OELSLAGER "TRASHES" (AKA "FILE 13") CANTON'S PLEA FOR FINANCIAL HELP."

AND

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SET TO DEFUND NEARLY $3 MILLION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MONEY FOR CANTON?

VIDEOS

(ENCORE)

Council President Schulman

on

Draconian State Local Gov't Funding Cuts

----------

Prospect of Federal Gov't Cuts

of

Community Development Monies

for

2018

---------

Council President Schulman

Councilman Bill Smuckler

Call to Action

More than four years ago (April, 2013) Canton City Council president Allen Schulman pled with then-Stark County-based members of the Ohio General Assembly (Oelslager, Schuring, Hagan [all Republicans] and Democrat Slesnick) to do something to help Canton avert a fiscal crisis.



By April, 2013, draconian State of Ohio local government funding cuts were in full swing as imposed on local governments across Ohio, including, of course, Stark County, by Republican governor John Kasich working in concert with the supermajority Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly.

At last night's Canton City Council meeting, The Stark County Political Report learned of two new developments that will aggravate Canton's and likely other Ohio municipalities' financial stress.

First:

On June 26 of this year, Canton treasurer Kim Perez wrote Stark County's Scott Oelslager who represents virtually all of Stark County in the Ohio General Assembly asking him from his perch as chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee to remove "detrimental to city finances" language from the-then pending approval biennial Ohio Budget (HB 49).

Here is a Ohio Municipal League (OML) detailed explanation of the reasons why centralized collection is not a good idea in that its inclusion in HB 49 will cause a further deterioration in city finances across Ohio and erode city's constitutionally provided for Home Rule.



Back in 2013, when Shulman meet with "a small group of legislators," Scott Oelslager was not among them.

He sent word back that he was "too busy."

Apparently, he is still "too busy."  For it appears that he trash-canned Perez's and totally disrespected Canton government in not making any responses whatsoever to Perez's letter.

According to Chief Deputy Treasurer Mike McEnaney (last night), Oelslager has not responded to the Perez plea.

One would think that out of respect for a Stark County local government elected official, Oelslager would have responded with an "I disagree with you and the Ohio Municipal League"  and "here are my reasons why."

To the SCPR, such a show of disrespect and unaccountability is sufficient reason why nary a single Cantonian or voter of any other of Stark County's local government cities and villages affected by the centralized collection legislation would vote for Oelslager should he decide to play yet another version of musical chairs in which he and fellow Republican Kirk Schuring switch seats (from the Senate to the House and vice versa) every eight years in an "in your face" to Ohio's term limits for state legislators.

Oelslager is a "years and years ago" former aide to former, recently deceased (July, 19th), Congressman Ralph Regula.

The word on the street is that Oelslager became persona non grata on the Regula staff because he became too pushy in urging Regula to retire so that he could be in a position to succeed him.

Though he seemingly has a constant "politician's smile," Oelslager appears to be in reality an arrogant guy.

No matter that Oelslager undoubtedly does some good for Stark County, voters should be highly wary of a "I'm too busy" to deal with you type of politician that "comfortable in Columbus, but not in my district" seems to increasingly apply to.

Second:

The above graphic is a copy of a caption of legislation passed by Canton City Council last night.

And here is a SCPR videotaped of last night's discussion 

• featuring:
• Mayor Bernabei, 
• Deputy Mayor Williams, 
• Ward 4 Councilwoman Chris Smith [Community & Economic Development chair],
• Councilman John Mariol [Finance Committee chair], 
• Council president Allen Schulman, and
• Councilman at Large Bill Smuckler) 

between the administration and council members about the prospect that this funding stream for community development is expected to be coming to an end next fiscal year (January 1, 2018—December 31, 2018).



Here is what the National Community Development Association have to say about the impending cuts:

FY18

We're hearing the President's FY18 final budget will be released on May 18. OMB Director Mick Mulvaney recently stated that the final budget will include $200 billion for new infrastructure spending. While NCDA has advocated for a portion of any large scale infrastructure package to be funneled through CDBG, we have argued that it can not come at the expense of the regular appropriated funds for CDBG. Trump has zeroed out CDBG in his FY18 budget. A one-time investment in infrastructure can not come at the expense of ongoing CDBG program funding. NCDA and the CDBG Coalition will continue to push for $3.3 billion for CDBG (and $1.2 billion for HOME) in the FY18 HUD spending bill and we urge our members to continue to do the same.

Thanks for all of your outreach to your Congressional Members.

Call Congress on April 26

Join the Campaign for Housing and Community Development Funding (CHCDF), of which NCDA is a member, on April 26 for a national call-in day to Congress, urging quick passage of the FY17 spending bills and full funding of HUD's programs, including $3.0 for CDBG and $950 million for HOME.

Call the Congressional switchboard toll free at 202-224-3121.

Thanks,
Vicki

Deputy Mayor Fonda added this in an e-mail response to SCPR follow up questions:

Mr. Olson,

The federal funds that may be cut are CDBG funds, HOME funds, and ESG funds


Programs that could be affected are; Housing rehab,public and social support, summer youth activities,demolition, furnace program, clothing assistance for youth, etc.

Next up is a "call for action" in contacting the likes of Gibbs, Brown and Portman to stop any idea of cutting Canton's community and economic development funds.



So it is not only the state government that has and continues to deliver financial blows to Canton and indeed all of Ohio's urban areas, but, now, it appears, that the federal government is set to follow suit.

As with Oelslager from the State of Ohio perspective, one has to ask whether or not 7th District (which includes Canton) congressman Bob Gibbs (Republican) and Senators Sherrod Brown (Democrat) and Rob Portman (Republican) are going to allow the defunding to actually occur?

As in Ohio, Republicans control the legislative and executive branches of government.

Is Canton and Stark County other urban areas in for a new level of government defunding?

Is there a Republican war on America's and Ohio's cities underway?

(VIDEOS) CAN CANTON COUNCIL OVERRIDE HEALY VETO?

UPDATE:  09:10 AM

A RESPONSE FROM COUNCILMAN KEVIN FISHER

TAX CREDIT

        Kevin Fisher
        Today at 8:50 AM

To  Martin Olson

Martin,
 
Regarding the vote to repeal the reduced tax credit and today's blog post, I wanted to give you a quick explanation of my vote. This was a tough vote for me, but in the end Mayor Healy stopped by my house with Coach McDaniels and the ghost of Marion Motley and convinced me that any good Bulldog would vote against the ordinance. Later we all sang the McKinley Alma Mater...a good time was had by all!!!

Seriously, It really was a difficult decision for me. I voted against the reduction of the credit in 2012 and continue to have concerns of its impact on construction workers and tradesmen, who routinely work a short amount of time in multiple jurisdictions in the course of a single tax year. This repeal measure, however, I felt was incomplete and failed to address several key issues...primarily, the lack of identifying where the subsequent cuts in spending would come from or creating replacement revenue in coming tax years. The city recently hired 35 safety officers...the cost of which will increase by nearly half a million dollars simply by going from first year to second year employees in 2015. The relocation of the Timken Research facility to the Airport will cost the city another half a million dollars. The impending passage of HB5 in the General Assembly will take yet another $750,000 from the city's General Fund (according to our Treasurer's Office estimate). This would have reduced that revenue by another estimated $400k per year. I have asked for weeks, including during the committee hearing for an accounting of how the revenue would be replaced or spending cuts would be made, and have yet to see said accounting. I felt, that as a member of the Finance Committee, this was the only responsible vote I could cast at this time.

I hope this answers any question you may have...and as always GO PUPS!!! 

Kevin L. Fisher
Canton City Council - Ward 5
(330)-489-3223
(330)-412-4681
kevin.fisher@cantonohio.gov 

ORIGINAL BLOG

Last night Canton mayor William J. Healy, II reacted swiftly to Canton City Council's 7 to 5 vote to restore the income tax credit of Cantonians who work out-of-town to a full 2%.  The vote was a reversal of a July 30, 2012 vote instituting a .3% reduction (LINK).

He address his promise to veto the ordinance in the following video.   (SCPR Note:  Healy also responds to a Councilman Bill Smuckler claim that he has gone on a spending spree in the five [5] months that Smuckler has returned to council after being off for two [2] years)



And here are the mayor's remarks during the pre-vote debate in which he argues for a delay on the vote.



The full text of the Healy administration press release in which Mayor Healy explains why he will veto Council's vote last night appears at the end of this blog.

Other players in the fight last evening included what the Stark County Political Report thinks are folks who may be interested in challenging Healy's right to continue on as mayor beyond December 31, 2015.

It will take eight (8) councilpersons votes to override Healy's promised veto.

Here is the actual vote from last night on Ordinance 24.

• Morris, YES
• Smith, NO
• Babcock, YES
• Smuckler, YES
• Hart, YES
• Hawk, YES
• West, NO
• Griffith, NO
• Fisher, NO
• Dougherty, NO
• Mariol, YES
• Mack, YES

To the SCPR, the key person as to whether or not the mayor's expected veto can be overriden is Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher (a Democrat).

Kevin is very tight with Treasurer Perez (having worked for Perez when he was Stark County auditor).

However,  he - in the opinion of the SCPR - is one among the group of young (except, maybe Ward 9 councilman and majority leader Frank Morris) councilpersons that The Report has dubbed as being "the four young turks" (LINK to blog, August, 2012) that is most likely to depart from the turk-group "more or less, coalition" and side up with Mayor Healy in the tug-o-wars that materialize from time to time between the administration and a substantial part of council.

Some say that Kevin's susceptibility to siding with Healy is due to a relationship that has developed between the two on the basis of being Canton McKinley Bulldog fans who can be seen together on the sidelines of a Bulldog home football game.

But others say that such conjecture is balderdash.  Kevin is a fiercely independent councilman and on the income tax credit issue was voting his perception of being the interests of his Ward 5 constituents.

Whichever is the correct take on Fisher, as the SCPR sees it, he is the one possibility for council to override the forthcoming Healy veto.

Below (in this blog) Kim Perez, Canton's recently elected (November, 2013) city treasurer expounds his position the tax issue.

Perez denies to the SCPR that he has gotten active in substantive (meaning policy issues) matters affecting Canton government operations as a build up to running against Healy in the May, 2015 Democratic Party primary election.

Healy, The Report thinks, gets somewhat dismissive of Perez on policy matters (at least to the SCPR) by describing him as being Canton's tax collector.

Here is what Perez had to say about eliminating the tax credit reduction.



Another player is long term councilman Bill Smuckler who recently took a two year break from council in order to run (unsuccessfully) for Stark County commissioner.

He lashed out at Mayor Healy in last evenings pre-eliminate-the-income-tax-credit vote for (since Smuckler has come back on council [which stands at five [5] months now) having hired new employees and giving pay raises all the while "crying the blues" about Canton's fiscal condition in the face of State of Ohio revenue cuts.



Of course, some think that Smuckler's attack on Healy is because he also has designs on the mayor's office.  He defeated Healy in the 2003 Democratic primary for the right to run (in a losing effort) against Republican Janet Creighton.  In 2011 he lost to Healy in the Democratic mayoralty primary.  So a 2015 run would be "the rubber match" to break the tie of one election victory for each.

So around and around the wheel goes and where it stops will be at the seat of  Councilman Kevin Fisher.

Fisher, the SCPR thinks, will decide whether or not the Healy veto gets sustained or overridden.

Mayor Healy's press release:

CANTON, Ohio - Mayor William Healy announced he will VETO the ordinance to increase the income tax credit to 100% if passed by council.

"As mayor of Canton, I have taken an oath to protect the citizens of Canton," stated Mayor Healy. "Therefore, any proposal which would affect hundreds of thousands of dollars and potentially impact essential safety and community services can only be considered after careful scrutiny and analysis."

Healy believes it would be fiscally irresponsible to support this tax proposal ordinance at this point in time when the basic facts related to the proposal have not been provided. Supporters of this legislation have not presented any financial information as to the economic impact this will have on our city.  In addition, there is no indication how the city should offset this revenue stream or identify which services would have to be cut to enrich a select few who would benefit from this proposal.

Mayor Healy's concerns are as follows:

1.    What is the amount of the reduction to our general fund and capital funds?

The City of Canton has lost over $6 million annually as a direct result of the Governor and State Legislature's reduction in funding local governments, including the cuts from local government funds, eliminating the inheritance tax and the tangible personal property tax over the past several years.

The tax credit for Canton residents working in another city was reduced from 100% to 85% to generate revenue to help offset some of those state cuts. The prior City Treasurer conservatively estimated this to be a $400,000 annual impact to the general fund based on our 2012 finances.

These state cuts have had a negative impact on communities across Ohio including every city in Stark County. Currently, Canton, Massillon, Alliance, Louisville and Canal Fulton all have tax credits of less than 100%, while North Canton is in the process of reducing theirs.

2.    What services will be reduced, neglected or left insufficiently funded?

There has not been one serious discussion as to what services will be negatively impacted due to the reduction of revenue this ordinance will create. The citizens of Canton must be informed about what services would be cut to offset this lost revenue. Generally, when a cut of this magnitude is enacted, it means a reduction in workforce including police and firefighters, which use two-thirds of every dollar we spend from the general fund.

Citizens are asking for more police, firefighters, paving of streets, additional pot holes filled, and many other requests that all are paid from the general fund or capital accounts. City Council has also asked for more police and firefighters, more street paving, and even recently requested for the city to hire a Grant Writer, an Animal Control officer, and now a Nuisance Officer. These requests for increased spending have come at the very same time the city is being asked to reduce revenues. Mayor Healy states, "This is a clear contradiction. You cannot increase spending while reducing revenue. It just doesn't work."

3.    Who will be impacted by this ordinance?

This ordinance is a tax cut for a targeted few who would be paying absolutely nothing in taxes to the city of Canton if this goes into effect. For example: If your neighbor works in Akron while you work in Canton, your neighbor contributes nothing towards our taxes while you subsidize every city service they receive. Every resident of Canton uses the same city roads you use, depends on the same police and fire protection you do, and benefits from the same street lighting that comes on every night to make your neighborhood safe. Yet, this ordinance would allow a select few of our city residents to completely avoid paying any taxes to the city of Canton.

However, the services that will be negatively impacted directly benefit all of our citizens. The passing of this ordinance will disproportionately harm seniors on fixed incomes and low income residents. These families will receive little or no tax savings from the passing of this ordinance, yet they could potentially lose essential safety services and community funds necessary to the vitality of their neighborhoods. Or worse, the only other option to avoid reducing services is to increase income or property taxes for everyone. This would disproportionately impact seniors and low income households.

4.    Mayor Healy does not believe this is the right time to reduce taxes to our General Fund.

The mayor presented a complete and comprehensive financial update to Canton citizens on April 8, 2014 when he delivered his State of the City Address. Below is an excerpt from the state of the city delivered April 8, 2014:

"...The city of Canton is experiencing our strongest financial position we have seen in over a decade! Now please don't mistake this for us rolling in cash or having the ability to spend at will, because that is certainly not the case..." and followed it up with,

"...There are still some areas of concern, as our general fund cash flow is significantly lower than it was before the recession..."

"As we all know, the reason we are still millions of dollars below our pre-recession revenues is due soley to reduction of local support by State Government," Healy commented, "and, there is current legislation in committee (HB 5) that could negatively impact our city by even more.  The threat of greater reductions by our Governor and State Legislature to the local communities is still out there, and the financial impact is uncertain."