Opinion ID: 4438761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts relevant to the prohibition claim

Text: {¶ 4} On June 10, 2019, the Medina City Council’s Finance Committee considered a proposed agreement between the city and the county to share the cost of retaining an architect, Brandstetter Carroll, Inc., to design a new courthouse. The finance committee approved the contract, which meant that it could be considered by the city council. {¶ 5} The city council held a meeting on June 24 at which it discussed funding the Brandstetter Carroll design. During the meeting, a proposed ordinance, No. 98-19, was added to the agenda. The proposed ordinance, which had not been included in the meeting agenda or the informational packet distributed in advance of the meeting, authorized the mayor to enter into an agreement with the county 2 January Term, 2019 commissioners to share design, planning, and construction costs for the project. The council approved the ordinance as an emergency measure. {¶ 6} The next day, pursuant to the city council’s authorization, the mayor executed an agreement to share the costs for the design, planning, and construction of a new city and county courthouse.