Guest Column: Flawed Process Regarding Courthouse and Annex Decisions
I am writing to share my observations and concerns with the process, or lack of process, with which the Geauga County Commissioners and the Chardon City Council have been proceeding thus far regarding the proposed abandonment of the current Geauga County Courthouse and Annex.
By way of background, for the past 40-plus years I have been a practicing lawyer in Chardon, and I continue to be in the Courthouse or Annex on legal business on behalf of my clients on a routine basis. I subscribe to the Geauga Times Courier, the Geauga County Maple Leaf and the News Herald, and I read or skim each issue as received. I have also been and continue to be a taxpayer to Geauga County and the City of Chardon.
In the context of the proceeding , I was surprised to learn, beginning in November 2018, that the County Commissioners were actively proposing to move forward with plans to abandon the County office complex at 470 Center St., and the Courthouse and Annex on Chardon Square, and to build new facilities to replace them, starting from scratch, on County-owned property on the South side of Chardon, near the city limits (“South Street Site”) or on County-owned property in the County complex near the jail and hospital (“Ravenwood Site”).
From what I have read, the decision to move forward has been based on a “Programming Study” commissioned by the Commissioners in 2017, which resulted in a 2018 “Planning Study” and report discussed at a “Work Session” during the Commissioners’ regular meeting Oct. 30, 2018.
The Planning Study provided three options: 1) New Construction on the South Street Site to replace all the existing offices at 470 Center St. and the Courthouse and Annex; 2) New Construction split between the South Street Site and the Ravenwood Site, and 3) Renovation/Expansion of all offices at 470 Center St. and on the Square (Courthouse and Annex) at their existing locations.
Given no apparent thought is a possible fourth option which would: 1) separate out and focus upon the Courthouse and Annex, separate and apart from the 470 Center St. complex; 2) fairly identify those capital repairs and improvements to the Courthouse and Annex which are in fact either “must do” or “high priority,” with realistic cost estimates; 3) take into account the considered input and opinions of the eight other public officials who have been elected on a countywide basis (the same electorate which elected the Commissioners), namely, three Judges, the Prosecutor, the Auditor, the Treasurer, the Recorder and the Clerk of Courts; and 4) allow reasonable notice to all stakeholders, including the taxpayers and voters, Chardon City officials (including the Police and Fire Departments) and reasonable opportunity for critical public analysis and constructive input.
From a cost perspective, only after addressing such a “Fourth Option” perspective can sound, knowing and reasonable judgments be made as to the costs, financial, social, practical, economic, and yes, emotional, of the drastic proposals relative to the Courthouse and Annex presently under consideration.
As a taxpayer I expect a much more objective, thorough, and open-minded approach, and cooperation between and among the County Commissioner and Chardon City officials.
William C. Hofstetter
City of Chardon
