THE 'SCPR' FROM COLORADO SPRINGS: CANTON AND MASSILLON A HOTBED OF HIGH TECH JOBS? REALLY?

A "feel good" article?

Kind of looks like it to the Stark County Political Report.

The Report took a look at the underlying study and sees nothing which identifies exactly what specific companies have generated the claimed increase of 1,400 high tech jobs in Stark County in the Canton/Massillon area.  Nor does the study specify job titles for the supposed high tech jobs that Stark has in 2012 that it did not have in 2005.

Of course, Canton mayor William J. Healy, II is front and center seemingly claiming credit for helping create what appears (for lack of identify specific companies except for Timken and Diebold) to be jobs that it is hard to get a particularized grip on from reading the Bay Area Council of Economic Institute (BACEI) published study.

Healy:  “We are thrilled to hear we are one of the top 15 high-tech job cities in the country."

Really?

The study says Canton/Massillon area?  And, that is to say "area" equates to the city of Canton?

Okay, Mayor Healy.  Who are the companies located in Canton city limits?  What are the job titles and what salaries/wages do they generate?

Need a little help in identifying high-tech jobs mayor?

Want to try again mayor?

To be fair to the BAECI, the study is a prime case of everything being relative.

First of all, the study refers to a broad classification of jobs:  Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (hence STEM).  But such a reference is to very broad categories which take in a lot of territory.

Secondly, while it does get a little more specific in referring to:

• medical professions, 
• scientific research and development services, 
• software publishers, 
• Internet publishing and broadcasting, and 
• data processing,

the study does not develop a nexus between those subcategories of STEM to companies in the Canton/Massillon area that have created actual/specific jobs.

Moreover, the study speaks to a 10%/13% increase of 1% of the total jobs in the Canton/Massillion "area."

Hmm?

Ten (thirteen) percent of one percent is not all that impressive, no?

A case of making numbers say more than the really say?

The Report thinks so.

Overall, Akron (3% of total jobs), Cleveland (3.8% of total jobs) and Ohio (4.1% of total jobs) is outpacing Stark County.

So what is all the ballyhoo about?

And, again:  no "real" identification by locals, to wit:

From Pritchard's article:   "Paquette [Stark Development Board CEO) cited Timken’s work with wind turbines and the fuel cell developments by Rolls Royce as possible contributors to the high-tech job growth."  (emphasis added).

Interpretation?

If there are 1,400 high tech jobs now that were not here in Stark in 2005, I really can't tell you where they are and title them and assign an income figure to them.

From Stark's economic development czar?

Now that's impressive, isn't it?

Kind of like when Tom Harmon was county commissioner.  Reacting to a series of blogs by the SCPR chiding the commissioners for not developing a gameplan for bringing jobs to Stark County.

At a subsequent commissioners meeting, Harmon comes waltzing into the commissioners' meeting room and on seeing yours truly hands me what he described as being an economical development plan.

"How's that for economic development he bellowed out."

 In hindsight, The Report can say:  "not much!"

Harmon's plan, working in concert with local attorney Elizabeth Burrick (a horse show lover),  consisted of an idea of building a horse show arena on the Stark County fairgrounds.

Initially, the Stark Development honcho Paquette said it was not a feasible idea.  That did not go over well with Harmon et al.  Guess what?  Over time Paquette modified his view to say maybe.

Guess what again?

The arena has NOT been built.

And even if it had been, a single facility on the sprawling Stark County fairgrounds complex is not evidence that Stark County had a plan for a rehab, a restructuring of the deteriorating facilities on the grounds that would be a start towards creating a state-of-the art revitalized fairgrounds that could be both a Stark County community center and an additional tourist/convention complex center.

If Stark County had any big-picture, visionary leadership (attention:  Leadership Stark County), perhaps, Stark Countians might have hope that the fairgrounds could reach its potential.

But the evidence is that no such leadership exists in Stark.

From Pritchard's article:  "Healy noted that Canton has worked hard in recent years to recruit and welcome innovative companies to the area. The city has seen economic development, which has helped cut unemployment."

Are the 1,000 call center jobs at VXI high-tech, high paying by the mayor's definition?

Probably, from a mayor who likes to throw everything in "including the kitchen sink" in support of whatever point he is making. 

How about a little chapter and verse Mayor Healy as to companies, specific jobs and the income they are producing for actual employees?

Other reasons that the study is suspect to the SCPR in terms of real significance to the Stark County economy (and in particular the city of Canton) include:

• with all of Canton's crime problems, do highly paid, personal security conscious high-tech types really want to come in live in Canton?
• does Canton have a collection of attractions which make prospective high-tech types of young generations of Americans who are highly education making high incomes say to themselves:  "you know what, Canton, Ohio is really at the top of my list of a place I would like to live."

The Report is highly skeptical that Stark County (which the SCPR thinks is a more accurate to identify the geography than Canton/Akron area) is on the threshold of becoming the Silicon Valley of Ohio.

Nobody wishes more than the SCPR that there be justifiable optimism that Stark in on the verge of a break through on economic development.

Over the past five years The Report has written many, many blogs chiding local government and economic development officials for "standing in place."

Last year the Stark County commissioners put $0 into economic development with Paquette's Stark Development Board.

And this year, maybe $50,000.

Pathetic, no?  But the county has no money.  It is barely getting by.

The closest thing that might suggest reality-based hope might be the oil/gas fracking industry.

Louisville in particular has made an impressive move forward in tapping into the promise that fracking might bring.

But for all the hype that Mayor Healy made earlier this year with his designating Canton as The Utica Capital, as time rolls on, it seems, the proclamation is turning out to be vintage Healy spin.

The SCPR doesn't understand the point of Pritchard's article and Healy's and Paquette's excitement.

Gin up the data, such as it is, all you want, but it still comes down to:

Where's the beef?

STARK DEVELOPMENT BOARD "HYDRAULIC FRACTURING POSITION PAPER" IS NOT NEARLY AS COMPLETE AS IT CLAIMS TO BE!

On January 11, 2011, the SCPR did a blog on the inadequate work being done by the Stark Development Board (SDB) on Stark County economic development.  Click on this link to see that blog.

While she does not blame the SDB, Commissioner Janet Creighton on the following video says she does think that Stark County does a good job on economic development.  In the following video, see and hear her make the statement yourself.  Moreover, County Administrator Mike Hanke is to be seen saying that the Stark Development Board is the economic development arm of Stark County government.



As everybody who is conscious knows, Stark County is in bad, bad shape financially and economically.  Last month the unemployment rate for the county drifted back up to 10%.   Canton is even worse (11.6%).  And new jobs that are filtering in are generally low paying ones (e.g. the Canton Call Center jobs) and despite the frequent touting of the addition of jobs, the rise to 10% (from 9.3% in May) indicates that Stark is still bleeding jobs.

The SCPR believes that this background is important to keep in mind in evaluating the SDB Hydraulic Fracturing Position Paper.  ("Position Paper").

Why important?

Because it appears to The Report that the SDB is desperately hoping that hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas will prove to be a miracle cure for the financial and economic despair that afflicts Stark County these days. 

Even if the wildest wishes of the SDB comes true with respect to oil and gas drilling, Stark Countians should not stand for the proposition that the benefits of fracking is in any way, shape or form a substitute for Stark County government and "its arm" (the SDB, according to County Administrator Hanke) getting their act together with an effective near term and long term job producing plan.

Stark's business Brahmin-esque "Hydraulic Fracking 10"  (i.e. the SDB Blue Ribbon Hydraulic Fracking Committee) appear to have adopted Governor John Kasich's enthusiasm for and push for hydraulic fracking.  The Position Paper has all the earmarks of having reached a primary conclusion beforehand and going out and cherry picking sources to buttress the conclusion.

On examining the names and vocations of the Hydraulic Fracking 10 and the sources supporting their conclusions, the SCPR does not know how in the world they can say through their spokespersons Paquette and Roth that they "thoroughly and objectively all the potential environmental ... aspects of hydraulic fracking."

A cursory examination of the Hydraulic Fracking 10 reveals that one (Rusnak) works for Roth (i.e. Aultman Hospital) and another is employed in the same law firm (Hunt - Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths and Dougherty) as two of the Committee's so called experts.  And who knows whether or not there are some "hidden" relationships that lurk in the shadows of the inquiry?  After all, this group is first and foremost is a Stark County "insider" collection who likely hold regular chit-chats over cocktails.

Bill Williams is well known for his ties to the oil and gas industry and representing Stark County land owners on oil and gas lease matters. 

What prompted the SDB to do its examination of fracking in the first place?

In December, 2010 Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis got things going on the fracking issue by proposing to ban fracking in Plain Township.  Giavasis had a bad experience some ten years ago with a well drilling mishap in the Steiner Heights section of the township.  Consequently, Plain had to spend about $1 million (of Plain Township taxpayer money) to solve a drinking water pollution problem.  So when reports of drinking water pollution problems that home owners were blaming on hydraulic fracking errors began to surface, Lou's ears picked up right away.

Giavasis scheduled a vote on a Plain Township fracking ban for December 28, 2010.

Bill Williams (one of The Fracking 10's experts) wrote Giavasis a long email cautioning Giavasis from proceeding, insinuating that Giavasis would be opening himself to personal liability for damages to property owners who, Williams contended, might be affected by the Giavasis proposed ban resolution.  Here is a link to the blog that published the Williams email in its entirety.

Giavasis did back off from the resolution and worked out an arrangement with WHBC's Ron Ponder (Points to Ponder) to hold community meetings (January 20 & 27th, 2011, respectively) in Plain on both sides of the issue. 

Subsequently, Plain trustees did pass resolutions asking the state of Ohio to put a moratorium on fracking and most recently banned fracking on township property, roadways and park property.

The SCPR speculates that the someone (perhaps even Governor Kasich himself) made a phone call to Paquette and other financial/economic powers that be in Stark County and asked that something be done to counter Giavasis and his allies (e.g. Chris Borello of the Concerned Citizens of Stark County, Councilwoman Mary Cirelli of Canton, et cetera).

 Giavasis, Borello et al have made great inroads in getting a number of Stark County political subdivisions (e.g. Alliance, Canton, Massillon, North Canton and Louisville) to join Plain Township in at least banning fracking on political subdivision property.

Reading the Stark Development Boards Hydraulic Fracturing Report (link), it is clear that the SDB is very excited about the economic development/financial prospects that drilling (particularly the Utica formation) could bring to Stark.

Fracking the Marcellus/Utica Shale in Stark could go a long way in masking the failure of the SDB over the 25 years or so of its existence to be overall effective in its role of being "the only game in town" for economic development countywide.

And the STB is going to do everything it can to blunt the effectiveness of the anti-fracking people.  Hence the Position Paper which the SCPR says lip service to environmental concerns.

The environmental aspect of the Position Paper lacks credibility because it has nobody on its list (the committee or the experts that appeared before the committee) that has the confidence of the anti-fracking community.

It is simply unbelievable that the SDB Committee did not include Giavasis.  Simply unbelievable!

At the very minimum, he should have been invited to speak to the Committee.

While he does not bill himself as an expert, the SCPR thinks he is being modest.  He certainly demonstrated to yours truly that he has as much knowledge if not more about the issue as a number of those listed on the Position Paper as presenters

Here is an email expressive of the anti-fracking community's view of the Position Paper:

The SCPR has written that this issue comes down to being a risk issue and guarantees that frackers carry adequate insurance to cover worse case scenario accidents.

The problem with the anti-fracker community (in terms of public acceptability of their position) is that for the most part they appear to be "no risk" folks.

Of course, we all would like to go through life without encountering any risk to our well being.  But it is axiomatic that such is not possible.

One reader of the Report has put the risk issue this way:  "Does the six chambered gun have one (1) bullet, three (3) bullets or five (5) bullets loaded?"

The answer makes all the difference in the world.

The Stark Development Board needs to re-open its inquiry to include a more balanced field of sources for the environmental side of its consideration.

And in its concomitant supplemental report, it needs to tell Stark Countians how many potential environment-killing bullets the Committee concludes are in the oil and gas industry's fracking gun providing convincing evidence for the conclusion.

If the Committee does not, then Stark Countians should conclude that the Position Paper is neither "thorough" nor "objective."

STARK COUNTY: "MIRED IN THE PAST?"

Stark County's commissioners are fully engaged in examining Stark's past (i.e. Citizens Review Committee) as is Stark County's only countywide newspaper (i.e. 20/20).

And such is all well and good, but how about Stark's future?

Recently, the Stark Development Board (SDB, Board) did a presentation to the commissioners about "the only game in town" in terms of economic development.  While something is certainly better than nothing, the SDB effort will not get Stark to where it needs to go in securing the future for oncoming generations of Stark Countians.

Surrounding counties have impressive economic development efforts underway.  Stark languishes. And the Stark County Board of Commissioners (via its budgeting process) is shorting the SDB on financial contributions which has the effect of stunting what the Board can achieve in seeding and cultivating new job building efforts.

It is laughable what the commissioners, apparently, since 1985 (when it was formed) have been putting into the SDB:  $100,000/50,000 to the Board and to its spin-off, the Stark County Port Authority (SCPA) which was created in 1995.

To the average citizen $100,000/50,000 is some serious change.  However, in terms of a serious commitment to competing on behalf of Stark Countians with nearby counties, other states and nationally for good paying jobs; it is - to say it again - laughable; even given Stark County's recent budgeting problems.

In last year's budget, the Port Authority got from Stark County?  Guess?  You'v got it - $0.

Does Stark County government's meager funding of economic development make any sense?

While the SCPR appreciates examining what is and the past so that Stark County does not repeat the mistakes of the past (which there are plenty of) through Citizens Review and a 20/20 look, that is where competing governments want Stark to be looking, while many of them are fully engaged in the future.

Medina County is beating the pants off Stark in its project to build a state of the art broadband infrastructure which in the 21st century is a highly attractive lure for entrepreneurial birth and company relocation (from outside Stark; not inside Stark like too many local governments are doing).

While he undoubtedly did in for political purposes, Stark County's lame duck auditor Kim Perez did a presentation on an opportunity that Stark has to get on board the broadband project at the Stark State College of Technology.

We will never know now, but would Perez have followed through as a Stark County proponent/sponsor of the CommunityOne opportunity?

Will his successor:  Alan Harold?  Will the commissioners?  Will the SDB?

Last Tuesday, the Stark's commissioners formed a variety of task forces in implementing a review of internal county operations (benchmarking, collaboration, et cetera).

But guess what kind of task force Summit County has created?

Will Stark County continue to spin its economic development wheels and march backwards in comparison to what nearby counties are doing?

That's the way it is beginning to look!!!

(VIDEO) SERIES: VOL 1 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN STARK CO. IS THE STARK DEVELOPMENT BOARD ENOUGH OF AN EFFORT?

Is the Stark Development Board, Inc. (SDB) enough of an economic development effort for Stark County?

Without a doubt, No!

As part of their inquiry into the fine details of the operation of Stark County government, the Stark commissioners have taken the refreshing step of exercising "due diligence" in terms of the effort and expenditures (taxpayer) made by Stark.  The implicit question that commissioners are asking:  is the county getting "the best bang for the Stark County taxpayer buck?"

While the SCPR believes that SDB's economic development effort is not a complete enough initiative, its CEO (Stephen Paquette) makes a persuasive case that "for what it does," the SDB is an asset for Stark County.

The SDB was created in 1985 by local business and community leaders as a non-profit corporation.  Its mission:

• to keep businesses in Stark County
• to help local companies expand, and
• to attract new companies and capital investment to Stark County

Paquette says that the "core programs" of the SDB include:

• business retention and expansion
• loan financing
• new business attraction
• real estate and site selection, and
• infrastructure development

Notice that neither the mission nor the core programs suggest that the SDB is involved in the development of competent and visionary Stark County leadership.

The absence of a leadership development component from the SDB agenda is a key reason why its mission and programs are inadequate to provide what Stark County needs for effective and productive economic development.

The SCPR has long advocated that Stark County has a critical need of what author Richard Florida (Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute and Professor of Business and Creativity at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto) of developing a "creative class."

The Report believes that Stark County leadership has sat on its collective duff and has done nothing to develop an innovative cadre of leadership types which can work hand-in-hand with the likes of the SDB to make Stark one of America's new examples what can be done when all types of infrastructure (facilities, roads, transportation, culture and the arts, education, workforce development, and of course, "dynamic leadership") are brought together under an umbrella structure of getting things done.

Right now Stark County only has fragments of economic development (some of it very good; much of it worthless) floating around the county.

The job of the commissioners is to recognize the haphazard way that Stark's economic development engine is put together and to push for the creation of an umbrella organization which has the sole function of bringing what parts exist in to confluence with one another and to add those elements which remain missing.  Moreover, once a full-blown economic development gestalt is in place, commissioners should provide monthly accountings to the Stark County public via the commissioners' work sessions by having the key players appear and report.

The SCPR has long been critical of the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce's  (Chamber) "Leadership Stark County."  From what The Report sees, its Government Leadership Academy and Signature Group are primarily credential building efforts which are not in any way, shape or form akin to creative leadership as formulated by Professor Florida.  The Chamber needs to take a new look at the format of its leadership programs and to build in an aspect that will generate "creative professionals" and and a "super-creative core" of 21st Century leaders.

A building block for what the SCPR envisions as the development of a meaningful and hopeful leadership model (i.e. to develop something along the lines of Florida's two-tiered creative class) is the work that has been done and which continues to make Stark County a new center of technological development.

In his presentation to commissioners (January 11, 2011 work session), CEO Paquette outlines (see the video at the end of this blog) progress made in giving Stark a technological footprint in describing the Rolls Royce (fuel cells), Kohler Coatings (high tech paper) and Timken (wind energy) project.  He does not specifically identify, but he tantalizes by saying that two more such projects are in the works.

Rolls Royce, Kohler Coatings and Timken are examples of future-looking companies that will attract young professionals to comes to Stark County.  But what will they find when the get here?

Will they find a Canton city government that fights over rehabbing a city that has wasted away over many decades and presents a largely unattractive physical plant look to visitors?

Will they find the small-minded thinking as evidenced by the effort to build a horse show arena at a dilapitated fairgrounds complex which also has been largely unattended to by successive fair boards?

Will they see a county in which there is fratricidal community infighting over existing business, manufacturing, and commerce in the context of annexation fights?

The SCPR can present many other such questions which should make it abundantly clear that if Stark does not get its act together to create a wholesome environment attractive to those who come to Stark to work for the likes of Rolls Royce, Kohler Coatings and Timken; the efforts of the Stark Development Board will have been in vain over the long haul.

EXAMPLE OF BANKRUPT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THINKING GOING ON IN STARK COUNTY THESE DAYS: HORSE SHOW AREA AT STARK COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS. HARMON & STARK DEVELOPMENT BOARD MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO SCORE BIG FOR STARK COUNTY

 

 UPDATE:  02/02/2010 - 09:00 AM

 

Dear Martin,

Thank you for finally stepping up to comment more on the proposed Expo center.

Unfortunately, even your asessment falls short of reality. Nothing of that nature survives without sound economics.

The economics of running a horse/livestock expo begin with the cost to operate it.

The figure Tom Harmon gave me a yr or so ago was $6,000/day to rent the facility.

PLEASE call ... or any other horse club mgmt person ... and ask how many of them can afford to rent a $6,000/day facility to put on a horse show.

Better yet, ask them what they are paying for the facilities they currently use and why they aren't using anything more modern/expensive/closer?

Never mind the other equally important factors such as the noise, odors, flies, trash, and OHHHH accelerated CRIME which accompanies facilities of this nature particularly when they are situated in walking distance to urban neighborhoods.

Ask ANYONE with a clue what happens at the Ohio State FG during large horse shows. The Oklahoma State FG has a horrendous problem with thefts and other crimes against exhibitors.

As I've mentioned before, the ingress and egress, parking, camping and so on for the type and amount of exhibitors they will need to make it profitable just do  not add up.

Furthermore, what does anyone involved in this project (Stk Dev. Bd, Commissioners) know about showing horses except Ms. Burick who is a participant in one of the smallest breeds (by registration no.s) of any in the US?

No modern horse show facility can survive with Morgan shows, Arabian shows, Paso Fino shows, Draft horse shows, or any other breed show w/o the support of AQHA (American Quarter Horse Assoc.) and APHA (American Paint Horse Assoc.) shows PLUS all the peripheral breed shows put together. This would include USEF (hunter, jumper, and dressage) shows.
 

 ORIGINAL POST

The SCPR does not oppose the building of what is essentially a horse show arena at the Stark County fairgrounds.  But it should be the last piece in the reconstruction of the Stark County fairgrounds; not the first.

Make no mistake about it.  This project, which the SCPR calls "the Burick Plan," because it came from Lake Township horse lover and attorney Elizabeth Burick; is essentially a parochial plan which will, if it is ever built, stand in glaring contrast to the antiquated, sorely in need of repair many, many buildings currently located on the fairgrounds, including the grandstand itself.

The "Burick Plan" has been gussied up with an impressive sounding Canton - Stark County Agricultural & Livestock Expo Arena title. Interesting, no?  Why not call it what it really is?  It is for horse shows; plain and simple. 

The embellishment took place likely because, maybe just maybe, anybody who knows anything about economic development might recognize from the title alone that the proposal is way, way too narrow to get the kind of public support it has gotten from public officials (i.e. the Stark County commissioners) who abdicated their responsiblities by uncritically taking the assessment of the Stark Development Board.

Commissioner Bosley did feebly attempt to vet Steve Paquette (a Stark Development Board official) at the commissioners weekly meeting last Wednesday, but he soon realized that Paquette was blowing him off with evasive answers and so it seemed to the SCPR that Bosley simply gave up.  Bosley has probably made his last stand as commissioner in terms of fighting for what he believes in as commissioner (e.g. fighting to keep the commissioners promise to split "imposed" sales/use tax revenues between 9-1-1 and the county general fund), and likely he is now going to be focusing on getting elected state representative for the 50th Ohio House district.

The most disturbing aspect of the Stark Development Board (SDB) getting squarely behind the Horse arena to the SCPR is that, in doing so, the SDB is sending a clear signal to all of Stark County how anemic it is and that Stark County is going nowhere anytime soon on the economic development front with this organization in charge.

Former commissioner Harmon correctly said, when he was still commissioner, that Stark County's largest economic asset is agriculture.  But Harmon demonstrated as commissioner and now as former commissioner that he is no visionary.  A possibility/potential thinker, which Harmon is not, would have taken this knowledge and put it work for the maximum benefit of Canton/Stark County. 

While Stark Countians are blessed that Harmon is no longer commissioner, you can bet that he will continue playing on his 30 or so years of political connections to influence the future direction of Canton and Stark County.  Tom Harmon does not have the creativeness, innovativeness and vision to arrogate such a role unto himself.

What Harmon should have done, while he was yet commissioner, was to convene a task force to come up with a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Stark County fairgrounds.  Undoubtedly, the thought never occurred to Harmon.  He is so used to thinking about his narrow political interests that to think community wide is totally alien to him.

We now know that Harmon was marking time as commissioner. All that talk in mid 2007 to the press  - when he was appointed commissioner by Stark Democrats -  about his ideas for Stark County was nothing more than political pablum!

STARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERIES: THE STARK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. - "AN ENIGMA WRAPPED IN A PUZZLE?"

The Stark Development Board, Incorporated ("SDB) - a non-profit corporation) has been open for business since May 13, 1985.

Now that Stark County is mired in the economic doldrums (probably more exaggerated than most of the rest of the country), the SCPR thinks it is time to do an in depth examination of entities like the SDB and learn whether or not they are difference makers.

With Canton at about 12% unemployment and the whole of Stark at about 11%, what are the economic and financial movers and shakers doing to shake Stark County out if its economic malaise at the very least or, perhaps, a sharp downturn.

In short, what is the "net effect" of the likes of the SDB.

In an off-hand way area government leaders say good things about the SDB. Asked about specifics, they seem to be devoid of concrete achievements.

Are these political leaders just being politically correct? The trustees Do the numbers tell a different stories?

The SCPR embarks on this series to get to the "heart of the matter." No political correctness here. Cutting right to the chase will be the SCPR's approach.

The trustees that ataff the pinnacle leadership of the SDB are among Stark's heavy hitters, to wit:
These trustees are used to holding others accountable. It is now time for everyday Stark Countians to hold them accountable.

Such will be the mission of the Stark County Political Report in ensuing days, weeks and months.

But the SDB will not be the only accountability target of the SCPR. The list will include every entity and person that has an impact or say in what happens with Stark County's economy.

These are critical times for Stark County and it is time to find out how Stark's movers and shakers are performing.

You can depend on the SCPR to dig deep for answers.