(VIDEO: ENGINEER KEITH BENNETT) HOW WILL STARK COUNTY'S LIBERTARIANS REACT TO COUNTY PROPOSAL TO "REGULATE" COUNTY/TOWNSHIP ROADWAY ACCESS?

The Stark County Political Report is guessing that the Stark County commissioners will not be seeking out a Libertarian to serve on an advisory committee preliminary to and, of course, advise on the question of whether or not Stark County is going to regulate its citizens even more than we currently are.

But they should.

While the SCPR political/philosophical viewpoint is that there is certainly a case for government regulation; Libertarians are an important mix in our socio/political scheme of life in terms of weighing-in to ameliorate the influence of overzealous proponents of government regulation.

After all, the proposal for Stark County to adopt a county/township roadway "access management" regulatory scheme (see the Stark County Engineer Keith Bennett video below), if implemented, will take a measure of liberty away from Stark Countians.

While the enabling Ohio statute does provide the potential for non-government affiliated members of the Stark County public to serve on the committee (e.g. a surveyor, a realtor, a private sector engineer and a building industry representative), the overwhelming makeup of the advisory commissioner will be existing government employed persons, to wit:

• a county commissioner,
• three trustees,
• Note:  Bennett recommends two from "urban" townships" and one from a "rural" township,
• a regional planning employee,
• a member of the Stark County Transportation Study,
• "and any other person the board should chooses to appoint." (emphasis added)

Here is a SCPR extract from the enabling legislation (enacted in 2002).

Chapter 5552: ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT

(C) Upon adoption of a resolution under division (A) of this section, the board of county commissioners shall establish an advisory committee to review the county engineer's proposed regulations prepared under division (B) of this section. The board shall appoint to the committee the county engineer or the engineer's designee, a registered surveyor in private practice, a representative of the homebuilding industry, a licensed realtor, a representative of a county or regional planning commission with jurisdiction in the county, a professional engineer with expertise in traffic engineering, a representative of the metropolitan planning organization, where applicable, at least three township trustees from any townships located in the county selected by the local county association representing the township trustees and clerks in that county, a member of the board of county commissioners, and any other person the board chooses to appoint. (emphasis added)

At yesterday's regular weekly commissioners' meeting, Stark County Engineer Keith Bennett presented the commissioners with an outline of proposal to regulate county and township roadways in terms of access.

There is no doubt that state officials since 1996 have been and are "well-intentioned" in regulating roadway access in Ohio in the furtherance of citizen safety.

From the Ohio Department of Transportation website:

In 1996, ODOT Executive Leadership identified Access Management as a strategic department initiative. Director Jerry Wray appointed an Access Policy Committee to carry out this initiative. Today, that initiative has culminated in the State Highway Access Management Manual, effective September 1, 1998 and the State Highway Access Management Policy, effective March 31, 2005. 

Reason given by ODOT as justifying government intrusion into our daily lives include:

• Improves public safety by reducing accidents
• Preserves the useful life of the highway system by maintaining highway capacity
• Facilitates the movement of people and goods by reducing travel delay and congestion
• Supports orderly economic development by providing appropriate access to property consistent with the operation and safety of the highway
• Minimizes transportation costs by making highways more efficient
• Encourages closer cooperation between state and local governments in land use and transportation decisions

Want an idea of what "new" regulations will be visited upon Stark Countians should the commissioners decide to implement Bennett's proposal?

Here is a link to Butler County's access management regulations which Butler which became effective in 2005.

Hopefully, the commissioners will insist that at least one person who is avowedly biased towards freedom from government regulation serve on the advisory committee.

The commissioners say that they are open, accessible, communicative, and transparent.

Including a Libertarian on the access management advisory board would be compelling evidence that the democratic values they espouse have a reality to them, no?

After all, to say it again, the proposal is designed to take away a measure of our existing liberty.

(VIDEOS: BENNETT, BERNABEI AND FERGUSON) STARK CO. DITCHES IN CRISIS STATE. STARK CO. COMMISSIONERS NEED TO STEP FORWARD TO REACTIVATE THE "STARK CO. DRAINAGE TASK FORCE!"

The Stark County commissioners have been holding a series of community meetings over the last 1-1/2 years.  The meetings are designed to put commissioners in touch with Stark Countians with regard to their most concerns about what Stark County government ought to be doing for them.

Attendance has been sporadic at these sessions, but two of the 20 plus meetings that commissioners have held stand out in that they occurred in Perry Township (30 plus attendees) and North Canton  (about 50 attendees) where both communities suffered devastating floods to area homes in 2011.

Commissioners had to especially be worried about the Perry meeting last June 15th (LINK here for an account of that meeting).  Their primary goal at the time was to convince Stark Countians that they should support a proposed 0.5% sales tax on the upcoming November ballot.

Perryites were very upset about the inadequacies of the Lynch and Clay ditches to handle water from the downpour which resulted in widespread flooding of Perry homes.

And the commissioners (Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson) had no answer.  Even if the levy passed (which it did), there would be very little if any money for them to apply to fixing the Lynch and Clay ditches.

Fast forward to May 31, 2012.  This time the community meeting was in North Canton.  Topic?  You guessed it:  Flooding experienced by North Cantonians as a consequence of a July 19, 2011 storm which Stark County's main ditch (the Zimber ditch) could not handle because of its decrepit condition.

Again, the commissioners (Bernabei and Ferguson) had no answer in the immediate time frame.

Nor did North Canton Mayor David Held.  Nor did Stark County Engineer Keith Bennett.

Held in essence said that the problem is to convince 98% of the people to provide funding (i.e. support a levy) to fix flooding experienced by 2% of North Canton residents (the figures were for talking purposes only; not meant to be exact numbers).

What he failed to say is that everybody who lives in a house, an apartment and/or owns/rents industrial and commercial buildings contributes runoff that finds its way to the ditches of Stark County and thereby participates in the flooding experienced by the relatively few.


Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson (Creighton was not at the meeting) had a core message to the effect that there is no county money in the foreseeable future "to fix" the county's flooding problem.  Perhaps, some remediation, but that will be it. 

Commissioner Bernabei:



Commissioner Ferguson:



And finally, Stark County Engineer Bennett.

He offered the only glimmer of hope (within the next several years) in offering five flooding control concepts (in the study/permitting processes for the next two years), if the money can be found, which would lessen the degree of flooding (along Zimber) but would not stop it. 

Apparently, the study and permitting will be funded by a combination of funds from the county general fund and contributions by North Canton, Jackson Township and Lake Township.

Here is the video of Engineer Bennett.



According to Stark County Engineering Department Hydraulics Engineer Gary Conner (who has been working on this problem for nearly 40 years), the ditches have not been maintained in a proper manner since the late 1970s.  He says that beginning in the 1980s Stark County commissioners have failed to make the needed investment in storm ditch drainage and that the inattention is a huge factor in why residents are experiencing flooding and sewer backups as never before.

Conner said that it would take $7 million to $10 million a year over ten years for Stark County's to repair Stark's decrepit storm water draining ditches. 

The SCPR believes that in time there could be an answer if Stark County's leadership (which means county, city, village and township officials) will come together in a focused, collaborative way to develop ideas which can be designed, funded, and implemented over a span of about ten years.  But, once fixed, ditch maintenance can never again be allowed to go unattended which means the funding mechanism will have to be permanent.

Bedrock structures already exist which could serve as the base for Stark's leaders to band together in a common quest to eliminate much of the flooding that occurs in Stark County.

First, there is the March, 1997 Zimber Ditch Study. (LINK TO THE STUDY)

According to Stark County Hydraulics Engineer Gary Connor, this study remains the "go to document" for any who want to understand and deal with the flooding problems which the Zimber Ditch visits upon Stark Countians.

Second, there is the now dormant "Stark County Drainage Task Force." 

According to a website which can be accessed by readers of the SCPR (LINK):

On September 18, 2003, the first Drainage Symposium meeting was held at Stark Park’s Sippo Lake Clubhouse.  Invited to the meeting were representatives from all of Stark County's cities, townships, villages, and county-wide agencies and organizations. 

As a result of this first meeting, a primary Task Force, a Steering Committee, and four subcommittees were formed. 

The four subcommittees are Problem Identification, Education, Regulations, and Business Plan.  Each subcommittee has met several times since September 2003 ... .

Unfortunately, under the task force has gone dormant because of funding issues.

The last published minutes were for a December 16, 2005 steering sub-committee.

However, there is no reason why this administrative structure could not be resurrected and staffed with many of the same volunteers who were a part of the original effort.

And the SCPR thinks the Stark County commissioners should look into doing just that.

Third, there is a potential funding mechanism that has been provided for by the Ohio Legislature.  It is called a Storm Water Utility that operates much the same as any utility service (e.g. the Stark County Sewer District).

This LINK to an Ohio Environmental Council website provides and excellent summary of Ohio's ditching laws.

Over a year ago (at the Perry Township meeting), commissioners promised that they would look into the feasibility of creating a  storm water utility as an answer to the vexing problem of not having the funds to fix Stark's flooding problems.

Last Wednesday evening, neither Commissioner Bernabei nor Ferguson had a word to say about their look-see or even mentioned the creation of a storm utility as a possible funding source to get on with solving Stark County's ditching/flooding quandary.

Hmm?

After looking over the 1997 Zimber Ditch Study, hearing the commissioners at community meetings, talking with county officials familiar with the Stark County flooding problems, the SCPR urges the Stark County commissioners to:

• initiate discussions with Stark County Parks director Robert Fonte (who appears to be the de facto  leader of the currently inactive Stark County Drainage Task Force to revive the organization,
• update a plan (working on the base being created by Engineer Bennett) to fully implement the recommendations of the 1997 study insofar as federal regulations will allow, and
• become thoroughly familiar with the county's options under state legislation to create a storm water utility as a way to generate funding for actual construction of the study/permitting projects flowing from the 1997 study and from Engineer Bennett's current work.

(VIDEO) COUNTY ENGINEER EXPLAINS USE OF 2007 LICENSE PLATE FEE INCREASE TO COMMISSIONERS. IS STARK COUNTY GETTING A BIG ENOUGH "BANG FOR TAXPAYER" BUCKS?

One of the legacies of Mike Rehfus as county engineer (who passed away in December, 2009) is his successful effort to convince the then commissioners (Bosley and Vignos; Gayle Jackson voted no) to "impose" a $10 permissive county add-on license plate fee.

Because of his untimely death, Refus, of course, left it to others to implement his plan to put Stark County's roads and bridges on a par if not better than counties like Summit who had vastly more money to operate with.  His successor, Keith Bennett, is now fleshing out Refus' dream.

Yours truly had several conversations with Refus about the disparity between Summit and Stark roads (before the license plate increase by former Commissioners Bosley and Vignos) and he would chafe at the comparison.   In response, he would say something like:  "Of course!  Summit has five times the money that Stark has!!"  (the figure "five times" is not meant to be literal)

Refus had to work hard on the political side of the question to get Bosley (a Democrat) and Vignos (a Republican) to join together to impose the fee increase.  And he had a huge barrier.  Former commissioner Gayle Jackson was adamantly against the increase.  Her son, Shane, (chief deputy for Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and political director of the Stark County Democratic Party) went to work on Bosley to get him to join mother in rejecting Refus' entreaty.

Bosley did the right thing in joining Vignos and incurred the political ire of the Jacksons and their political patron saint Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.  Had Gayle Jackson had the foresight to support the increase, Stark roads and bridges would have benefited about seven months earlier.  Because of her "no" vote, the tax did not begin to be collected until January 1, 2008.

Yesterday, Engineer Bennett was in front of Stark County Commissioners Janet Creighton, Pete Ferguson and Tom Bernabei to give an accounting of how the money is being spent.

SCPR readers can see the entire session in the video that accompanies this blog which is accessible at the end of this written material.

Here is some interesting information for readers to digest before viewing the video.

BENNETT NOW A PUBLIC OFFICIAL: WILL HE ACT LIKE HE IS STILL AT HAMMONTREE AND BLOW OFF THE SCPR'S QUESTIONS?

The Stark County Political Report has learned that Keith Bennett was sworn in as the successor engineer to Mike Rehfus who tragically passed away on November 10th.

The Report has a lot of video on file of Rehfus answering any and all questions posed by yours truly about the operation of the Stark County engineer's office.  Mike was accessible to the SCPR via his cellphone.

Will Keith Bennett follow suit?

Doesn't seem like it.

When the SCPR learned that Bennett was to be appointed county engineer by the Stark County Democratic Party, yours truly called him to ask him questions about the transition from being president of Hammontree & Associates, Ltd to being the county engineer.

No response to the call made over two weeks ago.

Now that he is a public official, the SCPR will be pushing him to answer questions about potential conflict-in-interest problems he may have given Hammontree's integral role in providing engineering/surveying services to Stark County (for past projects) and to Stark's political subdivisions (villages, cities, township and boards of education).

The public should be playing close attention to Bennett.  How he responds to incisive questioning by the likes of the SCPR (do not expect such questioning from The Repository), should go a long way towards the Stark County voting public determining whether or not he is a worthy successor to Mike Rehfus.

So far, he is off to a bad start.

Hmm?

STEVE MEEKS (NEWLY APPOINTED STARK CO COMMISSIONER): STOOD BY AND WATCHED AS KEY HAMMONTREE OFFICIAL BECOMES STARK COUNTY ENGINEER? DOES MEEKS HAVE A SHORT MEMORY OR IS SOMETHING ELSE AT PLAY?

Since the SCPR first published the blog questioning whether or not appointing a Hammontree official (i.e. Keith Bennett, president and managing partner) as Stark County engineer, SCPR's sources have been sending yours truly information that confirms to The Report that not nearly enough questions were asked of Bennett before Stark County Democratic Party leaders tapped Bennett to be the new Stark County engineer.

One such souce referred the SCPR to a Repository report done by Robert Wang (Emerald estate flooding being addressed) on May 7, 2002 wherein he refers to a Hammontree assessment made by, then, Jackson Township trustee Steven M. Meeks.

Meeks is reported to have had this reaction to the flooding problem:

Trustee Steven Meeks said. Therefore, the township will have to pay at least part of the costs.   Meeks said that construction in the Emerald Estates development has made an existing flooding problem worse. It didn't help, he said, that the county approved a flawed and inadequate drainage plan drafted by Hammontree & Associates Ltd. 

So, the SCPR asks, when Meeks says that Hammontree put together "a flawed and inadequate drainage plan" at Emerald Estates, and then not have misgivings about one of Hammontree's top people becoming the Stark County engineer:  what gives Steve?

Why didn't Meeks caution his "joined-at-the-hip" friend, confidant and fellow (before Meeks became Governor Strickland's Region 9 director) Jackson Township official Randy Gonzalez (now chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party) about appointing Bennett?

If you can take Meeks' assessment of the Hammontree work as being accurate, shouldn't this have sent alarm bells ringing loudly to Meeks when he learned that Bennett of Hammontree was to be appointed Stark County engineer?

Should not Meeks have been saying to himself:  "Gee, there may be other Hammontree generated problems out there in the county, if Bennett (who is permitted to continue his financial ties to Hammontree - according to Gonzalez) is the engineer, how does Stark County get redress of its legal grievances without conflicts-in-interests problems surfacing."

According to Meeks,  Emerald Estates Hammontree "flawed" work contributed to flooding at Portage/High Mill and would cost Jackson Township taxpayers.

So, again, the SCPR asks; how can Meeks not see potential conflicts-in-interest problems with a former Hammontree man in charge at the engineer's office?

Did Stark County get nailed twice when the Gonzalez directed effort on behalf of Meeks and Bennett resulted in these two getting the party appointment for county commissioner and county engineer, respectively?

Once in pushing for an engineer who may be too close to a major player in Stark County political subdivision engineering and surveying projects to fully and adequate protect the public interest?

A second time in pushing for a person as commissioner who appears to be more politician than public servant?

Focusing on Meeks:

Did Meeks forget about the flooding problem that he says Hammontree factored into and the concomitant cost to Jackson taxpayers or, is this an instance of  his "going along to get along" with Chairman Gonzalez and the leadership of the Stark County Democratic Party?

The Report suspects that most readers of the SCPR will think Meeks' actions indicate the latter rather than the former; as does yours truly.

Meeks seems to the SCPR to be "of politics, by politics and for politics."   Who does Meeks say he is going to rely on as a model for being commissioner?  Tom Harmon and Gayle Jackson, that's who.  If there are two more politically atuned and astute people in all of Stark County, The Report would like to know who they are.  Neither Harmon nor Jackson achieved much, if anything, of substance for Stark Countians while commissioner. But they were accomplished politicians.

If the SCPR analysis of Meeks is anywhere close to being on the mark, then Stark Countians need to assess his every move as commissioner -  looking for the political angle.

Sometimes highly political people surprise you and become public servants above all else.

Stark Countians should be holding prayer vigils beseeching the Almighty to effect a transformation in Commissioner Steven M. Meeks.