In the Sijpreme Coijrt of Ohio Sta7'f
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SIJPREME COIJRT OF OHIO STA7'F: EX REL. THE HAMIL'I'ON COUNTY BOARI) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 138 East Court Street, Rooin 603 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Relator, HAMILTONC.OUNTY CO[JR'F OT ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROIHi3ITI®N COMMON PLEAS 1000 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and IION. JOHN ANDREW WEST 1000 Main Strcct Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and HON. KIM WILSON BURKE 1000 Main Street Ciricimiati, Ohio 45202, and HON. LTIIIVA M. COOPEIZ 1000 Main Street Cincinnati, C)hio 45202, and IION. DENNIS S. HELMICIC 1000 Main Strcet Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and HON. CHARLES.L KUBICKI, JR. 1000 Main Street Cincirrnati, Ohio 45202, and HON. JODY M. LUEBBERS 1000 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and HON. STEVEN E. MARTIN 1000 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and HON. BETH A. MYERS 1000 Main Street Cincinnati, Oiiio 45202, and HON. NORBER'I'A. NADF,L 1000 Main Sti-eet Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and HON. ROBERT P. RUC;HLMAN 1000 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and HON. RALPH E. WINKLER 1000 Main Street Cincirrnati, Ohio 45202, HON. ROBERT C. WINKLER 1000 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Rcspondents. COMPLAINT FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION David A. Pepper (0071739) (Counsel oP Reeord) "I'odd S. Portmie (0015748) 138 Fast Court Street, Room 603 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 "1'elephone: (513) 946-4401 Facsimile: (513) 946-4446 david.pepper(a^,hami I ton-co.org [email protected] Attomeys for Relator, The Hannilton County Board of County Commissioners 1. NATURE OF THE ACTION. 1. '1'his is an original action for a writ of prohibition. Relator, Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board"), seeks to prohibit Respondents, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas and twelve of its Judges, from exercising iinprovised authority to terminate the attorney-client relationship between the Board and its special counsel. The termination will depi-ive thc Board oP long-standing, court-approved counsel in the $2.5 billion redevelopment of the Cincinnati riverfront, which by its very nature involves complex legal issues. Sections 305.14(A) and 305.17 of thc Ohio Revised Code, which govero the Board's attorney-elient relationship with special counsel, preclude the Court of Common Pleas from terminating thc Board's counsel or purporting to prohibit its compensation. 2. This action arises because, on October 15, 2009, at the rcqnest of Hainilton County Prosecutor Joseph 'I. Deters, twelvc Judges oC the Common Pleas Court - in an administrative mecting - signed a docutnent that purports to terminate the Board's retention oC its special counsel effective January 1, 2010. This issue was not on the agenda and the Board received no notice that this matter would be considered at the meeting. The Board was not i-epresented at the meeting, did riot authorize the Proseeutor to seek termination of its special eounsel, liad no opportunity to be heard, reccived no service of process, and does not consent to the termination of its attorney-clicnt relationship. "I'he Court of Common Pleas and the rivelve individual Judges who signed the Orclei-patcntly and unambiguously lacked jitfisdiction. The Boarcl asks this Court to prohibit Respondents ti-om terminating or otherwise interCering with ttie Board's duly established attorney-client relationship, which the Board alone has the authority to terminate pursuant to the terms of K.C. 305.14(A), 305.17 and the express terms ol'the retention agreement with counsel. H. THE PARTIES. 3. Relator, the Board of County Commissioners for Hamilton County, Ohio, is the duly constituted goverrring body for IIamilton County. 4. Respondents are Ihe Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas and, in their official capacities, twelve Judges of that Court who signed the unlawful October 15 Order - Presiding Judge John Andrew West, Judge Kim Wilson Bttrke, Judge Fthna M. Cooper, Judge Dennis S. Helmiek, Judge Charles J. Kubicki, Jr., Judge Jody M. Luebbers, Judge Steven E. Martin, Judge Beth A. Mycrs, Judge Norbei-t A. Nadel, Judge Robert P. Ruehlman, Judge Ralph E. Winlcler, and Judge Robert C. Winlder. III. ,IURISDIC'I`lON. 5. Scetion 2(B)(I )(d), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution vests this Court with original subject matterjurisdietion to issuc a writ of prohibition to prevent unauthorized acts by Respondents. IV. FACTUAL BASIS OF THIS ACTION. A. The Banks Project. 6- Sinee 1996, the duly elected Board of Cormty Commissioncrs of IIatnilton Courrty and the City of Cincinnati (the "City") have jointly planncd and implementc.d one of the Iargest urban redevelopment projects in the Uniled States, known as the "Banks ProjecL" Since 1998, the County and the City have investod in excess of$1.4 billion in the redevelopmentoC Cincinnati's riverfront. Upon completion, the development will represent a public-private investnient in excess of $2.5 billion. See Exhibit 1. The current phase of this massive redevelopmcnt project commenced in Apri12008, and represents an additional public-private investmeot of $250 million. Completion of the project is time-critieal and the consequences of 2 any delays are significant. Due to its substantial economic development potcntial, not only in Southern Ohio, but also as one of the most consequential development projects in Ohio, the Banks Project recently received att additional $24 million in fedetal stimulus funding through the American Recovery and Rehabilitation Act ("AR1LS"). 7. T'liroughout the redevelopment efforts, the Board has faced numerous and complex legal challenges including, arnong other matters: ® real estate acquisition and emittent domain proceedings; • public and private owncrship and air rights issues; ® public fund'n1g, including local tinance issues and pursuit of federal and state transportation, economic developnent, ancl ARRA stimulus dollars; ® contracting and development issues with respect to the various river[i-ont stakeholders including the Cincinnati Reds, Cincinnati Bengals, National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, and the US Bank Arena; w stadium and infrastructure construction contracting; ® biddiug and claims managentent issues; ® srnall business and economic inclusion and workforce development issues; ® tax ineretnent financing; • cnvironmental issucs; ® energy ellicientand green design developmentissucs; a zoning and planning comptiance; ® transportation, street grid, and rights of way issues; m labor and employment issues; o public procurement; • litigation and threats of litigation from various stal<eholdcrs and members of the public; ® complex local, state, and federal project financing issues; and ® complex public-private contractual negotiations pertaining to the $800 million mixed-usc development aspect of the Banks Projoet. 8. Functing entities have included the County, City, Ohio Department of Transportation, Ohio Department of Economie Development, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transportation Administration, Economic Development Adininistratiort, Unitod States Army Corps of Engineers, and the Ohio, Kontucky, and Indiana Regional Council of' Governtnents. A chart illustrating some of the numcrous and complex legal issues and interrelated agreements touching upon the Banks Project is attached as Exhibit 2_ B. The Board's Retention of Special Counscl. 9. The County initially employed special counsel in the 1990s on a litnited basis to assist with riverfront projects. In Septcmber 1997, Hamiltoti County retained special counsel lo perforni titl.e-search related work for the acquisition of property for the construction of Paul Brown Stadium. Two months later, the County requested special counsel to assist in the negotiation of property acquisition conti-acts with existirtg tcnants and landowners along the riverfront, because thc County had not been successful in negotiating property aequisitions necessary for the imminent construction of Paul Brown Stadium with the Prosecutor's officc aloue. 10. In January 1998, the County again requested special counsel's assistance to work with the Pi-osecutor's Office in ttegotiating with the City oi'Cincinnati a major redevelopment 4 agreement in regard to stadium and riverfront-related obligations. Following the successful consummation of the lirst City-County Agreement that resulted in the commencement of thc $2.5 bitlion urban redevelopment effort, special counsel eontinued to assist the County, through the Prosecutor's office, in representing the County relating to all subsequcnt redevelopnetrt and related agreements between the City and the County pertaining to the Banks Project. 11. Prior to March 2000, the County Prosecutor, as the Board's advisor, served as counsel with respect to the construction of Paul Brown Stadium. Following the revelation by an independent auditing limi that the Paul Brown Stadium project would realize a $51 roillion cost overrun, the Boat-d determined tliat special counsel's involvement was imperative in the next phase of riverfront developrnent efforts - construction of the Great American Ball Park. Special counsel, at the Board's request, assisted the Coutity with t-espect to various contract negotiations, project bidding, and claims management issues pertaining to the construction of the new Ball Park, which was scheduled to commence construction in August 2000, as well as related infrastructure construction including street grid, utilities and parking facilities in Cincinnati's Centrat Riverfront. 12- 111timately, the Board detertnined that the involvement of special counsel for the Board itself was essential to protect the County's interests and $1 billion investment,