CANAL FULTON'S "BRIDGE TO NOWHERE?" OKAY, WOULD YOU BELIEVE "SEWER LINE TO NOWHERE?"

Is there a Sarah Palin among the members of the Canal Fulton City Council committee considering the expansion of sewer (and later, water) lines to the far reaches and, indeed, outside the city limits.

Remember, Palin of "bridge to nowhere fame" (the Gravina Island Bridge) who was for the bridge(a federal pork project) before she was against it but used the money as governor designatedf or the bridge for other state purposes.

Are we about to get the same thing from Canal Fulton City Council?

The SCPR has learned that a committee composed of Councilpersons Cihon, Downing and Moellendick are working with City Manager Mark Cozy, formerly a Plain Township administrator (Canal Fulton's version of Canton Director of Annexation Sam "Darth Vader to the Township" Sliman - by virtue of his aggressive annexation attitude) to be in a position to attract business and industry to Canal Fulton by having in place sewer and water to the outskirts of Canal Fulton and beyond (in Lawrence Township).

Councilperson Moellendick is said to have admitted in a meeting on July 14th that there is "no line of waiting businesses" to hook onto Canal Fulton's planned sewer/water infrastructure expansion.

What expansion is planned?

From Canal Fulton out to the intersection of Route 21 and Marshallville Road (extending some 3000 feet outside Canal Fulton proper) and out Portage Road.

The SCPR understands that Canal Fulton does not have the money on hand to finance the planned expansion. But the $800,000 to $1,000,000 project is to be paid for with federal stimulus money but with nearly $500,000 planned as city owed bond debt.

One resident has told the SCPR that he thinks it makes no sense at all to go into debt to build additional sewer/water infrastructure capacity that may never be used.

Another interesting thing that the SCPR has learned about Canal Fulton is that it has a "cost of living allowance" (COLA) escalation on sewer/water fees charged to city customers. Isn't that a new twist on on COLA. Maybe this revelation will inspire the rest of Stark County's political subdivisions to mimic Canal Fulton?

Interested in still more unusual tidbits about Canal Fulton government?

Here goes.

The SCPR understands that up to 70% of some city adminstrators salaries (including the city manager) are paid out of the Water/Sewer Department budget.

Isn't that interesting?

Another intriguing question has been posed by a Canal Fulton resident to the SCPR. Does the City Manager Cozy spending 70% of his time on water and sewer matters?

Here's still another Canal Fulton gem. City Manager Cozy does not mind working with uncertainly. As things stand now Canal Fulton is on the losing site of a lawsuit by Lawrence Township trustees over an annexation on Warwick Road (Canal Fulton Farms annexation - 32.76 acres) which Lawrence Township trustees contend will be "unannexed" if the courts decide that a connecting railroad line is a "property owner" and needed to "consent" for a valid annexation to have occurred.

Here's a sample of what Cozy had to say to The Massillon Independent reporter Amy Knapp (Canal Fulton still standing behind annexation, July 14).

“As far as the annexation being nullified, it hasn’t happened yet, The way it is going on right now could go on for years. All the while, the city is providing services ...
The city is making the investment in the property we annexed. We have spent more money on that property in one year than the township ever did. There are a lot of questions and a lot of issues but all the while the property is in the city. We are not going to stop making investments.”

Cozy seems awfully confident of ultimate victory. Isn't this risky in the sense that it Canal Fulton could lose in the end and it is out it's costs of providing services and its investment dollars?

With that annexation, the school district was relieved of its payment toward a waterline that was brought in by the city to service the schools. The district paid the city an estimated $60,000 in annual fees plus two and a half times the water rate.

With the annexation, the district can save nearly $73,000 a year.The annexation also allowed the city to collect a 1.5 percent income tax from Northwest employees. City officials estimate it will raise as much as $165,000 a year. (As reported by Amy Knapp, The Independent, July 13, Lawrence trustees think they've won annexation fight

Trustee Hargrove (Lawrence Township) was a little more pointed on the possible consequences to Canal Fulton if they lose. He said to Kapp:

“Will they [Canal Fulton] have to give that money back[?]!

Yet another goodie.

This is an "outfoxing oneself caper perpetuated by Canal Fulton city government.

Yours truly could scarcely believe what his ears were hearing as a resident unfolded the tale of Canal Fulton creating a "paper township" thinking it was going to get in the neighborhood of $55,000 (confirming: Canal Fulton officials discuss eliminating paper township, Knapp, The Independent, 02/17/2009 in was is known as "inside millage" money. So, Canal Fulton went ahead and did the paper thing.

Well, it didn't work. The law of Ohio prohibited both Milan Township (Canal Fulton's "paper" township and Lawrence Township from collecting the money. So the geniuses of Canal Fulton city government cost the taxpayers about $115,000 a year (when calculating the lost funds and the "make up" funds from the city budget) until Milan Township can get dissolved which will then enable Lawrence Township to collect the money and get back to square one with the city in a cooperative arrangement that was in place before someone in Canal Fulton had a "brainstorm."

Before Canal Fulton created the "sort of fictional township," the SCPR is told that Lawrence Township collected the money and spent most if not all of it on road maintenance for Canal Fulton.

All these Canal Fulton revelations bring these questions to the mind of yours truly:

Are the citizens of Canal Fulton exercising oversight over the doings of the Canal Fulton administration and City Council? Are taxpayer dollars being put to their most needed and efficient use?

Are City Manager Mark Cozy and council members really for sewer/water line expansions at the tune of $800,000 to $1,000,000 with no buyers in sight?

Is this Stark County's version of pork (stimulus money) and - even worse - going into debt unwisely?

Maybe the "Sarahs" of Canal Fulton might want to rethink all this? Perhaps they will mimic her and turn out to be - in the end - against this "porkish" project when it hits the "light of day" after having been for it?

And maybe the voters of Canal Fulton ought to be thinking about electing smarter people to run their government!

WOULD THE POLITICAL RESURRECTION OF JANET CREIGHTON HELP STARK COUNTY?

Repository Executive Editor Jeff Gauger wrote an intriguing piece on former Canton Mayor Janet Creighton's possible return to Stark County political life. (reference: Creighton looks ahead

Not that Gauger offered any meaningful political insight insight on what a Creighton might or might not mean for the future well-being of Stark County.

Gauger is not a political writer and it shows in this piece.

He is first and foremost a newspaper administrator who has likely reached the zenith of his administrative career being EE at The Rep.

But the topic (Creighton's political future in Canton/Stark County) is an important one for Stark Countians to ponder. The past could have been left alone except for the anecdote about the "chance" meeting with Healy at WHBC.

Why?

Because her loss to Healy will drive Creighton to seek Canton/Stark County based political redemption in some way or fashion within the next two years.

You can be sure that there are a number of Stark Democratic elected officials who are shaking in their boots.

Who might that be?

Todd Bosley, Kim Perez and John Boccieri, that's who.

Why not Healy?

Healy is finished as a viable politician in Stark County, unless, of course, Slesnick wants to give up his Ohio House seat. Any Democrat wins the 52nd Ohio House seat. Even Healy.

Sure Creighton could become mayor again, even if Healy runs again - and easily. And the SCPR thinks Healy will run again unless certain circumstances unfold that would make It impossible for him. But don't look for that to happen. Healy is the envy of all of those "9 lives cats" that we all talk about.

But does she want to be mayor again?

Why should she? Healy will have totally wrecked Canton by the time the race comes up again. So, with Canton in a deeper hole than it was when Creighton was elected mayor, what would make her think she could be a difference maker and second time around?

She did have her picture taken with GOP gubernatorial hopeful John Kasich at this year's annual Stark County Republican Party McKinley event.

Why bring that up?

Think she going to be Kasich's running mate?

Could be, but not likely. There is another reason. A more Canton-esque reason.

Don't you folks remember?

When Creighton ran against Bill Smuckler her coup-de-gras and probably the difference in her narrow win over Smuckler was "special" relationship with Republican controlled state government and Governor Bob Taft, in particular.

She was going to tap into state government resources to help get Canton out of its economic swoon. Remember, now?

She won and Canton continued its downward trek and the state Republicans had their own problems and were unable to bail Creighton out.

If anything, Janet Creighton is a savvy politico and the SCPR believes she will pass on running for mayor again because of the impossibility of "turning - Canton - around" (thank you Governor Strickland) anytime soon.

Well, how about running against Bosley?

Not a chance!

Creighton is used to running her own show. She would go bonkers having to work with the likes of Tom Harmon and Pete Ferguson.

It's all Bosley can do to abide those two and he used to working with hangers-on (reference: his stint as Nimishillen Township trustee).

Janet is way too smart to get caught in the mire of commissioner politics (two Democrats at that).

Okay, okay. There is county auditor Kim Perez, right?

Maybe. When Creighton was county auditor, she was the the power of the Stark County Political Party. All, then chairman, Curt Braden had to do was follow orders from Janet.

She controlled a lot of political patronage during her stint as auditor and she used it to groom future Stark County Republican leadership. Stark County Democratic Party chairman (at the time) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr drooled at the thought of getting control of this office.

Kim Perez had done his best to emulate Creighton, but tax dollars are hard to come by these days and, accordingly, he is no match for the Creighton "auditor's-office-based-political-machine."

Sorry about that Kim!

In the Creighton days, the county actually had money to fund all those public salaries to stable the future of the Stark County GOP.

In the judgment of the SCPR, the auditor's office is the best place for Creighton IF she has any inclination at all to help the Stark County Republican Party out of its political morass.

If she doesn't and merely wants to finish her political career on a high note, then, perhaps she should consider running against Democrat Congressman John Boccieri.

Whoa, Martin. You have to be kidding!

Boccieri is methodically going about creating a political machine, the likes of which Stark County has not seen in modern political times.

This guy puts out press releases like he's handing out penny candy along a parade route. And all that "stimulus money" with more reportedly to come, how would Creighton compete with that? And do you think the Democratic National Congressional Campaign Committee is going to sit idly by and let the Republicans take back a seat that the Dems have only help two years over a life span seemingly forever?

I know, I know.

It would be tough.

But Creighton is probably the Republicans' only hope to take Boccieri out. Chances are great. With Kirk Schuring telling the SCPR as soon ago as Friday (the 17th) that Republicans who most people in the 16th have never heard of are "testing" the waters about opposing Boccieri, prospects are not real good for the GOP to take back the Regula seat.

If the Republicans don't take on Boccieri now and wrestle the seat back, the 16th is going to be a Democratic seat for long time to come - unless, of course, Boccieri does himself in a la some infamous congressmen have amply demonstrated is possible.

If Creighton were to take Boccieri on, it would be the fight of her political life.

Lose: "good try Janet," people would say.

Win: "what a political redemption!" She would be a national headliner. This time she would go to Washington - not as a refugee from the political storms.

But as a triumphant political overcomer!

IS OHIO'S GOVERNMENT LOOKING TO GET ITS HAND ON PUBLIC PENSION FUNDS? WILL THE STARK COUNTY DELEGATION FIGHT TO PROTECT PUBLIC PENSIONS?

The Stark County Political Report remembers when ENRON went belly up (2000/2001) and cost members of the Ohio State Teachers Retirement System $56.6 million. PERS lost $58.8 million.

One of the guardians of STRS and PERS was supposed to be state Senator Kirk Schuring (R - Jackson). At least that's what the SCPR thinks. Schuring gets very angry (which is rare for him), when yours truly makes this allegation.

Why does the SCPR assign Schuring the guardian role during the time the ENRON fiasco unfolded?

Because Senator Schuring was president of the Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC) at the time. And the SCPR believes the ORC failed many of Ohio's retired public employees in neglecting to uphold its obligations spelled out in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 717.

Now Schuring is vice chairman of the ORSC.

One has to wonder whether or not a repeat of ENRON is in the offing for Ohio's public employee retirees? If not, what has been done to prevent a repeat?

It would be reassuring for Ohio's public to hear from Senator Schuring that ORSC security is improved.

In 2009, it is not the private sector that bears watching. Now it is Ohio's government.

Governor Ted Strickland is desperate to have the money to keep Ohio going. Until the state budget god tight, Strickland was against expanding gambling in Ohio. But just days ago he signed an executive order command the Ohio Lottery Commission to begin installing slots at Ohio's racetracks.

Now comes word that he and the Ohio General Assembly took at look at "borrowing" money from PERS (Ohio's Public Employess Retirement System).

Although STRS (the State Teachers Retirement System) was not being eyed by the governor, his look at PERS was not lost on STRS:

Here is a few excepts from an e-mail that STRS sent out:

OPERS CONTRIBUTION REDUCTION PROPOSED TO HELP STATE BUDGET
On June 19, 2009, Gov. Ted Strickland proposed that the state's contribution to public employees' pensions be reduced from 14 percent to 8 percent for two years, with a payback to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) to occur over the subsequent 10 years. This proposal was made as a way to help balance the state's budget.

...

While STRS Ohio and the other public pension systems in the state were not included in the proposal, the executive directors of STRS Ohio, School Employees Retirement System (SERS) and the Highway Patrol Retirement System sent a joint letter to the governor and the members of the Ohio General Assembly also voicing their opposition.

...

The proposal was eventually rejected by lawmakers and was not part of the state's final budget. Going forward, all the systems will need to be vigilant to ensure such proposals do not surface again.

How much would the proposed raid on PERS brought the governor in his frantic search for dollars?

Here is what Akron Beacon Journal Statehouse reporter Dennis Williard has to say (Scrutiny missing in state budget, July 19):

... Strickland's proposal to reduce the state's contribution to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ... would have been a $250 million raid on the pension plan.

The SCPR believes Stark's public employees should heed STRS's warning. The questions that Stark County's public employees should be asking themselves should include:

"Do I want my pension fund to be making a ten year loan to the state of Ohio?

And, if not: "Can I trust my legislator to stop this from happening?"

Now that we know he uses The Repository opinion pages to explain his votes; perhaps, the good Senator Schuring would explain why public employment retirees have no worries about the security of their pension. Seeing as he is an expert of sorts on protecting public employees pension dollars.

And for good measure, maybe Oelslager, Slesnick, Okey, Snitchler and Schiavoni will chime in?

TRACKING OUR LEGISLATORS SERIES: SCHURING (R-29TH) "NO" ON BUDGET BILL, OELSLAGER (R-51ST) "YES" /SIDES WITH STRICKLAND, INTERESTING, NO?

State Senator Kirk Schuring acts like a small letter "d" democrat in voting no on the next two year budget bill whereas Governor Ted Strickland was for denying the people a vote on the matter of whether or not Ohio is to have slots at racetracks.

Interesting indeed.

In an Op-ed (The Repository, July 17th, Kirk Schuring: Why I voted no on state budget), Schuring recognizes that Ohioans and Stark Countians have voted consistently by substantial margins not to allow expanded gambling in Ohio and believes that voting Ohioans should have the final say.

Not only do Ohioans/Stark Countians not get to vote on the "slots at racetracks," the Strickland administration insisted on cover from legal challenge (except in the "discretionary jurisdiction of the Ohio Supreme Court)

Stark County voters by the 2010 election should be getting a better take on Strickland. In 2006, he was the "aw-shucks" guy from Duck Run, Ohio who seemed "as innocent as a lamb"

But Strickland is proving he is not the open, accessible, democratic person his handlers have endeavored to project.

Schuring is more open, accessible and democratic that Ted Strickland.

It is hard to believe, but that clearly seems to be the case.

Strickland is in for a much tougher time in 2010. Why is that?

Because Ohioans are becoming more and more aware that he is not the man the public relations types successfully created in the 2006 election.

Oleslager?

Kind of spineless if you ask yours truly.

From The Rep's Robert Wang account of why Oelslager (Oelslager breakes with Republicans, July 14) says voted sort of with Strickland:

Oelslager said he opposed the governor’s plan to install slot machines at race tracks. He said the issue should have been placed on the ballot, but he noted that the bill was a package deal and that he could accept all of it or none of it.

Run for political cover Scott!

TRACKING OUR LEGISLATORS SERIES - BOCCIERI LACKS POLITICAL MATURITY?

The SCPR used to be on Congressman John Boccieri's "press release" list. Apparently that was until The Report wrote a piece depicting Bocceri as a "flip-flopper" on cap-and-trade legislation.

Communications Director Jessica Kershaw called yours truly and audaciously attempted to scold because the SCPR did not initially go into a lot of detail (as provided by the Boccieri press office) why Boccieri flip-flopped. The premise of the scolding from the SCPR's perspective was that somehow The Report has an obligation to be public relations arm for the Boccieri message.

The basis of the SCPR story was that Boccieri changed from "looking Obama in the eye and telling him he wouldn't vote for cap-and-trade" to - in the end - voting for it.

The SCPR never believed and still doesn't that Boccieri would vote against any legislation that was crucial to the Obama administration.

Now Boccieri seems to have instructed his communications director (Kershaw) to "punish" the SCPR for not writing a public relations (PR) piece for him as The Repository, The Massillon Independent and The Alliance Review did and will undoubtedly continue to do off the press releases he sends them.

To the SCPR, press releases are for background and informational purposes only. If the SCPR uses material from a press release, readers are clearly informed of such.

Now that yours truly has seen the releases (at least in the past) and Boccieri pieces that appear in Stark County's major three newspapers, it obvious to yours truly that the newspapers' dutifully pump out Boccieri propaganda laced - err - public relations-esque articles.

The SCPR doesn't know for sure at this point if punishment is being meted out, but no Boccieri releases have been forthcoming since the SCPR cap-and-trade critical analysis piece and therefore it is likely that yours truly is being "sat in the corner" by Congressman Boccieri.

If such is the case, it shows how utterly politically immature John Boccieri and his staff are.

Hell will freeze over before the SCPR capitulates to Boccieri or any other elected and/or public official/figure who holds out conditional "carrots" as a way to force favorable coverage.

The SCPR may be the only Stark County publication that is not in the Boccieri spin zone.

Readers can be sure that the SCPR will assess and analyze the man who says is a "Congressman on Your Corner."

But is he?

SNITCHLER'S REAL FIGHT - TO RETAIN HIS SEAT IN 2010 (err 2012) - MAY NOT BE WITH THE DEMOCRATS AT ALL. IS JOHN HAGAN ON THE "COMEBACK" TRAIL?

UPDATE: JULY 19, 2009

MIKE WRITES THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:

Mike has left a new comment on your post "SNITCHLER'S REAL FIGHT - TO RETAIN HIS SEAT IN 201...":

Since Hagan is term limited out, he can't run for eight years. At that point, Rep. Snitchler would be rotating out of the seat also. It will be impossible for Hagan to ever run against Snitchler. He's just running for township trustee because he needs the health insurance.

SCPR RESPONSE:

Mike raises a good point on the "break" required before a former "term limited out" legislator and run again FOR THE SAME OFFICE, but he has the wrong period of time.

It is 4 years rather than 8. See the actual Ohio constitutional provision in the graphic to the below:

The question becomes: will Hagan run against Snitchler in 2012 on the premise he will biding his time as Marlboro Township trustee?

Here is the constitutional provision:




ORIGINAL POST:

It appears that former Ohio representative John P. Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) is on the political comeback trail. He has taken out a petition to run for Marlboro Township trustee.If things had gone well for Trustees Tim Wise (Democrat) and Dave Wolf (Republican) who were elected in 2006, then Hagan may have thought twice about embarking on a political comback.

But they didn't. Wise and Wolf got themselves embroiled in a fight with Marlboro Police Chief Ron Devies and lost. Now both are likely unelectable in Marlboro Township. The word is that Wolf won't even try. However, Wise is likely to actually file and run. So Hagan has to figure he is an odds on favorite to win one of the two seats up in November this year.

If Hagan loses in Marlboro, he is finished politically in Stark County.

So, John Hagan is taking some political risk in running for trustee. Marlboro trustee is a post he held for a number of years before being elected Ohio House representative - the 50th - in 2000. He went on to serve 8 years in the Ohio House before being term limited out.

Was he done?

No, he "persuaded" his college student daughter to run in the Republican primary to succeed him. Only problem was that Republican Todd Snitchler was the "heir apparent" anointed by then Stark Republican chairman Curt Braden.

Columbus Republicans worked vigorously to get Chistina Hagan to drop out of the race. Christina made statements to local media that the Ohio Republican Party promised her a job if she would step aside and pave the way for Snitchler.

But she wouldn't and a blood feud ensued between the Hagans and Snitchler. How bitter was the fight. When Christina lost to Snitchler in the primary, the Hagan supported Democrat Celeste DeHoff in the general election.

For himself, Hagan - like so many politicians - couldn't see life continuing outside the public sector. So, he ran for a open county commissioner seat.

Surprisingly, to nearly all but the SCPR, is lost in a race against Democrat Pete Ferguson to be the county commissioner to replace Republican Jane Vignos who retired.

The SCPR believes that Hagan can only win in a district like the 50th where there is a lopsided Republican registration plurality. Accordingly, it was no surprise to yours truly when he lost handily to political novice Ferguson countywide (which now leans Democratic).

The amusing thing about the Hagan/Ferguson race is that "political insiders" were openly talking about who was the laziest candidate between Hagan and Ferguson.

The SCPR believes that should Hagan win in Marlboro (which is highly likely), the will then begin to zero in on Todd Snitchler for Hagan/Snitchler Round II.

Hagan himself could be highly troublesome to Snitchler. However, Snitchler is one of the few good things going for the Stark County Republican Party. Accordingly, he probably is best described as the "darling" of the Stark GOP.

He was selected to be the emcee at the annual Stark Republican McKinley event recently.

Ironically, "the darling local party" role might be one many Stark political observers believed Hagan to hold at one time.

After it is all said and done, the SCPR thinks Hagan will give Hagan/Snitchler Round II a go. But he likely to loss and when the political realities settle in he will settle into being Marlboro trustee for the rest of his political life.

THE HAMMER IS ABOUT TO FALL IN THE FRUSTACI INVESTIGATION - WHO & HOW MANY WILL BE INDICTED?

UPDATE: JULY 16, 2009 AT 4:30 PM

The SCPR has new information which suggests that the number of indictments will more likely be on the low side of the estimates in the original piece below. Right now the SCPR believes the indictments will most likely be two in number and that the end of July is probably too early to expect indictments to be handed down.

The SCPR will update this blog as more information is forthcoming.

ORIGINAL BLOG


The Stark County Political Report (SCPR/The Report) has learned that as many as seven indictments may be coming down in the investigation of the Stark County Treasurer's office and the reported loss of $2 to 3 million in taxpayer funds.

County treasurer Gary Zeigler fired his chief deputy Vince Frustaci alleging that Frustaci pilfered the money. The firing occurred on April 1, 2009.

The SCPR has two primary sources on the question of who and how many Stark Countians will be indicted as a consequence of an investigation being conducted by the FBI.

One source says seven people will likely be indicted, but could not definitely say that all seven would be Stark Countians.

The other SCPR source says that seven is too high.

But both agree that indictments could be forthcoming soon. Perhaps, by the end of July.

The SCPR believes that one of the persons to be indicted will be Frustaci and that another highly likely indictment will be of a high ranking Stark County bank official who allegedly facilitated the theft.

The bill is in on Ohio auditor Mary Taylor's forensic audit of the Stark County treasury in light of the FBI investigation and it will total $150,000.

This $150,000 coupled with the likely $100,000 deductible that the county will likely pay on the reported settlement of the Hope Steffy case is not exactly news that Stark County taxpayers want to hear.