent with the parties’ course of dealing, Portage County maintains that Geauga County’s interest in the Infirmary Road property should be based on one or more private appraisals that utilize a special-use valuation methodology discounted to reflect Geauga County’s minority interest in the Infirmary Road property,” the complaint said.

Geauga County has also not paid its 2024 budget third and fourth quarter assessments, an amount totalling $292,649, officials said in the complaint.

“Upon information and belief, Geauga County has approved resolutions to pay these assessments, but has withheld them to obtain leverage during the parties’ negotiations over Geauga County’s withdrawal from the joint district,” they said in the complaint.

Also unpaid are a $96,250 cost to upgrade the center’s security automation system and a $70,000 cost to replace the roof over sleeping areas in the facility, both of which were approved by the Joint District Board of Trustees, according to the complaint.

It also claims Geauga County is responsible for the estimated $107,000 cost incurred to transition the center from joint to single county, and claims Geauga has an obligation to pay a proportionate share of costs incurred purchasing tail insurance.

“The 1998 agreement and the 2024 budget are valid and binding contracts between the parties,” the complaint said. “Geauga County has breached its obligations under the 1998 agreement and the 2024 budget by failing to pay its third and fourth quarter assessments for its proportionate share of the aforementioned budget.”

Portage is seeking $292,649 in damages as result of the breach, the complaint said.

“Portage County has conferred a benefit on Geauga County by paying its proportionate share for the maintenance and upkeep of the joint detention center,” officials said in the complaint. “Geauga County has retained that benefit under circumstances which are unjust, namely, the non-payment of its own third and fourth quarter assessments pursuant to the 2024 budget.”

This dispute should be resolved by the court declaring Geauga County’s withdrawal was not effective until Dec. 31, that the proper method of valuing its interest in the Infirmary Road property is a special use valuation, and it is responsible for its share of costs, among other items, the complaint said.

While Geauga County Commissioners declined to comment due to the pending litigation, County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz replied to questions sent to them Jan. 28. 

The county disagrees with Portage County’s interpretation of the ORC statute cited, Flaiz said. 

“We did not need their permission to withdraw. The law only requires agreement regarding the sale of our interest,” he said. “We already have an agreement regarding our interest in the facility, which was memorialized when the facility was expanded in the 1990s.”

Regarding the dispute over how to calculate the value of Geauga’s interest in the Infirmary Road property, Flaiz said the 1998 agreement speaks for itself and the county will seek to enforce its terms.

The county disputes the monies listed in the complaint are owed and will be answering the complaint and filing counterclaims to protect taxpayer interests, he added. 

“We have repeatedly offered to participate in the Ohio Supreme Court’s public officials dispute resolution service to resolve this matter without litigation and unnecessary costs to our taxpayers,” he said. “That offer remains open.”