(VIDEOS: SNYDER, PETERS & CERRETA) NORTH CANTON COUNCIL PRESIDENT JON SNYDER SAYS HE IS NOT FOR CENSORING "SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE" (SWAP) CONSIDERATION OF "FRACKING"/"STREET SWEEPINGS" AND THE LIKE WHEN NORTH CANTON DRINKING WATER SAFETY IS AT STAKE.

On January 17th of this year at a meeting of the North Canton City Council, a controversy erupted that probably has its origin out of the larger Stark County community.

Chris Borello of the Concerned Citzens of Stark County (CCSC) has been in dialogue for some time via email with former Canton Health Director Bob Pattison about protecting the quality of drinking water in North Canton.

Why Bob Pattison?  Because he (a North Canton resident) is the chairman of the North Canton Source Water Assessment & Protection Committee (SWAP).

Borello (a Plain Township resident and former Lake Township resident) has been concerned about the integrity of Stark County drinking water supplies since she first got active as a concerned citizen (about 1983) with the revelation that hazardous materials were dumped by area industrial companies in a quarry about a half mile south of the center of Uniontown during the time span 1966 through 1978.

The site is now known as the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL - 1984) superfund site. Superfund is a designation of federal legislation designed to deal with hazardous material cleanups.

Borello's focus appears to be based on her fear of an underground migration of contamination leeching from IEL into water sources for nearby communities (for a contrary view insofar as North Canton in concerned CLICK HERE).

Borello and her supporters fears have been heightened of late because of the onset of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in Stark County and, in particular, concerns that fracking may be in the offing on lands in Plain Township near to a city of North Canton well field which they feared might jeopardize the safety of the well field as a source of drinking water for North Cantonians.

Former North Canton councilman Jeff Davies took an interest in the Borello et al fracking concerns in the last year or so of the end of his term in office.  However, he dropped the effort for what he said in an email to Plain Township Trustee Lou Giavasis (a leading Stark County opponent of fracking) was pre-election pressure being applied to North Canton Council by the Stark Development Board:

With his defeat in the 2011 elections, one had to wonder who might pick up where Davies left off.

The answer seems to be two-fold:  first, the Source Water Assessment & Protection Committee, and, secondly, Councilman Jeff Peters (Ward 2) to the extent that he is leading the effort to protect SWAP in its "drinking water protecting" function from an recent attempt to amend Ordinance 58-07 (originally passed on 06/25/2007) to give the Superintendent of the North Canton Water Treatment Plant the authority to set the agenda and determine when the committee should meet.  See the 01/17/2012 MINUTES which elaborate on the intentions as explained by various council members in offering the amendment in the first place.

It seems that some on North Canton Council (prompted by concerns expressed by council's legal counsel that SWAP fracking and street sweepings considerations may compromise city legal positions)  were not all that thrilled that SWAP had gone off recently into a consideration of the fracking process and its byproducts and street sweepings as they might affect the quality of North Canton's drinking water. 

One area media outlet ascribed a "censor" motive to Council President Jon Snyder.  But last night he told the SCPR his position was mischaracterized and that he is not in favor of changing the role/function of SWAP, to wit:



It appears to the SCPR that Councilman Peters has been effective to stop the move to "censor?" the scope of SWAP's functioning.  And, by the way, he told The Report that he had not been approached by the oil and gas industry and pressured not to consider anti-fracking legislation pre-the-2011-council-elections.

While on the surface, council is waiting for SWAP chairman Bob Pattison to return from vacation in Florida in April to move forward on the amendment, Councilman Peters tells The Report that he is confident that he has the votes to defeat the attempt to amend 58-07 should its sponsor(s) persist, to wit:



Also speaking to the issue was Councilman-at-large Mark Cerreta (apparently, as chairman of  the Water, Sewer and Rubbish Committee) who appears to be the prime driving force on council pushing for the amendment, to wit.



If Peters is correct in his assessment, it appears that SWAP will maintain its original function and role and will be free to consider whatever issues surface that the committee thinks could affect the potability of North Canton's water.

So in the end, the whole thing about refashioning SWAP may well prove to have been a "tempest in the teapot!"

(VIDEO OF LWV FORUM DISCUSSION ON ISSUE) WOULD CHUCK OSBORNE BE A "DISRUPTION" IF HE WERE ELECTED TO NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL?

The SCPR senses that there is unease these days among North Canton City Council (NCC - Council) members on the possibility that former Councilman Chuck Osborne might be elected to Council on November 8th.

For at least a decade Democrat Osborne has been a force to be reckoned with in political/governmental circles in North Canton.

In 2001 Osborne was elected to Council with the highest vote total of all five candidates for three Council positions.

Osborne had an opportunity to build on his election to become a dominant force somewhat like former Republican Councilman Daryl Revoldt (twice a councilman [also a president of Council] and mayor of North Canton) who is now working for Republican Governor John Kasich on economic development matters as he formerly did for former Republican Governor Bob Taft.

However, Osborne does not have the political and relational skills that Revoldt has and consequently soon fell out of favor with North Canton voters.

So the question becomes:  why?

On Wednesday evening the Canton League of Women Voters (LWV) had a candidates forum for the at-large candidates for NCC.

The SCPR's take on LWV forums is that they are the least informative of all the venues for candidate presentation because moderator Dick Kuhn clamps down real quick on discussions when they get direct and personal.

Yes, such exchanges can get a little messy.  But democracy at its finest is messy.  And for the likes of Kuhn to thwart the processes of democratic dialogue is why The Report is not enthusiastic for LWV presentations.

Wednesday night was somewhat of an exception for the hoity-toity LWV types in that they allowed a question that was on everybody's mind but was not likely to be permitted by Kuhn (in the SCPR's experience) to be put to the candidates.

The responses of the candidates were interesting to say the least (reference: the video at the end of this blog to see the the complete exchange):

Osborne defended his way of being as between himself and Council, to wit:

• fell back on an opening of the forum remark by Moderator Kuhn (i.e. 'the press spins the news, partial reporting; that's the way it has been") in obvious reference to The Repository's anti-Chuck Osborne (pro-North Canton Council) stance.  In other words, apparently, The Rep has misreported or insufficiently reports an authentic description of Osborne's relationship with Council.
• Council treats him differently than others addressing them on the Public Speaks (PS) portion of Council's agenda.  According to Osborne, he is reigned in to be in compliance to individual PS time limitations whereas others are given carte blanche to go on and on in violation of Council's time standards.
• his tense relationship with Council is grounded on his making Council accountable because he has done his research on issues and they have no answer and consequently they resort to personal attacks on his credibility.
• Council baits him into making disruptive outbursts by spinning what he has said by undermining what he has said in his PS remarks

Other to admit - implicitly - that he gets out-of-line "occasionally," Osborne does not square up with the base question as to whether or not he can work in a non-combative way with the rest of Council, if elected.

Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling (first elected to Council along with Osborne (and Kathy Magel) in 2001 says that she has worked well with Osborne in the two years spent on Council about 10 years ago and there is no reason to believe that he would be a problem if elected this year, but then belies (in the opinion of the SCPR) that statement by going on to comparing him to her irrepressible ten year old.

She tries to cast an maternal understanding on Osborne's outbursts which is hardly the type of relationship that voters expect of collegial Counsel members.

In essence, notwithstanding her literal words to the contrary, The Report interprets her remarks "in reality" as being a negative on Osborne's ability to work with Council in a politically mature manner.

To his credit, Councilman Mark Cerreta does not try to deal with the question.

Cerreta has been on Council long enough (since being appointed to replace Revoldt) to know how Osborne operates vis-a-vis Council (which included one occasion in which then Council President Revoldt had Osborne escorted by a North Canton policeman out of Council). 

The SCPR in the several years of covering North Canton Council has seen numerous reactions on Council members' parts in which they express their dissatisfaction (in public and privately) with Osborne's approach to Council.

The SCPR's point is a belief that Kiesling's response to the question on Wednesday was disingenuous and not indicative of the actual view that most, if not all, Council members have of Osborne, to wit:  that he is as a citizen addressing Council and would be as Council person be disruptive.

The Report sees value in Osborne continuing to appear before Council as a citizen who is always consummately prepared and press Council (with in time limits - which Counsel needs to apply even handed way) in a "check and balance" sort of way to justify their decisions.

It appears to yours truly that there are disagreements on key issues affecting North Canton's future between Council members that do not make it out into public view (where they belong in a democracy) in service of a desire to paint an artificial picture harmony.

But the remedy of this Council shortcoming is not:   having Osborne on Council.

Implicit in his remarks on Wednesday last is a realization that "he takes the bait" and loses control "on occasion."

Moreover, Osborne has a tendency to take a technical point of Council insufficiency and "gild the lily" on it so as to turn off those who otherwise admire the work he does.

Osborne needs to use the next two years (until the next election) to show in he can manage himself to change his interaction with Council from the PS lectern.

• No more outbursts from the audience.  
• No more standing at the lectern and continuing to talk on when he has been told that his time has expired.
• and, putting Council miscues in the context of broader take of an overall issue (i.e. not failing to see the forest for the trees).

In defense of Osborne, the North Canton should know that a lot of Osborne's information about non-public issues and planning et cetera that goes on in North Canton government comes to him in conversations he has (or more correctly, has had) with various members of Council chief among whom is Councilman Jeff Davies.

Osborne has shared with yours truly numerous matters which Davies has held counsel with Osborne on and then  (according to Osborne) has nary a word to say about in public Council meetings when a given topic is brought up.

If such is the case, Osborne needs to learn the adage:  "first time, shame on you; second time, shame on me."

Why would he keep going back to such a source?

Also, The Report believes at least one Council member "pulls Osborne's leg" with disinformation designed to get an - in the public, before Council at Public Speaks - reaction.

Such conduct, if true, is unbecoming of public officials and needs to stop now!  Additionally, Osborne needs to be more discerning as to whom he is getting information from.

The SCPR's point in bringing up the Davies and annoymous things is to suggest that these Council members need to clean up their own acts and thereby assist Osborne to getting to the place that he achieves a public perception of being a consistently valuable asset to the processes and substance of North Canton government.

Every government unit in America needs solid, knowledgeable citizen participation and involvement and North Canton has a ready, willing and potentially able such person in Chuck Osborne.

Perhaps in two years henceforth Osborne can bring his superior knowledge of North Canton government (acknowledged by nearly everyone who has seen him in action) to the table for North Cantonians to consider in the context of having reined himself in and thereby being fully capable of being a non-disruptive, in fact, positive, constructive asset to Council.

Given his history vis-a-vis Council since being off Council (December 31, 2002), the SCPR thinks it is problematical, if not predictable, that the well-meaning Osborne would be a disruptive force if elected this time around.

Osborne believes he will be elected this time around.

A number of North Canton political/government figures do not agree, largely because the believe that North Canton's voters picture him as being a polarizing figure who would likely embroil Council in unhelpful conflict and debate.

Nonetheless, they are nervous about the possibilities.

And, perhaps, for good reason.

Name familiarity is a big factor with many voters because of their unpreparedness of knowing the candidates and their stands on issues.

In North Canton politics, there is probably no name that strikes a cord with the citizenry than the name: CHUCK OSBORNE.

Here is the video of Wednesday nights discussion on the issue of whether or not Chuck Osborne would be divisive as a member of North Canton City Council, if elected:

OXYMORON REIGNS IN NORTH CANTON CITY GOV'T? CONFUSION & CERTAINTY ON THE FUTURE OF CITY OWNED ARROWHEAD COUNTRY CLUB: BOTH AT THE SAME TIME?

 UPDATE:  09/12/2011 AT 5:50 PM

The Report received a telephone call from Jon Snyder who is the president of North Canton Council.

He pointed out the appraisal report itself says that the appraisal was for tax evaluation purposes, to wit:

A difficulty in determining whether or not the existing lease is going to have life beyond December 31, 2011 has to do with the current lessees' desire to have North Canton pick up taxes beyond $50,000 per year.  Snyder says North Canton is not willing to agree to pick up the taxes in excess of $50,000, but the city would pass on any reduction in taxes granted by the Stark County auditor's office in a North Canton request of a reappraisal from what Sndyer says is about $2.6 million currently down to the $1.9 that the appraisal pegs itself to as being the marker for the most likely market value.

Moreover, he said that when he received a copy of the report that one thing  he said to himself was that people were going to think that the reason for the appraisal was in preparation for a sale.

Snyder denies that such is the case.

Snyder says he recognizes that some will continue to think that a possible sale was an additional reason for paying the $3,800 for the appraisal but reiterated that such is not the case.

ORIGINAL BLOG

You talk about a topic that has taken many twists and turns in North Canton government and politics it is the city's purchase of Arrowhead Country Club (Arrowhead) which includes the Fairways golf course, a restaurant and a swimming facility.

Reports keep surfacing that North Canton City Council is considering putting Arrowhead up for sale, but there are also ample denials.

The sale issue first came up as having come from Council President Jon Snyder in conversations he had with Daniel and Hillary Mueller when a July 19th rain deluge inundated Arrowhead which in turn spilled over onto the Mueller property and caused them to get flooded.

The Muellers say Snyder indicated that the city could not fix the drainage problems from the golf course because the property was under lease and that a proposed $10,000 or so study of the problems would not go forward because the property was being considered for sale.  Snyder denied to the SCPR that he said to either of the Muellers that the property was up for sale.  He said he thinks they misunderstood.

As if the status of Arrowhead is not already confusing enough, Mrs. Mueller has decided to run as a "write-in" candidate against Snyder, in part, because of his handling of the flooding issue.  The Report hears that the Muellers have filed a "moral claim" with North Canton Council for damages their property suffered as a consequence of the flood.

It seems like one sure thing about Arrowhead is that it is fast becoming a place of choice for "political football" among North Canton's governing elite. 

Another certainty increasing appears to be that should North Canton sell the country club, it will sustain a huge capital loss.  Perhaps as much as $2.3 million.  The city recently commissioned an appraisal of the club facilities at a cost of $3,800.  If no sale is being contemplated as asserted by Councilman Snyder, why spend money for an appraisal?

In the latest turn, it appears that Chuck Osborne (a former councilman), who is currently running for council-at-large, is having a "I told you so" moment in light of the Valuations Services appraisal.  Osborne was the only councilperson who voted "no" on the purchase for Arrowhead for $4.2 million in 2003.


Tom Rice was mayor and said to be a leading proponent (along with Councilman Jon Snyder [4th Ward; now council president]) of the Arrowhead purchase.  Current Councilpersons Kiesling (who abstained on the Arrowhead vote), Foltz and Snyder (all of whom are running for re-election) were among North Canton's 2003 legislators: 

The SCPR is told that when Arrowhead was purchased, it was bought with the idea of controlling the development of the area and, for some city officials, to, perhaps,  turn it into a financial investment.  There was talk that North Canton might turn it into a municipal golf course.  However, that idea was quickly scrapped when it became obvious that such was not financially viable.

The Report's take is that the reality in North Canton is that city officials are wringing their hands as to what to do with Arrowhead in view of:

• the flooding issue (which go back as far as 1947), and
• what might be the end of the lease (effective:  December 31st) of Arrowhead with R&S Golf Properties, Inc.; to wit:

New Councilman Mark Cerrata (Daryl Revoldt's replacement on council who is seeking "retention" as a member of council) at last Tuesday's work session reportedly said that Arrowhead is not for sale.

Confusion (on the fate of Arrowhead)?  Certainty that if North Canton sells Arrowhead it will take a financial bath?

Indeed!!!

(VIDEOS ON TREE TRIMMER LICENSING & RESCISSION OF EMERGENCY ORDINANCE). DOGWOOD CITY MAYOR (HELD) GETS TRIMMED BY COUNCIL & COUNCIL PRESIDENT SNYDER TO WORK TOWARDS REFORM OF COUNCIL PROCEDURES: PUBLIC SPEAKS AT COMMITTEE OF WHOLE & LESS EMERGENCY LEGISLATION BUT WITH SPECIFICATIONS

 

Jim Repace - a former councilman - who says he is going to run this November, told the SCPR after the North Canton's City Council (Council) meeting last night that the proposed tree trimmer licensing ordinance was the brainchild of Mayor David Held for newly selected Councilman Mark Cerreta to use to make is mark (no pun intended) as a legislator.

Repace also was one of a number of applicants for former Council President Daryl Revoldt's position when Revoldt (as predicted by the SCPR) left North Canton for a post with the Kasich administration.

Cerreta has taken out a petition with a number of others (incumbent DeOrio is missing from the list) for three council-at-large positions.

What was interesting from Council's discussion about the proposed ordinance that several members (Dan Peters - Ward 2 and Pat DeOrio - at large) seemed to be amazed at the lead off of the discussion by Cerreta (as chairman of Ordinance, Rules & Claims Committee) as if the ordinance as originally proposed was going forward.

After the meeting, Peters told yours truly that the last he knew from when Council last met, passing an ordinance was not the way North Canton was going.

They (Peters and DeOrio) understood (see the video below this paragraph) that the ordinance was being scrapped in favor of asking tree trimmers who wanted to do business in the city to have certificates of insurance filed with North Canton which residents could then confirm as being in existence on North Canton's website or by calling city hall.  DeOrio told The Report that if a trimmer dropped the insurance the process would include the insurance company notifying the city of such.

Apparently, the "going ahead as if there had been no understanding of scrapping the ordinance" was a ploy by Held and Cerreta to see if they could push it through notwithstanding the understanding.  At one time in the session, it seemed that there was going to be a showdown on the matter.  However, Council President Jon Snyder jumped into to keep a confrontation from occurring.

The prime movers of this legislation (Councilman Cerreta and Mayor David Held) are Republicans.  One of the basic tenets of the Republican Party is:  (1) "the best government is the least government, " and (2) "we are over regulated - get government out of our lives."  Hmm?

So why are Republicans Cerreta and Held for more government and regulation (including a criminal penalty on offending tree trimmers), while  Democrats DeOrio and Peters lead the charge for less government and substituting voluntary compliance?

Here is the tree trimmer licensing debate (sort of) video in two parts because YouTube limits the duration of stored videos: 

On another matter, right out of the shoot at the beginning of yesterday evening's meeting, President Snyder announced that Council was rescinding Ordinance 53-11 which had been passed on June 6, 2011 as an "emergency" ordinance and proceeding on a "non-emergency basis" with Ordinance 68-11 which had its first reading on the 5th, will have its second reading at a special meeting today and its third and final reading on July 11th when it is likely to pass.

Snyder said to The Report (after the meeting) that North Canton Law Director Hans Nilges felt 53-11 could withstand the legal attack launched by a North Canton resident and one Andy Martin (a former Suarez employee) in a lawsuit filed in Stark County Court of Common Pleas shortly after Council passed the ordinance.

The SCPR also learned that Suarez was not concerned about the delay (68-11 for 53-11) in getting the required ordinance passed.

For the SCPR, the most significant developments occurred after the meeting that came out in The Report's interview of President Snyder.  He told The Report that:

1. He agreed with North Canton citizen Chuck Osborne (although not sure Osborne's number - 92% - is correct, that emergency clause legislation is overused not only in North Canton but across Ohio.  He cited an Ohio audit that commented on the extensive use of emergency clause ordinances.  He has the power - as president - to limit its use and says that he plans to do so.  Moreover, he said that when North Canton uses the emergency clause in the future, he will be requiring that specific reasons be articulated as to why the ordinance needed an immediate effective date (the primary reason for emergency status in the first place); not relying on for the broad and vague "general welfare and in the public interest" language.  Snyder added that North Canton has nothing to hide and has no desire to cut off the citizens right to initiate referendums on legislation a citizen might disagree with.  
2. He was going to prevail on his fellow councilpersons to expand "Public Speaks" to Committee of the Whole meetings.  Snyder said there would have to be time limits (but the president would have discretion to extend in appropriate situations).  His reason?  The real work of Council is in the context of the Committee of the Whole and North Canton citizens should have the opportunity to weigh-in on the process.

Here is Snyder speaking on the issue of emergency legislation and his plans to ask Council to extend the Public Speaks portion of regular council meetings to the Committee of the Whole meetings.

NORTH CANTON (FOUR VIDEOS): SHOULD COUNCIL'S WATERING HOLE RELOCATE FROM SYVESTER'S GRILLE TO MULLIGAN'S PUB? ALSO, SEE NEW COUNCILMAN CERRETA'S SWEARING IN, HIS FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE AS WELL AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT SNYDER ON THE SELECTION OF CERRETA & THE DIEBOLD QUEST. LASTLY, WHAT MAYOR HELD HAS TO SAY ABOUT DIEBOLD'

 

Not to long ago the Stark County Political Report learned that what appears to be a de facto meeting of a number of North Canton City Council (Council) members and a few of Mayor David Held's administrative team meeting on a fairly regular basis at Sylvester's North End Grille.

Perhaps the participants should consider relocating in view of the goofy goings on among North Canton officials on the city's effort to lure Diebold's from its present site in Summit County (City of Green) to North Canton and, of course, Stark County.

The new site?

Mulligans Pub down on Dressler, perhaps.

Why Mulligans?

As everyone who plays golf knows, a Mulligan is a do-over on a muffed golf stroke.

From what the SCPR heard at last Monday's meeting and from a source with inside knowledge, it appears that North Canton officials need to regroup and present a united front in the city's quest to bring Diebold into North Canton.

The Report hears that several councilpersons were displeased with the Held administration on two counts:

1. Held's open and too detailed talk about North Canton's pursuit of the largely Summit County (City of Green) Diebold Corporation.
2. And that Diebold has been pursued over the last nine months by other Stark County communities as well as out-of-state pursuers (most notably, North Carolina) while North Canton's officials seemed not be be aware of Diebold's initiative to move out of its present Green facilities.

However, the Held administration is not the only blameworthy factor from North Canton government.  As readers of the SCPR will see from the "press conference" that newly appointed Councilman-at-Large held at the end of his first meeting as councilman that he does not favor the North Canton held Arrowhead country club/golf course complex as a site for Diebold.  Someone did not get the word to him that ought not be talking in that kind of specificity?

Moreover, Council President Jon Snyder is seen on an accompanying video to this blog talking about Mayor Held having a meeting regarding Diebold and its 1900 jobs coming to North Canton.  The meeting took place earlier in the day that Snyder spoke (April 27th).  President Snyder must have forgotten his role on the "united we are " front, no?

So it seems there are "do-overs" galore in order among North Canton's officials both from Council and the Held administration.

The question is whether or not North Canton is sorely missing the leadership of Daryl Revoldt (former president of Council who has been snatched up by the Kasich administration for his Department of Development.  Revoldt (who along with Cerreta is said to oppose using Arrowhead for Diebold) "behind the scene" was able to whip North Canton's Council and the Held administration together to achieve the appearance of a unified front on various issues that have come up from time to time.

It is The Report belief that homogeneous communities in generally seem to have an obsession with presented a united front in their governance.  We have seen the phenomenon from the Board of Education (BOE - Board) in a BOE video of February 9th of a community meeting on the Elementary Service Plan (ESP; two buildings K - 2; two 3 - 5) which the Board voted (4 to 1 last Wednesday) in favor over a K - 5 plan the latter of which (in a dissenting manner) appeared to be the choice of parents.

Board president Jordan Greenwald, in the BOE video, went to great pains to highlight his preoccupation with unanimity.  So the 4 to 1 vote on the ESP had to be a huge disappointment to him.  Moreover, there were about two hours of dissenting "public speaks" comments made to the Board before the vote.

Why Revoldt is missed by the principals in North Canton government has to do with his ability to cobble together "apparent" 7 to 0 votes on most matters that came before Council. 

But all is not "doom and gloom" in North Canton.  Mayor Held (which Snyder alluded to in his video) tells The Report that a major announcement on a new occupant for the former Hoover complex will be forthcoming this week.  Also, Held tells The Report that North Canton has been selected as an "Intelligent Community" and, moreover, that the awarding entity - the Intelligent Community Forum - is relocating its national headquarters (about 20 employees, he says) to Walsh University.

Walsh, according to Held, is planning with ICF and North Canton officials to house an Institute of Intelligent Community on the Walsh campus.  Held said that no North Canton tax money is in play and that the cost of the relocate (to the degree there costs that ICF is looking for others to bear) will be borne by Walsh.

The SCPR has three videos for readers to follow along with as confirmation of a number of points made in this blog and also to provide readers a glimpse of Councilman Mark Cerreta.  Readers will note that Councilman Pat DeOrio broke rank with his fellows (likely to the consternation of his fellows) and voted for former Councilman Jim Replace to replace Revoldt whereas Councilman Jeff Davies who bulked at voting for Cerreta in executive session discussion was ultimately prevailed upon by his fellow councilpersons.