Toledo v. Corr. Comm. of N.W. Ohio

[Cite as Toledo v. Corr. Comm. of N.W. Ohio, 2017-Ohio-9149.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-16-1155
Appellee Trial Court No. CI0201505017
v.
Corrections Commission of
Northwest Ohio, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellants Decided: December 20, 2017
*****
Andy Douglas, Adam W. Loukx, Law Director, and John T. Madigan,
Senior Attorney, for appellee.
Marc A. Fishel and Melanie Williamson, for appellants Corrections
Commission of Northwest Ohio and the Boards of Commissioners of
Defiance County, Fulton County, Henry County, and Williams County.
Fritz Byers, for appellant Lucas County Board of Commissioners.
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, John A. Borell,
Kevin A. Pituch, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys,
for appellant Lucas County Sheriff John Tharp.
Melissa M. Purpura, Director of Law, City of Oregon, for amicus curiae
city of Oregon.
Beth A. Tischler, Director of Law, City of Maumee, for amicus curiae city
of Maumee.
Leslie B. Brinning, Director of Law, City of Sylvania, for amicus curiae
city of Sylvania.
Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaffer, Co., LPA, and John M. Roca, for
amici curae International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, CCNO
Supervisors Association Local 53, CCNO Corrections Officers Association
Local 64 and CCNO Case Managers Association Local 79.
*****
KLATT, J.
{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, the Corrections Commission of Northwest Ohio
(“Commission”), the Lucas County Board of Commissioners (“Board”), the Lucas County
Sheriff (“Sheriff”), and the Boards of Commissioners of Defiance County, Fulton County,
Henry County, and Williams County, appeal a judgment entered by the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas in favor of plaintiff-appellee, the City of Toledo. For the
following reasons, we affirm that judgment.
{¶ 2} Toledo is the largest municipal corporation within Lucas County, Ohio.
Toledo does not own or operate any type of detention facility. Individuals arrested in
Toledo, who are denied bail or who are unable to make bail, are confined to the Lucas
County Corrections Center (“LCCC”).1 The Sheriff operates the LCCC and has charge of
1
A court must order the detention of an individual charged with a crime “[i]f [the]
offense is not bailable, if the court denies bail to the accused, or if the accused does not
offer sufficient bail.” R.C. 2937.32.
2.
all individuals confined in it. See R.C. 341.01 (“The sheriff shall have charge of the county
jail and all persons confined therein.”).
{¶ 3} Generally, if an individual is convicted of a misdemeanor offense by a court
located in Toledo,2 that individual serves any jail sentence imposed at the Corrections
Center of Northwest Ohio (“CCNO”). CCNO is the product of agreements between
Defiance County, Fulton County, Henry County, Lucas County, Williams County, and the
City of Toledo to construct and operate a multicounty-municipal correctional center.
CCNO has operated under successive organizational and operational agreements since
1988. In 2011, the five member counties and Toledo entered into the Fourth Amended and
Restated Organizational and Operational Agreement for the Corrections Commission of
Northwest Ohio’s Multicounty-Municipal Correctional Center (“Fourth Agreement”).
{¶ 4} Under the Fourth Agreement, the Commission was tasked with the
management, maintenance, operation, occupation, repair, and administration of CCNO.
The Commission consisted of the sheriff and one member of the board of commissioners
from each member county, and the Toledo chief of police and mayor. The Fourth
Agreement required the Commission to appoint an executive director, who was in charge
of CCNO.
{¶ 5} As mandated by the Fourth Agreement and CCNO’s fiscal agent, each
member had to remit its share of CCNO’s annual operating and capital costs on a quarterly
2
Both the Toledo Municipal Court and the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas are
located in Toledo.
3.
basis. The amount owed by each member depended on the number of beds reserved by the
member. Toledo reserved 228 beds, or 35.65 percent of the available beds. Thus, Toledo
owed 35.65 percent of CCNO’s annual operating and capital costs. Lucas County, which
reserved 203 beds, owed 31.84 percent of the annual operating and capital costs.
{¶ 6} The Fourth Agreement permitted the Commission to rent unused beds to
members and non-members. The Commission charged a per diem rate for the rental of
beds. If a member’s unused beds were rented, that member received a credit based on its
percentage of total unused bed space available on a monthly basis. The Commission
entered that credit on the member’s quarterly invoices as an off-set against the member’s
proportional share of the operating and capital costs.
{¶ 7} Finally, the Fourth Agreement provided that it could be “modified, amended
or supplemented in any respect not prohibited by law upon the approval of the
modification, amendment or supplement by a two-thirds roll call vote of the Commission
representatives and by the governing bodies of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Members.”
(Commission’s Ex. F, Fourth Agreement, Section 10.) Once approved, the modification,
amendment, or supplement would become binding on the Commission and all members.
{¶ 8} In 1998, CCNO’s executive director codified the billing rules CCNO used.
However, neither the billing rules nor the successive organizational and operational
agreements addressed how to divide between Lucas County and Toledo the cost of housing
prisoners sentenced to a jail term by a court located in Toledo. In practice, offenders
convicted in the Toledo Municipal Court filled beds Toledo paid for, while offenders
4.
convicted in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas filled beds Lucas County paid for.3
Toledo challenged this practice in 2014.
{¶ 9} Toledo’s challenge began because, on October 15, 2014, Toledo’s mayor
directed the Toledo Police Department to stop charging alleged offenders under the Toledo
ordinances if a comparable Revised Code offense existed. This directive constituted a sea
change, as the Toledo Police Department had previously charged misdemeanors mostly
under Toledo’s ordinances. After mandating this change, Toledo’s mayor initiated a
campaign to alter CCNO’s billing practices. Toledo’s mayor urged CCNO’s executive
director to charge Lucas County with the cost of housing all prisoners convicted of a
violation of the Revised Code, regardless of which Toledo-based court sentenced the
prisoner. Under the rule proposed by Toledo’s mayor, Toledo would only have the
responsibility of providing for those few prisoners convicted of violating ordinances for
which there was no Revised Code equivalent.
{¶ 10} The executive director capitulated. On October 27, 2014, the executive
director adopted the rule that, “[i]f the City of Toledo issues a criminal complaint under the
Ohio Revised Code versus [the] Toledo Municipal Code[,] that charge is billed to Lucas
County.” (Commission’s Ex. K, CCNO Ohio Billing Rules, Rule 13.) CCNO then began
assigning beds based on the type of offense (i.e., an ordinance violation versus a state law
3
Additionally, offenders sentenced to jail time in the municipal courts of Maumee,
Sylvania, and Oregon occupied Lucas County beds. Maumee, Sylvania, and Oregon are
all municipal corporations located in Lucas County.
5.
violation), instead of the sentencing court (i.e., Toledo Municipal Court versus Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas).
{¶ 11} As a result of the rule change, offenders who had once filled Toledo beds
began occupying Lucas County beds instead. Lucas County soon developed a need for
more beds than the 203 beds that it had reserved. Toledo, on the other hand, had numerous
empty beds. CCNO began billing Lucas County thousands of dollars, in addition to its
proportional share of costs, for the rental of extra beds. At the same time, CCNO issued
credits to Toledo for the rental of its empty beds to Lucas County.
{¶ 12} Lucas County resisted this cost transfer. At that time, an ad hoc committee
was drafting the Fifth Amended and Restated Organizational and Operational Agreement
for the Corrections Commission of Northwest Ohio’s Multicounty-Municipal Correction
Center (“Fifth Agreement”). As a result of Lucas County’s efforts, the committee added to
the draft a section stating:
All Members which are a municipal corporation and operate a municipal
court established in Section 1901.02 of the Ohio Revised Code bear the
fiscal responsibility for the costs of incarceration of inmates/prisoners
originating out of the jurisdiction of their municipal court, regardless of the
criminal code for which the prisoner is held or sentenced.
(Commission’s Ex. S, Fifth Agreement, Section 7(L).) This section was intended to
reimpose on Toledo the obligation to pay the costs for all prisoners sentenced by the
Toledo Municipal Court, no matter what the nature of the offense charged.
6.
{¶ 13} At the Commission’s May 27, 2015 meeting, the Commission adopted the
Fifth Agreement. With the exception of one abstention, all of the five counties’
representatives voted in favor of the Fifth Agreement. Toledo’s mayor and chief of police
cast the only dissenting votes. Subsequently, the boards of commissioners of the five
member counties approved the Fifth Agreement. Toledo refused to approve the Fifth
Agreement, and its director of finance did not certify that Toledo possessed, or was in the
process of collecting, the amount required to meet Toledo’s financial obligations under the
Fifth Agreement.
{¶ 14} On December 7, 2015, Toledo filed an action against the Commission; the
Boards of Commissioners of Defiance County, Fulton County, Henry County, Lucas
County, and Williams County; and the Sheriff. Along with other claims, Toledo sought
declaratory judgments stating that: (1) Lucas County was responsible for the costs of
housing state prisoners,4 regardless of what authority committed the arrest and what
Toledo-based court imposed the sentence, and (2) the Fifth Agreement was not binding on
Toledo. The Commission and each of the named Boards of Commissioners filed
counterclaims against Toledo.
{¶ 15} The trial court ordered the parties to brief the issues raised by Toledo’s
claims for declaratory judgment. In its briefing, Toledo argued that it only had a statutory
obligation to pay for housing individuals charged and convicted of violations of Toledo’s
4
In its complaint, Toledo defined “state prisoners” as pretrial detainees and sentenced
misdemeanants who were charged or sentenced under the Revised Code.
7.
ordinances. Toledo maintained that Lucas County was responsible for the costs of
incarcerating those charged and convicted of state law misdemeanors. In response, the
Board and Sheriff asserted that the statutory duty to pay for housing prisoners turned on the
court that adjudicated the prisoners’ cases, not the type of offense. The Board and Sheriff
thus contended that Toledo had to pay to house those prisoners under the jurisdiction of the
Toledo Municipal Court, while Lucas County had the responsibility to pay for housing
prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶ 16} As to its second claim, Toledo argued that it was bound by the Fourth
Agreement, but not the Fifth Agreement. The Commission5 asserted that Toledo was
obligated to perform under the Fifth Agreement, even though Toledo neither adopted it nor
certified the availability of funds to meet the payment terms contained in it.
{¶ 17} In a judgment issued June 27, 2016, the trial court granted Toledo summary
judgment on each of its claims. The trial court declared that, “where a municipal police
department arrests, detains and charges an individual pursuant to a violation of state law, it
is the county who is financially responsible for the incarceration of that individual and the
accompanying costs associated therewith.” (June 27, 2016 Order at 5.) The trial court also
5
The Boards of Commissioners of Defiance County, Fulton County, Henry County, and
Williams County joined the Commission in its trial court and appellate briefing. For the
ease of discussion, we hereinafter will refer to those appellants collectively as “the
Commission.”
8.
declared that the Fifth Agreement did not bind Toledo, and instead, the Fourth Agreement
delineated Toledo’s contractual rights and responsibilities.6
{¶ 18} The Commission, Board, and Sheriff appealed the June 27, 2016 judgment.
On appeal, the Commission assigns the following errors:
[1.] The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
granted Partial Summary Judgment to the City and determined the City was
not bound to the Fifth Amended Agreement.
[2.] The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
granted Partial Summary Judgment to the City and determined that Ohio
Revised Code § 307.93 requires unanimous consent of CCNO members to
amend its Operating Agreement.
{¶ 19} The Board assigns the following error:
The trial court erred in entering partial summary judgment in favor
of Plaintiff-Appellee and against Defendant-Appellant.
{¶ 20} The Sheriff assigns the following error:
The Common Pleas Court committed prejudicial error when it
granted the City of Toledo’s motion for summary judgment and when it
denied the Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment.
6
Although claims remain pending below, the trial court included Civ.R. 54(B) language
in its judgment. We, therefore, may review this partial judgment on appeal.
9.
{¶ 21} We will begin our review with the Board’s and Sheriff’s assignments of
error. Both of these assignments of error challenge the trial court’s conclusion that, under
Ohio law, Lucas County must pay the cost of incarcerating individuals charged with or
convicted of state law misdemeanors, regardless of the court that adjudicates those
individuals’ cases. The Board and Sheriff argue that the trial court’s conclusion is wrong
because the court ignored R.C. 753.02(A). According to the Board and Sheriff, R.C.
753.02(A) imposes upon Toledo the duty to: (1) operate its own detention facility or
contract with Lucas County to house prisoners, and (2) pay for housing all prisoners
charged with or convicted of a misdemeanor in the Toledo Municipal Court. In response,
Toledo asserts that R.C. 753.02(A) is irrelevant.
{¶ 22} To resolve the parties’ dispute, we must construe the language of R.C.
753.02(A). A question of statutory construction presents an issue of law that appellate
courts review de novo. Lang v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 134 Ohio St.3d
296, 2012-Ohio-5366, ¶ 12. The goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and give
effect to the General Assembly’s intent. Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc.,
142 Ohio St.3d 236, 2014-Ohio-5511, ¶ 21; Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d
221, 2010-Ohio-6280, ¶ 18. In determining that intent, courts first look to the statutory
language and the purpose to be accomplished. Hulsmeyer at ¶ 21. When a statute’s
meaning is clear and unambiguous, courts apply the statute as written. Summerville at
¶ 18. In such a situation, courts have no basis for resorting to rules of statutory
interpretation, as an unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted. Jacobson v.
10.
Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398, 2016-Ohio-8434, ¶ 8. If, however, a statute is ambiguous,
“ ‘courts seek to interpret the statutory provision in a manner that most readily furthers the
legislative purpose as reflected in the wording used in the legislation.’ ” State v. Black, 142
Ohio St.3d 332, 2015-Ohio-513, ¶ 38, quoting State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. Clyde, 76
Ohio St.3d 508, 513 (1996). To discern that purpose, courts may consider several factors,
including the object sought to be obtained, the legislative history, and the consequences of
a particular construction. R.C. 1.49.
{¶ 23} In its entirety, R.C. 753.02(A) states:
The legislative authority of a municipal corporation shall provide by
ordinance for sustaining all persons sentenced to or confined in a prison or
station house at the expense of the municipal corporation, and in counties
where prisons or station houses are in quarters leased from the board of
county commissioners, may contract with the board for the care and
maintenance of those persons by the sheriff or other person charged with
the care and maintenance of county prisoners. On the presentation of bills
for food, sustenance, and necessary supplies, to the proper officer, certified
by the person whom the legislative authority designates, the officer shall
audit the bills under the rules prescribed by the legislative authority, and
11.
draw the officer’s order on the treasurer of the municipal corporation in
favor of the person presenting the bill.7
{¶ 24} Initially, we see nothing in the plain language of R.C. 753.02(A) that
requires a municipal corporation to either operate its own detention facility or contract with
the county for the housing of prisoners. Outside of R.C. 753.02(A), the Revised Code
contains multiple statutes governing municipal corporations’ ability to establish and
operate a detention facility. See R.C. 715.16(A) (“Any municipal corporation may:
(A) Establish, erect, maintain, and regulate jails, * * * workhouses, station houses, [and]
prisons * * *.”); R.C. 717.01(F) (“Each municipal corporation may do any of the
following: * * * Construct * * * prisons * * *.”); R.C. 753.21(B) (authorizing the
legislative authority of a municipal corporation to permit the use of certain types of
structures as a minimum security jail). By the repeated use of the word “may,” these
statutes permit, but do not require, a municipal corporation to found and run a detention
facility. See Smucker v. Levin, 113 Ohio St.3d 337, 2007-Ohio-2073, ¶ 14 ‘ “May” is
generally construed to render optional, permissive, or discretionary the provision in which
it is embodied.’ ”). Nothing in R.C. 753.02(A) transforms this statutory authority to
7
A “station house” is “[a] building for the temporary detention of offenders, attached to or
under the jurisdiction of a police station.” Oxford English Dictionary (3d Ed.2012).
12.
establish a municipal detention facility into a statutory mandate. Rather, the only mandate
in R.C. 753.02(A) is the provision of payment for the sustenance of certain prisoners.8
{¶ 25} Moreover, R.C. 753.02(A) contains no requirement that a municipal
corporation contract with the county for the detention of prisoners. If the municipal
corporation leases space from the county for a prison or station house, then the municipal
corporation “may contract” with the county for the sheriff to care for and maintain the
prisoners housed in that space. R.C. 753.02(A). Due to the use of “may,” the statute
leaves the option to contract to the municipal corporation’s discretion. See Smucker at
¶ 14. When the municipal corporation choses to enter such a contract, it must pay the
county for the “food, sustenance, and necessary supplies” the sheriff provides to the
prisoners. R.C. 753.02(A).
{¶ 26} Given the plain language of R.C. 753.02(A), we reject the Board’s and
Sheriff’s contention that the statute compels a municipal corporation to either operate its
own detention facility or contract with the county to house and sustain prisoners. R.C.
753.02(A) does not address the establishment of detention facilities at all, and it permits,
but does not require, a municipal corporation to contract with the county. Accordingly, we
turn to the question of whether R.C. 753.02(A) requires Toledo to assume the costs of
imprisoning individuals charged with or convicted of misdemeanors in the Toledo
Municipal Court.
8
We discuss below the category of prisoners that municipal corporations must pay to
sustain.
13.
{¶ 27} Indisputably, by the first clause of the first sentence of R.C. 753.02(A), the
General Assembly imposes a duty on municipal corporations to pay the cost of sustaining
prisoners. The statute, however, is less clear regarding which prisoners municipal
corporations must provide sustenance. Pursuant to the plain language of the statute,
municipal corporations must pay for sustaining “all persons sentenced to or confined in a
prison or station house.” R.C. 753.02(A). If we read this language literally, we would
necessarily conclude that municipal corporations have to shoulder the expense of
sustaining all individuals held in any Ohio prison, including those institutions under the
control of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. This reading is implausible,
and consequently, we must delve further into R.C. 753.02(A) to determine its meaning.
See State v. Roberts, 150 Ohio St.3d 47, 2017-Ohio-2998, ¶ 47 (“ ‘It is a cardinal rule of
statutory construction that a statute should not be interpreted to yield an absurd result.’ ”);
accord R.C. 1.47(C) (courts must presume that the General Assembly intended a “just and
reasonable result” when enacting a statute).
{¶ 28} In order to ascertain the meaning of R.C. 753.02(A), we turn to the history of
the statute. The General Assembly first enacted the statutory language that now appears in
R.C. 753.02(A) in 1869 as part of a comprehensive act providing for the organization and
government of municipal corporations. For our purposes, three sections enacted in 1869
are relevant:
Sec. 215. The council of any city or incorporated village shall have
power to erect, establish and maintain a prison and one or more watch or
14.
station houses, as shall be necessary; and such prison, watch or station
houses shall be under the control of the marshal, or chief of police, under
such rules and regulations as the council may prescribe.
Sec. 216. It shall be the duty of the marshal or chief of police to
provide all persons confined to such prison, watch or station houses, with
necessary food during such confinement, and to see that such places of
confinement are kept clean and made comfortable for the inmates thereof.
Sec. 217. The council shall provide, by ordinance, for sustaining all
persons sentenced to or confined in such prison at the expense of the
corporation; and on the presentation of bills for food, sustenance and
necessary supplies to the proper officer, certified to by such person or
persons as the council may designate, not exceeding forty cents a day, such
officer shall audit the same under such rules and regulations as the council
may prescribe, and draw his order on the treasurer of the corporation in
favor of the officer presenting such bill.
66 Ohio Laws 185-86.
{¶ 29} This historical context elucidates the meaning of R.C. 753.02(A). Section
217 of the 1869 act required a municipal corporation to pay for sustaining all persons
sentenced to or confined in “such prison,” i.e., the prison the municipal corporation had the
power to erect, establish, and maintain pursuant to Section 215. Thus, the statute, as
15.
originally passed, required municipal corporations to pay for the sustenance of prisoners
sentenced to or confined in municipal prisons or station houses.
{¶ 30} Although much of the context that surrounded the 1869 statute has fallen
away, the language of present-day R.C. 753.02(A) corresponds closely with its
predecessor. Moreover, even today, the Revised Code permits municipal corporations to
“[e]stablish, erect, maintain, and regulate * * * station houses [and] prisons.” R.C.
715.16(A). Given the consistency in the relevant statutory language, we conclude that R.C.
753.02(A) serves the same purpose it served when originally enacted. Thus, R.C.
753.02(A) requires a municipal corporation to pay the expense of sustaining those persons
it holds in the prison or station house that it establishes or maintains.9
{¶ 31} Our conclusion is strengthened by the two cases that have reviewed R.C.
753.02(A) and determined its meaning. In Univ. Hosps. v. Cleveland, 28 Ohio Misc. 134,
138 (C.P.1971), the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas held that R.C. 753.02
“clearly provides that the municipal corporation shall provide for the sustenance of all
persons sentenced to or confined in a municipal prison.” (Emphasis added.) Likewise, the
Ninth District Court of Appeals determined that R.C. 753.02(A) places upon a municipal
corporation “the responsibility of furnishing necessities to persons confined in its prison.”
(Emphasis added.) Akron City Hosp. v. Akron, 9th Dist. No. 12133 (Oct. 30, 1985).
9
This obligation pertains to a municipal corporation regardless of whether it establishes
and maintains its own prison or station house, or it leases space from the county in which
to establish and maintain a prison or station house.
16.
{¶ 32} Because R.C. 753.02(A) only requires a municipal corporation to pay for the
sustenance of prisoners detained in its prison or station house, the statute does not become
relevant unless a municipal corporation has a prison or station house. Toledo does not
possess a prison or station house. R.C. 753.02(A), therefore, does not impose any financial
obligations on Toledo.
{¶ 33} The Board and Sheriff cite multiple cases that they characterize as
supporting their argument that Toledo must pay for the care and sustenance of all prisoners
charged with or convicted of misdemeanors in the Toledo Municipal Court. These cases,
however, conform with our interpretation of R.C. 753.02(A). A decision from this court,
St. Vincent Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Shatzer, 6th Dist. No. L-85-150 (Jan. 31, 1986) illustrates
this point.
{¶ 34} In Shatzer, a prisoner held in the Norwalk City Jail deliberately set a fire,
which seriously burned him. The prisoner received medical treatment at St. Vincent
Hospital, and the hospital sued the city seeking payment for the medical services it
rendered to the prisoner. After quoting R.C. 753.02(A), this court held that Norwalk was
liable for the costs of the prisoner’s medical care because it had exerted actual, physical
dominion and control over the prisoner at the time of his injury.
{¶ 35} Under our interpretation of R.C. 753.02(A), a municipal corporation must
pay to sustain the prisoners held in its prison or station house. In Shatzer, we required
Norwalk to pay for the medical care of a prisoner because that prisoner was held in
Norwalk’s jail when he suffered injury. Our conclusion in Shatzer that care is incident to
17.
custody is completely consistent with a municipal corporation’s duty, under R.C.
753.02(A), to assume the cost of providing sustenance for the prisoners it holds in its
prison or station house.
{¶ 36} Finally, the rules of statutory interpretation preclude us from adopting the
Board’s and Sheriff’s interpretation of R.C. 753.02(A). Both the Board and Sheriff
construe R.C. 753.02(A) to obligate a municipal corporation to pay the cost of sustaining
prisoners charged with or convicted of misdemeanors in the municipal court located in the
municipal corporation. However, nothing in the text of R.C. 753.02(A) premises a
municipal corporation’s payment obligation on the kind of court that adjudicates prisoners’
cases. Therefore, to interpret R.C. 753.02(A) as the Board and Sheriff advocate, we would
have to add language to the statute. We cannot do this. See In re Application of Columbus
S. Power Co., 147 Ohio St.3d 439, 2016-Ohio-1608, ¶ 49 (“But in construing a statute, we
may not add or delete words.”); Hulsmeyer, 142 Ohio St.3d 236, 2014-Ohio-5511, at ¶ 23
(“[C]ourt[s] must give effect to the words used, making neither additions nor deletions
from words chosen by the General Assembly.”).
{¶ 37} In sum, we conclude that R.C. 753.02(A) does not require Toledo to pay for
housing prisoners charged with or convicted of misdemeanors in the Toledo Municipal
Court. We, therefore, turn our attention to R.C. 1905.35, the statute that Toledo claims
resolves how to divide imprisonment costs between it and Lucas County.
18.
{¶ 38} Pursuant to R.C. 1905.35:
Imprisonment under the ordinances of a municipal corporation shall be in
the workhouse or other jail of the municipal corporation. Any municipal
corporation not provided with a workhouse, or other jail, may, for the
purpose of imprisonment, use the county jail, at the expense of the
municipal corporation, until the municipal corporation is provided with a
prison, house of correction, or workhouse. Persons so imprisoned in the
county jail are under the charge of the sheriff. Such sheriff shall receive
and hold such persons in the manner prescribed by the ordinances of the
municipal corporation, until such persons are legally discharged.
“Imprisonment,” as used in R.C. 1905.35, means “being imprisoned under a sentence
imposed for an offense or serving a term of imprisonment, prison term, jail term, term of
local incarceration, or other term under a sentence imposed for an offense * * *.” R.C.
1.05(A).
{¶ 39} Under the plain language of R.C. 1905.35, a municipal corporation must pay
the cost of housing persons convicted of a city ordinance, either by incarcerating those
persons in its own detention facility or reimbursing the sheriff for maintaining such persons
in the county jail. Moreover, by explicitly requiring municipal corporations to pay for the
incarceration of ordinance violators, R.C. 1905.35 implicitly relieves municipal
corporations from the obligation to pay for incarcerating state law violators. See Myers v.
Toledo, 110 Ohio St.3d 218, 2006-Ohio-4353, ¶ 24 (“The canon expressio unius est
19.
exclusio alterius tells us that the express inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of the
other.”).
{¶ 40} As applied to the case at bar, R.C. 1905.35 allocates to Toledo the obligation
to pay for imprisoning misdemeanants convicted of ordinance violations. Lucas County,
consequently, must pay the costs of imprisoning misdemeanants convicted of state law
violations.
{¶ 41} In arguing to the contrary, the Board and Sheriff assert that R.C. 1905.35
does not apply to this case because that statute appears in R.C. Chapter 1905, which is
entitled “Mayor’s Court.” Pointing to R.C. 1905.35’s location in the statutory framework,
the Board and Sheriff contend that R.C. 1905.35 pertains only when a mayor’s court
sentences an individual to imprisonment. We disagree.
{¶ 42} If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, a court must apply, not
interpret, that statute. Jacobson, 149 Ohio St.3d 398, 2016-Ohio-8434, at ¶ 8. Courts “ ‘do
not have the authority’ to dig deeper than the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute
‘under the guise of either statutory interpretation or liberal construction.’ ” Id., quoting
Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 347 (1994). In other words, courts
cannot look beyond the language of an unambiguous statute to determine its meaning. See
Jones v. Action Coupling & Equip., 98 Ohio St.3d 330, 2003-Ohio-1099, ¶ 12 (“When the
statutory language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, we
must rely on what the General Assembly has said.”). Thus, while the location of a statute
20.
in the Revised Code framework may influence the interpretation of an ambiguous statute,
such a consideration has no place in the interpretation of an unambiguous statute.
{¶ 43} Here, R.C. 1905.35 is an unambiguous statute that requires a municipal
corporation to pay for “[i]mprisonment under the ordinances of [the] municipal
corporation.” We, therefore, have no cause to go further than the plain language of the
statute to determine its meaning. Because that language does not limit the statute’s
application to imprisonment ordered by a mayor’s court, we must reject the Board’s and
Sheriff’s interpretation of R.C. 1905.35.
{¶ 44} R.C. 1905.35, however, only provides a partial answer to whether Toledo or
Lucas County must pay for housing prisoners charged with or convicted of a misdemeanor
in a Toledo-based court. R.C. 1905.35 addresses postconviction imprisonment; it gives no
guidance as to which governmental subdivision must pay for housing pretrial detainees.
Fortunately, the Board has provided us with direction. The Board has conceded that,
“[w]hen a detainee is housed in the county jail, the sheriff has actual custody, and
responsibility for the costs of confinement rests on the County without regard to any
statute-ordinance distinction.” (Board’s Reply Brief at 7.)
{¶ 45} The Board’s concession is consistent with the law governing the
circumstances present in Lucas County. As we stated above, individuals arrested in Toledo
for misdemeanor violations are housed in the LCCC if they are denied bail or cannot pay
the bail amount set by the court. The Sheriff has charge of the LCCC and all persons
confined there. R.C. 341.01. The Sheriff has the duty to “keep * * * persons [confined in
21.
the county jail] safely, attend to the jail, and govern and regulate the jail according to the
minimum standards for jails in Ohio promulgated by the department of rehabilitation and
correction.” Id. Under the standards applying to full-service jails, the Sheriff must provide
a minimum level of security, sanitation, food, clothes, bedding, and medical services to
LCCC inmates. See Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 5120:1-8. Lucas County, therefore, must
bear the cost of providing housing, food, clothes, bedding, and medical care to LCCC
prisoners, including pretrial detainees with misdemeanor cases pending before the Toledo
Municipal Court. See Shatzer, 6th Dist. No. L-85-150 (Jan. 31, 1986) (ordering the city to
pay the cost of medical care provided to a prisoner in the custody of the city jail because
“ ‘care * * * is incident * * * to the custody’ ”); Akron City Hosp., 9th Dist. No. 12133
(Oct. 30, 1985) (holding that “[p]rovision of sustenance is a natural corollary to physical
custody of the person,” and thus, ordering the city to pay for the medical care of a prisoner
who fell ill while in the custody of the city corrections facility). In short, Lucas County
must pay to maintain all prisoners in the Sheriff’s custody.10
{¶ 46} As a final matter, we acknowledge that the Board and Sheriff argue that
allocating the imprisonment costs as the trial court did contradicts sound public policy.
10
We recognize that the effect of our conclusion is that Lucas County has the obligation
to pay for housing pretrial detainees charged with any misdemeanor, regardless of
whether that misdemeanor is a state law offense or ordinance offense. However, given
the assignments of error before us, the only question under our review is whether the trial
court erred in imposing on Lucas County the responsibility to pay for imprisoning those
alleged to have violated state law. As Toledo did not appeal the trial court’s judgment,
we expressly decline to rule regarding which governmental subdivision must pay for
housing detainees alleged to have violated ordinances.
22.
We, however, must leave that argument to the General Assembly to decide. The General
Assembly, not the judiciary, resolves public policy issues. Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106
Ohio St.3d 278, 2005-Ohio-278, ¶ 14; accord Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio
St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, ¶ 71 (“[T]he General Assembly is charged with making the
difficult policy decisions * * * and codifying them into law.”). Courts do not second-guess
the General Assembly’s policy choices. Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C.,
125 Ohio St.3d 280, 2010-Ohio-1029, ¶ 93. Rather, where the General Assembly has
spoken, and in so speaking violated no constitutional provision, the courts must follow and
apply the legislature’s expression of public policy. Yoder v. Thorpe, 10th Dist. No.
07AP-225, 2007-Ohio-5866, ¶ 38.
{¶ 47} In this case, we have followed and applied the relevant statutes to determine
which governmental subdivision must pay the cost of imprisoning individuals charged with
or convicted of misdemeanors in the Toledo Municipal Court. If the General Assembly
wishes to change the law, it is free to do so.
{¶ 48} In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not err in declaring that Lucas
County must bear the cost of housing individuals charged with or convicted of state law
misdemeanors in Toledo Municipal Court. We note that the trial court also found Lucas
County responsible for the “accompanying” or “attendant” costs of housing the relevant
prisoners. Those “accompanying” or “attendant” costs are the costs associated with
housing prisoners in a detention facility compliant with the minimum standards applicable
to full-service jails. See Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-8. Having found no error in the trial
23.
court’s first declaration, we overrule the Board’s assignment of error and the portion of the
Sheriff’s assignment of error that relates to that declaration.
{¶ 49} We next turn to the second issue presented in this appeal. By the
Commission’s first assignment of error and the Sheriff’s assignment of error, the
Commission and Sheriff argue that the trial court erred in declaring that the Fifth
Agreement was not binding on Toledo. We disagree.
{¶ 50} Toledo argues that the Fifth Agreement does not bind it because its director
of finance did not certify the availability of funds as required in R.C. 5705.41 and Chapter
XIII, Sections 226 and 229, of Toledo’s Charter. In relevant part, R.C. 5705.41 states that
“[n]o subdivision or taxing unit shall:”
(D) (1) Except as otherwise provided in division (D)(2) of this section and
section 5705.44 of the Revised Code, make any contract or give any order
involving the expenditure of money unless there is attached thereto a
certificate of the fiscal officer of the subdivision that the amount required to
meet the obligation or, in the case of a continuing contract to be performed
in whole or in part in an ensuing fiscal year, the amount required to meet
the obligation in the fiscal year in which the contract is made, has been
lawfully apportioned for such purpose and is in the treasury or in process of
collection to the credit of an appropriate fund free from any previous
encumbrances. * * * Every such contract made without such a certificate
24.
shall be void, and no warrant shall be issued in payment of any amount due
thereon.
The definition of “subdivision,” as used in R.C. 5705.41, encompasses all municipal
corporations, including those municipal corporations that have a charter under Article
XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. R.C. 5705.01(A) and (B).11
{¶ 51} Under the plain language of R.C. 5705.41(D)(1), a subdivision generally
“cannot enter into a contract that requires spending public money unless the fiscal officer
of that subdivision certifies that the entire amount required to satisfy the obligation has
been appropriated for that purpose and is available and unencumbered.” St. Marys v.
Auglaize Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 387, 2007-Ohio-5026, ¶ 49. The failure to
attach a certificate as required by R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) is fatal to the validity of the contract.
Pincelli v. Ohio Bridge Corp., 5 Ohio St.2d 41 (1966), paragraph four of the syllabus;
NaphCare, Inc. v. Cty. Council Ohio, 9th Dist. No. 24906, 2010-Ohio-4458, ¶ 11. The
certification requirement is intended “ ‘to preclude the creation of any valid obligation
against the [subdivision] above or beyond the fund previously provided and at hand for
such purpose.’ ” St. Marys at ¶ 49, quoting State v. Kuhner, 107 Ohio St. 406, 413 (1923).
11
Sections 226 and 229 of the Toledo Charter are substantively identical to R.C.
5705.01(D)(1). Section 226 of the Toledo Charter requires the same certification as R.C.
5705.01(D)(1), and Section 229 states that all contracts without the necessary
certification are void.
25.
{¶ 52} The Commission and Sheriff do not contest that the Fifth Agreement lacks a
R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) certificate signed by Toledo’s director of finance. Instead, the
Commission and Sheriff argue that R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) does not apply to contracts
between political subdivisions. Because all the parties to the Fifth Agreement are political
subdivisions, the Commission and Sheriff contend that the absence of a R.C.
5705.41(D)(1) certificate from Toledo’s director of finance does not invalidate that
agreement.
{¶ 53} In support of their argument, the Commission and Sheriff cite Bd. of Cty.
Commrs. v. Bd. of Twp. Trustees, 3 Ohio App.3d 336 (7th Dist.1981), and two cases
following it.12 In Bd. of Cty. Commrs., the Board of Trustees of Island Creek Township
entered into a contract with the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County for Jefferson
County to service and supply water to Island Creek’s fire hydrants. The contract did not
include an R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) certificate. Island Creek stopped paying under the contract,
and Jefferson County sued it. In response, Island Creek argued that it was not bound by the
contract because the contract lacked an R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) certificate. The Seventh
District Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) did not apply
when two political subdivisions contract with each other.
12
The two cases are Rua v. Shillman, 28 Ohio App.3d 63 (11th Dist.1985), and Sagamore
Hills Twp. v. Troutman, 9th Dist. No. 11159 (Jan. 18, 1984).
26.
{¶ 54} R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) contains two enumerated exceptions; namely, it permits
a subdivision to contract without an R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) certificate as “provided in division
(D)(2) of [R.C. 5705.41] and [R.C.] 5705.44.” Neither R.C. 5705.41(D)(2) nor R.C.
5705.44 exempt contracts between two or more public subdivisions from the operation of
R.C. 5705.41(D)(1).13 The exception created in Bd. of Cty. Commrs., therefore, has no
statutory basis.
{¶ 55} “When a statutory provision imposing a mandatory obligation has
specifically enumerated exceptions, a court does not have discretion to create additional
exceptions.” State v. Vanzandt, 142 Ohio St.3d 223, 2015-Ohio-236, ¶ 15; accord State
ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Ct. of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, ¶ 26
13
R.C. 5705.41(D)(2) allows boards of county commissioners to “adopt a resolution
exempting county purchases of one thousand dollars or less from the requirement of
division (D)(1) of this section that a certificate be attached to any contract or order
involving the expenditure of money.” R.C. 5705.44 provides:
The certificate required by section 5705.41 of the Revised Code as to
money in the treasury shall not be required for contracts on which payments
are to be made from the earnings of a publicly operated water works or
public utility, but in the case of any such contract made without such
certification, no payment shall be made on account thereof, and no claim or
demand thereon shall be recoverable, except out of such earnings. That
certificate also shall not be required if requiring the certificate makes it
impossible for a county board of developmental disabilities to pay the
nonfederal share of medicaid expenditures that the county board of is
required by sections 5126.059 and 5126.0510 of the Revised Code to pay.
Additionally, we note that R.C. 5705.412, which governs “qualifying contract[s]” made
by school districts, applies to school districts “[n]otwithstanding [R.C.] 5705.41.” R.C.
5705.412(B)(1).
27.
(when the plain language of a statute does not recognize the exception sought, the court
could not add it); State ex rel. Stoll v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 76,
2008-Ohio-333, ¶ 39 (“But the statute contains no exception, and we cannot add one to its
express language.”). Here, R.C. 5705.41(D)(1) imposes a mandatory obligation on
subdivisions to attach a certificate from its fiscal officer to any contract it makes, with
specifically enumerated exceptions. Those enumerated exceptions do not include contracts
between two or more public subdivisions. Consequently, in the cases the Commission and
Sheriff cite, the courts exceeded the boundaries of their discretion in applying an
uncodified exception to the R.C. 5105.41(D)(1) requirement. For this reason, we cannot
follow those cases.
{¶ 56} Next, the Sheriff argues that R.C. 307.19 exempts the Fifth Agreement from
compliance with R.C. 5105.41(D)(1). R.C. 307.19 states:
Sections 307.14 to 307.19, inclusive, of the Revised Code, do not repeal or
abrogate other sections of the Revised Code authorizing contracts or
agreements among particular classes of subdivisions, or modify or impair
the force of such sections in respect of contracts or agreements entered into
under such sections. Nor shall such other sections control or limit the
making of agreements under sections 307.14 to 307.19, inclusive, of the
Revised Code; it being intended that such sections shall be applied as fully
as though such other sections did not exist.
28.
{¶ 57} Relying on the second sentence of R.C. 307.19, the Sheriff argues that no
Revised Code sections, other than R.C. 307.14 to 307.19, control or limit the Fifth
Agreement, which the parties made under R.C. 307.15. Thus, the Sheriff contends, the
requirements of R.C. 5105.41(D)(1) do not exist as to the Fifth Agreement.
{¶ 58} The Sheriff misreads R.C. 307.19. The “such other sections” that do not
control or limit agreements made under R.C. 307.14 to 307.19 are “other sections of the
Revised Code authorizing contracts or agreements among particular classes of
subdivisions.” To reach his interpretation, the Sheriff disregards the limiting phrase
“authorizing contracts or agreements among particular classes of subdivisions.” The
Sheriff interprets R.C. 307.19 as if the “such other sections” that do not control or limit
agreements made under R.C. 307.14 to 307.19 were all “other sections of the Revised
Code.”
{¶ 59} However, in interpreting a statute, courts cannot delete language used in the
statute. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Cleveland, 37 Ohio St.3d 50 (1988), paragraph
three of the syllabus (“In matters of construction, it is the duty of [a] court to give effect to
the words used, not to delete words used or to insert words not used.”). Read in its entirety,
R.C. 307.19 does not exempt contracts made under R.C. 307.15 from all other Revised
Code sections. Instead, R.C. 307.19 only exempts contracts made under R.C. 307.15 from
other Revised Code sections “authorizing contracts or agreements among particular classes
of subdivisions.”
29.
{¶ 60} R.C. 5105.41(D)(1) does not authorize contracts or agreements among
particular classes of subdivisions. R.C. 307.19, therefore, does not preclude the application
of R.C. 5105.41(D)(1) to the Fifth Agreement.
{¶ 61} In sum, we reject all the reasons the Commission and Sheriff offer for
exempting the Fifth Agreement from R.C. 5105.41(D)(1)’s certification requirement.
Because Toledo’s director of finance did not attach an R.C. 5105.41(D)(1) certificate to the
Fifth Agreement, that agreement is invalid and nonbinding as to Toledo.
{¶ 62} As a final matter, we must address the Sheriff’s argument that the trial court
erred in its interpretation of the interplay between Sections 6 and 8 of the Fourth
Agreement. After reviewing the trial court’s judgment, we conclude that the trial court
engaged in no such interpretation. The trial court merely concluded that Sections 6 and 8
of the Fourth Agreement bound Toledo. Thus, the trial court did not err as the Sheriff has
alleged.
{¶ 63} Having concluded that the Fifth Agreement does not bind Toledo, we find no
error in the trial court’s declaration. Accordingly, we overrule the Commission’s first
assignment of error and the remainder of the Sheriff’s assignment of error.
{¶ 64} By the Commission’s second assignment of error, it argues that the trial
court erred in determining that the Fifth Agreement was not binding because the parties did
not unanimously consent to it. We have concluded that the Fifth Agreement does not bind
Toledo for a separate, unrelated reason. The Commission’s second assignment of error,
therefore, is moot.
30.
{¶ 65} Finally, we turn to Toledo’s cross-assignment of error, by which Toledo
argues that the trial court erred in ruling that Toledo was not entitled to reimbursement of
the payment it made to the Commission at the end of the second quarter of 2016. This
cross-assignment of error is not properly before this court.
{¶ 66} Pursuant to App.R. 3(C):
(1) Cross appeal required. A person who intends to defend a
judgment or order against an appeal by an appellant and who also seeks to
change the judgment or order or, in the event the judgment or order may be
reversed or modified, an interlocutory ruling merged into the judgment or
order, shall file a notice of cross appeal within the time allowed by App.R.
4.
(2) Cross appeal and cross-assignment of error not required. A
person who intends to defend a judgment or order appealed by an appellant
on a ground other than that relied on by the trial court but who does not
seek to change the judgment or order is not required to file a notice of cross
appeal or to raise a cross-assignment of error.
{¶ 67} Here, by its cross-assignment of error, Toledo seeks to reverse the trial
court’s ruling that denied it reimbursement. Thus, App.R. 3(C)(1) required Toledo to file a
notice of cross appeal. Toledo did not do that. Accordingly, we cannot consider Toledo’s
argument, and therefore, we dismiss the cross-assignment of error. See Bennett v.
Waidelich, 6th Dist. No. F-04-023, 2005-Ohio-2489, ¶ 32 (refusing to consider an
31.
appellee’s argument seeking to reverse the trial court’s judgment when the appellee failed
to file a notice of cross appeal).
{¶ 68} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule the Commission’s first assignment of
error, and the Board’s and Sheriff’s assignments of error. Our ruling on the Commission’s
first assignment of error renders the Commission’s second assignment of error moot, and
consequently, we do not rule on it. We affirm the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas. Pursuant to App.R. 24, it is ordered that appellants pay the costs of this
appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
William A. Klatt, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Lisa L. Sadler, J.
_______________________________
Julia L. Dorrian, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
Judges William A. Klatt, Lisa L. Sadler and Julia L. Dorrian, Tenth District Court of
Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
32.