Two Northeast Ohio counties advanced jail projects before getting required approval

MetroCuyahoga and Lorain counties spent millions on jail projects before getting required approvalAerial of construction on the Cuyahoga County Jail complex in Garfield Heights.John Pana, cleveland.comBy Michael Johnson, cleveland.comAdvance Local Express DeskCLEVELAND, Ohio — Cuyahoga and Lorain counties spent or committed millions advancing jail projects before obtaining approval from court and law enforcement officials required under Ohio law.Both counties later convened the required groups and retroactively approved work already performed.The cases show the consequences of missing a step required by Ohio Revised Code Section 153.36. The law gives sheriffs and court officials a formal role in jail and courthouse projects. Proceeding without their consent delayed contractor payments in Cuyahoga County and forced both counties to revisit earlier decisions.Cuyahoga approved years of workIn a letter to County Executive Chris Ronayne and County Council President Dale Miller, Ohio Auditor Keith Faber’s office rejected Cuyahoga County’s argument that it could bypass the approval process for its Central Services Campus in Garfield Heights.County officials argued that the county charter and Ohio’s design-build law gave the administration authority to proceed without the committee. They also maintained that planning and preliminary work did not constitute commencing the project.The auditor’s office said it was unpersuaded but stressed that its letter was advisory, not a court ruling. Instead of seeking repayment, the office said it would accept retroactive approval confirming that the expenditures served a public purpose.At a July 20 special meeting, the four officials required under the statute unanimously ratified years of planning and preliminary work, including consultant contracts, land acquisition, site preparation and fencing.The vote allowed the county to release payments held during the dispute, including $7.44 million owed to Gilbane Building Co. for completed work.Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley raised the issue in March, directing officials to stop work until they obtained the required approval. He later said the work served a legitimate public purpose and contractors should be paid, but maintained that the county had not followed the law.County officials continue to dispute when planning legally becomes commencement of a project.The county lists an $889 million budget for the campus, which is expected to open in 2029.The entrance to Lorain County Jail.Hannah DrownLorain County faced the issue firstLorain County confronted the same statute months earlier and followed a similar path.County records show commissioners authorized up to $1.78 million through two agreements: as much as $100,000 for site development work in March 2025 and $1.68 million for design development work in July 2025.The issue surfaced after Sheriff Jack Hall requested a legal opinion from the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office in February. County officials then formed a Jail Advisory Board that included the commissioners and the court and law enforcement officials identified in the statute.On April 3, 2026, the board affirmed the need for a new jail and retroactively approved the earlier expenditures.The vote allowed the county to continue using completed planning and design work. The board later selected a $142.6 million, 540-bed proposal.Why approval is requiredThe 1953 version of Section 153.36 required county jail and courthouse plans to be approved by county commissioners, the clerk of Common Pleas Court, sheriff, probate judge and a Common Pleas Court appointee.Faber’s office said the process ensures that officials who operate or use the buildings participate in decisions about them.House Bill 497, which took effect April 9, 2025, changed the law to allow commissioners to approve projects costing $75,000 or less without the additional officials. Larger projects still require majority approval and “shall not commence” without it.The change was intended to let counties approve smaller repairs more quickly while preserving the committee requirement for major projects.A possible fine, but no repayment orderOhio law prohibits public officers from violating the state’s public-improvement statutes and allows a fine of up to $1,000. Faber’s office did not recommend that sanction.It also did not issue a finding for recovery, the auditor’s mechanism for seeking repayment when an audit concludes that public funds were misspent or public property was misappropriated.The auditor’s letter was not an audit report. No one alleged that money disappeared, was stolen or paid for work not performed. The dispute concerned whether the proper officials approved the projects before the work advanced.The retroactive votes do not settle every legal question. The statute does not expressly say that later approval cures an earlier failure, and neither county’s action has produced a reported court ruling.Both projects continue moving forward. But the disputes show the immediate consequences of missing the approval step: Contractors can go unpaid and years of decisions can be reconsidered while officials obtain consent the law required earlier.Michael Johnson brings nearly four decades of newspaper experience in reporting, editing, newsroom leadership, page design and digital publishing. He has led daily and weekly newsrooms in Pennsylvania,...This article was produced with assistance from AI tools and reviewed by Cleveland.com staff.