The legal future of the Burton Log Cabin was rehashed during a tightly-structured panel discussion Sept. 12 between members of Burton Village Council and Burton Chamber of Commerce.
The legal future of the Burton Log Cabin was rehashed during a tightly-structured panel discussion Sept. 12 between members of Burton Village Council and Burton Chamber of Commerce.
Nothing was resolved during the half-hour meeting over ownership of the historic building on the south end of Burton Village Square.
The chamber filed a lawsuit to settle the dispute that dates back more than a decade.
During the meeting at Kent State University – Geauga, chamber President Ken Butler presented the chamber’s position paper on the topic and appealed to the three council members to settle the matter out of court.
“We are here to try to reach an agreement to take to the judge,” Butler said.
Other chamber members on the panel were Dave Kleeve and Sue Wayman.
Butler said they would like to draw up an agreement between the entities and take it to Geauga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Forrest Burt, who is the judge on the case. If Burt approves the agreement, it would become a binding contract between the village and chamber, Butler said.
“That would end the lawsuit,” he said, adding the chamber would like to sign a contract soon because Burt might not rule on the case before he retires from the bench the end of the year.
If that happens, the case will be ruled on by whoever wins the election for judge in November.
Burton Mayor Joe Hernandez and council members Ruth Spanos and Nick Tromba represented the village council on the committee.
In his opening comments, Hernandez thanked the chamber for reaching out to council, adding there could be no discussion about the history or details of the lawsuit by the committee and another meeting of the committee can be arranged.
After Butler, in the interest of transparency, provided a copy of the chamber’s income statement, Spanos asked how the chamber could afford to upgrade the restrooms.
Tromba said the village doesn’t want the cabin to deteriorate.
The restrooms were built in the 1970s and the cost of repairs and upgrades would be covered by fundraising and grants, Butler said.
The chamber has been keeping up with minor repairs to the cabin, but doesn’t want to invest thousands of dollars in restrooms until the ownership issue is solved, he said.
“My understanding is the lawsuit is still pending,” Spanos said.
Butler concurred.
“We are unable to negotiate now,” Spanos said. “The village has defended itself at considerable expense in a lawsuit.”
“What would you like?” Butler asked.
“We’d like a resolution. I don’t have the expertise to determine that, as a member of council. If there’s a lawsuit, we need a legal settlement,” Spanos said.
When Butler proposed taking an agreement to Burt, Spanos said negotiating a contract will require more legal fees for the village.
“My guess is Judge Burt is waiting for us to come to an agreement so he doesn’t have to rule one way or another,” Butler said, adding he was frustrated by the committee’s discussion.
After each side had used all its allotted time, short comments from the audience of fewer than a dozen were allowed.
Burton resident Jacqueline Samuel said she was a member of the chamber committee that did an internal audit of the chamber 11 years ago. They found the cabin listed with the IRS as a chamber asset. Extensive research did not confirm that.
“There is no evidence of chamber ownership, but much evidence of village ownership,” she said.
Long-time council member Charles “Skip” Boehnlein said council has spent more than $100,000 on the case and the issue has divided the community.
A ruling by the court on the ownership of the cabin would be a basis for resolving any future issues, he said.
“We don’t want to repeat history. The best way to have an understanding is to have a legal opinion. We don’t need to go through another situation like this trying to hash out who owns what,” Boehnlein said.
Since the case is already on the judge’s desk, there is no expense to the village to wait for a decision, said resident Cynthia Boehnlein, adding the village has to consider implications of the matter 50 and 100 years in the future.
Butler said the chamber members are concerned if they raise money and get grants for the restroom upgrade without an agreement, they could find out they don’t have any rights to the cabin.
“We hope to get (an agreement) done quickly and save everybody a lot of money,” he said.
A long-term lease to the chamber, as presented in Butler’s proposal, would be a possibility, Spanos said, adding she doesn’t see why a nonprofit organization is worried about ownership of the cabin.
Kleeve said the members have put hundreds of thousands of hours of work into maintaining the cabin.
Hernandez called the discussion at 8:05 p.m., saying he will re-present the chamber’s proposal to village council at the Aug. 24 meeting.
Cabin History
According to research, the cabin was built in the 1800s on the square, now owned by the village, when the population of the village was about 600. The chamber has used the cabin for maple syrup production and tapped the many sugar maple trees on the village-owned square for years.
The village applied for a block grant to help pay for restroom upgrades but, to prove ownership of the cabin, council presented the chamber with a preliminary contract with the rental amount and timeline blank.
In November 2013, the chamber filed a lawsuit insisting the cabin is the property of the organization. Council maintains the property is owned by the village and the chamber should pay rent for the land the chamber uses.
Butler’s proposal for a 20-year lease includes a land use fee of $500 annually to be used for care and replacement of the maple trees on the square. The chamber would pay for maintenance and insurance and make the restrooms available to the public, take care of trash removal and have the use of the property around the cabin for special events.
“If the Village of Burton concedes that we own the cabin structure, we will concede that they own the land under the cabin,” Butler’s proposal reads.
