(VIDEOS) IS THERE A DETROIT LOOMING IN STARK COUNTY?

UPDATED:  To clarify that Alliance income tax increase is subject to voter approval come the November election.

VIDEOS

MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSON

ASKS

FOR A NEW LEVY BALLOT INITIATIVE

COUNCILMAN DONNIE PETERS, JR

QUIZZES

AUDITOR JAYNE FERRERO

ON

POLICE AND FIRE PENSION ARREARS

Today at 10:00 a.m. in Detroit, Michigan an event - beyond belief in 1950 as "the motor city:" the auto manufacturing behemoth of the world reached it high point in population growth - will go down.

That event:

Even though we have all known that Detroit was in trouble with General Motors and Chrysler needing federal bailouts in the financial crisis that hit the country in the fall of 2008, it still was nonetheless shocking to hear on July 18th that this once great American city had filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy code.

Yesterday, it was somewhat jarring for yours truly receive the following e-mail:

The Independent recently reported that the Massillon Auditor's office reported it would not be able to make a pension payment for its employees. Considering that Massillon is running a $2 million plus deficit, is Massillon on the verge of bankruptcy and is it Stark County's version of Detroit?

Actually, Massillon is projecting a deficit of anywhere from $2.5 to $2.7 million.

Of course, Massillon is not alone.

Stark's other two major cities are not in the greatest of shape either.

For Canton, it is hard to know exactly how tough things "really" are.  There you have a mayor who plays volleyball with the financial numbers with one side of the net being "woe is me" numbers and the other being "things are looking very promising" numbers.  Of course, we who are familiar with this Stern School of Business MBA graduate master manipulator are not surprised.  It seems that on a daily basis he concocts "a message of the day" to spread throughout the county depending on his political needs.

The mayor and his manipulations notwithstanding, the SCPR's sense of Canton's finances is that they are shaky at best.

For Alliance, on July 15th its city council voted unanimously to increase its income tax by a full 1/2 percent to 2.5% which by the SCPR calculation will make it the highest rate in all of Stark County if passed in November by the voters of Alliance.

The city is facing a $1 million deficit if the issue does not pass.

All three cities have long passed the high water marks of population growth.

It may appear that Massillon is rebounding somewhat but such is not really the case.  Former mayor Frank Cicchinelli was an aggressive annexer and therefore the seeming population recovery is just that in that its population gains of late are likely do from annexations of peripheral township neighborhoods.

Even before she took office, Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry was asking Ohio's auditor (December, 2011) to audit Massillon finances.  She was refused at the time, however she has renewed her request and it appears that any day now we will know the results of an agreed to audit as to whether or not Massillon is in a "fiscal watch" or "fiscal emergency" which will - if so determined - bring the state of Ohio into the management of Massillon's finances.

During a July 8 Massillon City Council work session there were two interesting discussions.

First, was one initiated by Democratic Councilman-at-Large Paul Manson asking that council consider putting on another income tax levy from 1.8% to 2.0% (Massillon hugely defeated a .3% issue in the May primary election) in light of Alliance (at the time) considering a ballot initiative going from 2% to 2.5% (see Alliance discussion above).



Second, was one between Republican Ward 5 Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. (not seeking re-election) and Massillon auditor Jayne Ferrero regarding the decision by Ferrero to apply new revenues to arrears in police and fire pension fund payments.  She also brought up other arrearages that Massillon has.



The two of them are further substantiation of the e-mail cited by The Report and the fact of the precarious financial condition of Massillon city finances.

While neither Alliance, Canton or Massillon appear to be at the point of a Detroit-esque financial crisis, one gets the feeling that none of them may be that far away.

Dire finances are becoming more and more common across Ohio.

A Dayton area newspaper reported earlier this week that 24 Ohio cities are facing fiscal crises.

It might not be Alliance, Canton or Massillon but might it be that sooner than we may think that Ohioans will wake up to a headline:

Cleveland declares Chapter 9 bankruptcy!

WHO IS RIGHT IN MASSILLON? A HOUSE DIVIDED OR FAIL-SAFE LEADERSHIP? MASSILLON'S VERSION OF THE "FISCAL CLIFF" FIGHT?

It is kind of interesting to take in the discussion that is going on in Massillon these days about how to deal with the looming financial deficit.

Depending on whose numbers one wants to latch on to, the projected 2013 deficit in Massillon ranges somewhere in the mid-$2.5 million scale of things.

The real argument between Mayor Kathy-Catazaro-Perry and what seems to be a growing viewpoint on the part of various members of Massillon City Council seems to be whether or not the people of Massillon are going to be given the opportunity to decide the question of how the city increases its revenue.

Catazaro-Perry wants to put the onus of raising revenues on backs of council.

She is adamantly insisting that council reduce the credit that Massillonians who work outside the city get against their Massillon city taxes for taxes they pay to another village/municipality.  Moreover, she wants council to implement a street lighting assessment on city property owners.

It is hard to believe that councilpersons up for election next year would under any circumstances agree to the adopt the mayor's position.

Perhaps there are a few who are suggesting that their incumbency means nothing to them, but we shall see.

Already candidates are taking out petitions to run.  Republicans astonished everybody in 2011 in taking majority control of council in electing four new members (Halter, Lewis, Chovan and Cunningham-Hedderly).  They joined Donnie Peters (Ward 5) to form the new majority.

And, if the petitions get filed, it appears that at least three (Chovan, Lewis and Halter) of the Republicans caucus will have competition from the Democrats in order to retain their seats.

A majority council viewpoint may be forming to push back on the mayor in which Massillon voters decide whether not Massillon is to get a revenue boost in next May's primary election cycle.  The thinking appears to be to place before the voters a decision of whether to raise the city income tax from it's current 1.8% to 2.1% and to cap the credit paid by Massillonians to other taxing jurisdictions at the 1.8%.

To the SCPR, this is a very politically wise position for any incumbent councilperson to support; Republican or Democrat.

If the voters say yes, revenue problem more or less solved.

More or less?

Yes.  The most optimistic guesstimate of how much such an increase might raise is in the neighborhood of $1.5 million.

With the mayor projecting a deficit to be ranging from $2.1 million to $2.6 million, there would be a half a million to a million to cover.

But how?

Apparently, with cuts.  There are councilpersons who presently are insisting that the administration has not come up with enough austerity.

Even Catazaro-Perry's plan seems to indicate cuts will be needed even in the face of revenue enhancement.

What if Massillon's voters turn thumbs down on a tax increase proposal?

What then?

Obviously, additional (to those already made) and draconian cuts will be in the offing post May, 2013, pure and simple.

This is where the "fail-safe" factor of the ballot initiative viewpoint kicks in.

The SCPR spoke with Councilman Ed Lewis about the blossoming proposal which he says might pass even in the face of Catazaro-Perry's opposition.

The Report interprets his explanation to be that he and others interested in putting the initiative before the voters are not endorsing the tax but merely providing Massillonians with a "democracy enhancing" opportunity to be heard on the matter of Massillon government getting additional revenues.

Hence, the SCPR's tabbing such a plan as being in the nature of a fail-safe political leadership plan.

What Councilman Peters (Republican - Ward 5) is suggesting with his statement:

I’m not interested in wasting any more of my time unless everyone is on board.  If the administration is not going to back it, there’s no sense putting it on.  (Reference:  On tax hike, council may go it alone, Massillon Independent, Matt Rink, December 10, 2012)

and his Lincoln-esque "... house divided, cannot stand ... " stance that the standoff between Catazaro-Perry and council is an either/or situation.

But is it a question of either/or?

Should it be?

Does the Catazaro-Perry administration want to put the next Massillon election into a framework that you are either for a tax increase or you are not?

Is she looking for political profit or she about seeking consensus on the future financial well being of Massillon?

Has Councilman Lewis come up in his "let the people decide" with "a third way"  that solves everybody's political problem and, perhaps, might end up solving Massillon's looming "fiscal cliff?"

MASSILLON: A "POLITICAL CESSPOOL" OF INFIGHTING. AND THE MAYOR EXPECTS TRUST TO PREVAIL?

It is sadly bemusing that Kathy Catazaro-Perry's administration thinks that the "trust climate" in city government is such that she can ask Massillon City Council (Council) chairman Donnie Peters, Jr., to give Council's blessing to a proposed passing of the city's street lighting costs to Massillon taxpayers.

It appears to the SCPR that a number of the new Massillon city administration's words and actions have had the effect of sewing seeds of mistrust during its first four months plus in office, that it is mind-boggling for the administration to presume that Peters would sign off putting the matter on Council's agenda without having needed information.

What I  (Peters) was really upset about was they wanted me to approve the assessment before they told me how much.  It’s like saying I’m going to pass an income tax, but I’m not going to tell you how much until you decide.  (Will residents have to pay for street-lighting assessments, Matt Rink, The Independent, May 5, 2012)

But it is not just the street-lighting situation that is creating "trust havoc" in Massillon.

There are Massillonians who think the administration's layoff of 27 employees (19 police and fire) is not all that its cracked up to be in terms of savings.   These folks think the administration may be playing politics with the layoff to make it appear it is taking bold action when the reality is that it is engaging in a shell game.

It has been pointed out to The Report that contractual safety force staffing requirements may cost the city enough in overtime pay and unemployment compensation expenditures that Massillon will end up saving very little if any towards closing its projected $1.1 million 2012 deficit.

In fact, the source says, the layoffs could end up costing more than if no layoffs had taken place.  The administration failed to provide Council certifiable numbers on the costs.

Moreover, some look at the layoffs as a political move designed to give the administration the upper hand in getting Council to approve tax increases in one form or another for the city.

Not sharing the actual numbers showing the savings or extra cost is hardly a way to build confidence in the credibility of the administration's move.

Sources also tell the SCPR that it is very uncomfortable working for Massillon government with Mayor Kathy in charge.

Mistrust, suspicion and paranoia is said to be running rampant within the halls of the city administration.

There is the disparity in the financial treatment between different sets of employees which work for the city.

The SCPR has heard for years (even going back into the Cicchinelli administration) about a frosty relationship existing between administration employees and Massillon Municipal Court employees over disparate pay package treatment.

It is somewhat ironic that Catazaro-Perry has not been able to or willing to get a handle on the differences and get court officials to bring court employee remuneration packages into line with the rest of Massillon city government employment.

After all, her biggest booster is none other than Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (Massillon clerk of courts) who is thought by the SCPR to be - in league with his brother and Safety Service Director George Maier - the de facto mayors of Massillon city government.

One would think that if they want the titular leader to succeed, they would be working a breakneck speed to smooth over the dissonance between administration workers and court employees.

And, of course, there is the pay boost thing for members of Council as well as the law director, the city auditor, the city treasurer and the mayor.

Apparently, the mayor is not content in refusing the raise for herself thereby making her an example-in-action as to what she thinks the right thing to do is.  She has an "out-of-control" safety/service director shaming Auditor Ferrero, Law Director Stergios, Treasurer Lambert and council members Townsend, Manson and Slagle for taking automatic pay raises.  Hardly a trust inducing move.

That the safety/service director would do such a thing is more evidence that Catazaro-Perry is not in control and therefore cannot be trusted by council members or independently elected officials as the person who really is in charge.

Add on to all the foregoing, the flap over possibly ending Massillon's trash collection function.

With Republicans controlling Council by a 5 to 4 margin, it is predictable that sooner or later the city will be getting out of the trash collection business.

Most Republican officeholders these days seem to be bent on privatizing any and everything they can get their hands on.  Especially if union jobs are at stake.

Catazaro-Perry is a huge beneficiary of union contracts in her successful run to become mayor.  It is not going to set well with her organized labor supporters that she is not likely going to be able - over the long haul - to protect the sanitation worker union jobs.

There are two trust problems for her in the trash collection issue.

It appears that the majority of Council (i.e. the Republicans) does not trust the mayor's ability to manage trash collection to the overall benefit of taxpaying Massillonians.

And, her inability to protect union jobs has to be an opening for distrust to creep in and eventually disrupt an important political relationship for her.

It seems to the SCPR that Mayor Kathy Catzaro-Perry is keeping "the faith" that in the end that things will work out for her administration.

But how can faith thrive in a sea of mistrust?