UPDATE 2: A reader of the SCPR asked whether or not Stephen Mears had contributed to Janet Creighton's campaign. The Report has learned that Mears did make a personal contribution in 2003 of $100.
UPDATE: 3/17/2009 AT 10:10 A.M - STRATEGY ONE RESPONDS TO HERMAN STATEMENT
Last week a reader of the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) tipped The Report off to a contractual relationship between the city of Canton and The Canton Repository (actually with The Rep's parent, Gate House Ohio Media, Inc.)
Cutting to the chase on the pertinent facts, here is a summary of what the relationship is. (Background information is provided below)
Canton has contracted with The Rep to publish a City glossy quarterly entitled Canton Connection with a annual contracted publishing cap of $20,000.
The Rep/Canton Connection business relationship is not much different than the fact that The Rep contracts with area businesses to run ads for the businesses in the daily Rep.
To The Report, the contractual advertising relationship wouldn't necessarily mean that The Rep could not render unaffected reporting on stories involving the advertiser. But it would mean that The Rep SHOULD at the front of each such story alert readers to the existing financial relationship via a prominently displayed disclaimer.
The Repository has had the publishing contract with the Canton Connection since December, 2008. Undoubtedly, deep buried in the minutes of Canton City Council meegings, is a record of Council approval of the contract. But has The Rep itself alerted readers to the fact of the relationship. Unless The Report has missed any such alert, it appears not.
As we all know, Mayor Healy is under a great deal of scrutiny these days as to whether or not he has had an allegedly "inappropriate" relationship with a 16 year old.
Another Healy curiosity is the coincidence of certain contracts being let or about to be let by Mayor Healy (Reflex Traffic Systems, if it is not overturned - by Canton City Council which earlier in the year approved Redflex at Healy administration urging) and campaign contributions being made to the TeamHealy Committee (the campaign finance vehicle by which Healy obtained funding for his 2007 mayoralty campaign).
One of the reasons that the readership of the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT has increased dramatically in recent weeks is because many Stark Countians feel that they only get "the straight scoop" and the hard questions on Stark County politics and government and, in particular, on the Healy sagas - from The Report.
Readers have been amazed at the low key, extremely conservative and, at times, non-existent coverage (both reportorially and editorially) of Stark County controversies and/or issues (including the Healy matters) by The Repository - Stark County's ONLY major countywide news outlet.
The feeling is that The Rep has way too many cozy relationships with the personalities, businesses, organizations and government institutions that its reporters and editors cover.
The revelation of The Rep/Canton Connection connection does nothing but add to the suspicion or at least a perception on the part of many Stark Countians that The Rep has a lot of "sweatheart" relationships within Stark and that readers get jaundiced reports and editorials as a consequence.
Another element that exists with The Repository is its hypocrisy.
The Rep selectively jumps all over certain persons, businesses, organizations and government institutions about the lack of openness and transparency.
But who is The Rep to complain?
In light of The Rep's financial relationship with Canton, why isn't the Stark County reading public getting a front and center disclaimer on each and every story or editorial it produces on the Canton City administration, the mayor and his troubles and, indeed, Canton City City Council actions?
Below, as in depth background promised at the beginning of this blog, is Canton Communications Director Adam Herman's description of how The Repository came to become the publisher - for at least one year - for the Canton Connection.
Martin:
The Canton Quarterly was started by former Mayor Creighton in 2006. She chose Strategy One/Canton Media Works to manage the operations of the magazine. There was no contract and no cap on expenses - for this reason, costs for this magazine had significantly increased since its inception. In 2008, it cost nearly $50,000 to produce and deliver.
To lower costs during our tough budget times, the City requested and accepted bids from local companies (including the original vendor) to manage and deliver the publication for $20,000 or less. Three companies responded, and Gatehouse Ohio Media, Inc. (a Canton company that owns the Repository, About Magazine, and a few other local newspapers) was chosen as the winning bid. A contract was signed in December of last year following Council's unanimous vote to approve the arrangement.
Because the previous vendor (Strategy One/Canton Media Works) copyrighted the name "Canton Quarterly" shortly after Mayor Healy was elected in November 2007, the City was unable to continue calling its official publication the "Canton Quarterly." Accordingly, the publication was re-named the "Canton Connection."
The contract is capped at $20,000/year and is good for one year with the option to extend an additional year if the City is satisfied with their performance.
Again, The Report asks: Isn't a disclaimer in order on all matters Canton government and personalities?
THE REST OF THE STORY - STRATEGY ONE RESPONDS
Martin-
Very astute blog about the Rep and Healy being in bed. Please allow me to set Mr. Herman’s record straight.
Mayor Healy has been on a quest to get rid of anything Mayor Creighton did, simply because it wasn’t his idea. However, when it comes to the Canton Quarterly (CQ), Adam is misrepresenting the facts.
Healy is a vindictive person. I cannot show you facts to prove that, but I have the scars. A while back, I alerted you to a series of emails from Healy to me during the 2003 campaign. It was overheard and reported to me that the fact the emails went public and embarrassed him was the source of the chip on his shoulder.
1.StrategyONE was not the publisher of CQ. We are a marketing communications firm that performed graphic design and project management services to CMW Publishing, LLC. It just so happens that my name is on the documentation with the State of Ohio for CMW, but I am a minority owner and have little to do with the management thereof. I do own 100% of StrategyONE.
2.Adam Herman is incorrect saying that Mayor Creighton contracted with Strategy One / Canton Media Works. There was no contract until Healy took over, and that was at the urging of the auditor.
a.A committee of city employees, chaired by Sam Sliman, was tasked with developing better channels of communication with the citizens of Canton. Specifically, the Mayor tasked Sliman’s committee with finding a way to consolidate numerous city departments’ newsletters into one, to reduce the cost to the taxpayers.
b.Sam was aware that we had expertise in this area. We created a mock-up of CQ and presented it to the committee, along with a budget projection for the advertising sales versus total cost of creating, printing and mailing approximately 65,000 32-page full color magazines 4x per year.
c.We shopped the printing locally, but no Canton printing company was even close to being competitive. We chose Hess printing in Brimfield, which employed 26 Canton City Income Taxpayers at the time. That move along saved $20,000 PER ISSUE.
d.CMW invoiced the city for the difference between advertising revenue and total cost. Herman is correct that the amount was around $50,000 annually. Chump change when you look at the bigger picture.
i.$50,000 in city funds / 65,000 pieces x 4 issues per year = 260,000 magazines containing 32 pages of useful information at a cost of about 19-cents per recipient.
ii.A business spends somewhere around 2.5% of its gross revenue on marketing/communications. In this case, the city was spending .0009% of revenue on CQ.
e.CMW managed the advertising sales. We employed the sales staff and managed the program independently of the city. The city provided raw content and pictures.
3.It is true that we trademarked CQ the day after the election. We also filed a Copyright. That’s just the way business works. We beat them to it. The Repository has never reached out to us to inquire about using the name.
4.Healy / Herman put the publication out for bid, but the bid request was vague at best. For example, the bid request did not specify what kind of paper to use, what size the publication needed to be, how it would be distributed, colors to use, etc. These things alone could sway the costs by tens of thousands of dollars.
5.Certain departments receive Federal funding that must be used to communicate with the entire constituency. That is why CMW distributed CQ as a saturation mailing. We could have cut corners, but we needed to make sure those departments were in compliance. I am uncertain whether the Repository’s set-up will satisfy that … it wasn’t in the bid.
CZB PRINCIPAL CHARLES BUKI ON TIMELINE FROM 2012 RFQ TO 02292015
==============================
Yesterday late afternoon was the beginning of the end story for the proud city of Canton, Ohio.
The only question is: What will the end story be?
Will Canton sink into oblivion and unrecoverable despair as seemingly Flint, Michigan has done.
Or will finally gets it act together and begin a long, tortuous road to recover at the cost of 460,000 millions of dollars?
Charles Buki of CZB Consulting was frank and direct in pointing his finger at former leadership of the City of Canton as being the reason that Canton has decayed since the 1950s
(SCPR Note: Documents in this blog extracted from the February 20th published "Comprehensive Plan - City of Canton UNLESS otherwise noted)
The most telling document:
In this blog, The Stark County Political Report will take readers on a video trip (short, easily digestible video clips) through Buki's presentation so that all Cantonians can see for themselves the core history of why Canton is where it is in terms of being a depressed city and the harsh realities that present Cantonians and likely the city's future generations will have to face up to if the city is to recover her former greatness.
My goal with this blog is to make it a seminal document/video documentary on Canton's Comprehensive Plan in terms of being a reference point as Canton's current generation of leaders move forward to implement the Comprehensive Plan as surely Canton City Council will ultimately adopt on the heels of the Canton Planning Commission having done yesterday.
Those present at yesterday's special Canton Planning Commission (CPC) meeting applauded (see video [1:18 in duration] of the vote and applause below) as the roll call by member David Kaminski (former Repository editor and now a Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce official) resulted in a unanimous approval of moving forward with the plan as a recommendation to Canton City Council (CCC).
And here is a video (7:07) of Kaminski's motion and the ensuing discussion:
Though I was born and raised in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, I do have a family connection to Canton, Ohio.
My maternal grandfather, Howard S. Weaver, worked for the-then Norfolk & Western Railroad (out of its Roanoke, Virginia base) during my mother's girlhood which ranged through the 1910 through 1925 era and I can remember of her child of her telling tales of Howard's travels as the employee of the N&W.
One of his very favorite cities in his travels was Canton, Ohio as he was impressed with the robust nature of life in Canton.
Consequently, I felt a special connection to Canton when I was employed as a lawyer for the Stark County Legal Aid Society in 1974. I worked in Canton day-in, day-out for five years. Moreover, even from the site of my private practice law office and home (Uniontown, Lake Township) I was a frequenter of Canton, Ohio for more than 40 years. As a blogger since March, 2008, I have provided Cantonians with thorough and extensive coverage of Canton city government.
It was gratifying (from my days at Stark County Legal Aid, SCLAS) to see Canton assistant law director Thomas Burns at the table of the Canton Planning Commission as the commission's legal counsel.
Tom was one of a number of illustrious attorneys (including now deceased former Stark County prosecutor and Stark County Probate Court judge Robert Horowitz) with whom I served on the staff at the SCLAS.
Obviously therefore I have been a first hand witness to the decline of Canton over the 40 years.
And it is now gratifying through this blog to be in a position to prod current Canton/Stark County leadership to step-up-to-the-plate and begin the process of recovering from the 60, 70 years of decline.
It is likely that the process of recovery will take the better part of 50 years going forward.
And it will entail current proven effective leaders like Canton mayor Thomas M. Bernabei and Stark County auditor Alan Harold to take on a project of developing a higher quality of bank of leadership than currently exists in Canton/Stark County. A STEP BACK FROM PASSAGE TO THE BUKI (CZB) PRESENTATION BEFORE THE CANTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Buki's Background
In looking into the background of CZB principal Charles Buki, it did my heart good to see that he has a personal background in blogging.
I wonder how man planning commission members and Canton council members and staff of the mayor's administration (including Healy's and, of course, that of new the new mayor Thomas Bernabei) have done their homework to determine whether or not Buki and his CZB group has a viewpoint and track record of urban planning successes before making the decision to adopt the CZB generated comprehensive plan.
A good start is with the above-reference blog (LINK) that he last wrote on March 1, 2013; three years ago today which includes the following topics:
And, for sure, if they haven't already (which one would assume they have inasmuch as Canton has spent $350,000 of Canton taxpayer dollars with CZB) somebody on council and or in the administration ought to be calling present and past customers of CZB LLC before Canton council adopts the CZB generated plan. Additionally, before Canton council adopts the Comprehensive Plan, it needs to as part of the adoption build into the adoption structures of plan implementation that it will be implement 100%; no matter how long it takes and no matter how many modifications of the plan are made. As will seen in the video clips provided in this blog, Buki cites instance, after instance after instance in which cities have not "fully" implemented the plan. Well! How can city fairly evaluate the likes of CZB if council and the administration have not fully implemented the plan? VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS WITH SCPR COMMENTARY ON BUKI'S PRESENTATION TO THE CANTON PLANNING COMMISSION
TIMELINE VIDEO - BUKI (4:20) In the following video, after being introduced by Mayor Bernabei and Deputy Mayor Fonda Williams, CZB principal Charles Buki details the timeline in summary fashion from the time that Canton City Council authorized the Healy administration to publish a RFQ (Request for Quote) in 2012 through yesterday (February 29, 2016).
The next noteworthy part of Buki's presentations as far as the SCPR is concerned was his general description of the parameters within which the plan was devised.
In the following video it is obvious that he is acutely aware of the severe financial limitations that Canton presently has in implementing the plan. (Video length: 1:38)
The big splash in the news about Canton's Mayor Healy has been his "alleged" inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old area female.
If the allegations prove to be borne out, Mayor Healy will crawl into the annals of Stark County political history oblivion very quickly.
But if they aren't substantiated, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) believes that Healy has a number of other serious political problems to overcome.
The Report sees a possible PATTERN emerging from Canton's government dealings at the hands of Healy with some cooperation from Canton City Council. However, there is some opposition by Councilpersons Smuckler and Cirelli (neither of who particularly like Mayor Healy).
The Report has repeatedly referred to the intriguing "out-of-towners" factor that campaign finance documents reveal about the Mayor. Cleveland (and many of its suburbs), Columbus, Akron, Maumee (near Toledo), Scottsdale (AZ), and Las Vegas (NV).
Does the "out-of-towner" factor qualify as a PATTERN?
The question: As a matter of PATTERN, do any of the out-of-town interests in the light of TeamHealy Committee campaign contributions unduly influence Canton government and politics. A collateral question: Is too much Canton taxpayer money leaving Canton for the far reaches, when competitive, qualitative local business exist?
A prime example: The 1-888OhioComp group out of Cleveland. Four people associated with the company are documented as having made significant contributions to the TeamHealy Committee. The decision to contract with the company was largely Healy's.
The Mayor when asked by Repository reporters gave the only answer he could give. 1-888OhioComp was the best deal for Canton.
Really?
Canton has a home based and grown company named AultComp which serves Stark County government. How about the Canton based jobs which pays Canton city income taxes and spreads money throughout Stark County in purchasing Stark County based goods and service? Was that a part of the calculation in the mind of a Mayor who prides himself (telling everyone within earshot repeatedly) that he is a graduate of the masters program of the New York University Stern of of Business?
A second example: Attorney Gary C. Johnson of Cleveland or is it Akron? The Report's examination of Johnson's campaign contributions seem to have him living/working in a number of places throughout northeast Ohio. A curiosity, to say the least.
Healy clearly worked out deal with campaign contributor Johnson to come in with a contract $ number that would enpower Healy to make the hire decision on his own without any oversight from Canton City Council.
Healy's justification?
Johnson is Ohio's best management side labor negotiation attorney.
Local management side labor negotiating attorney Robert Tscholl says that we have plenty of high caliber attorneys in Canton and more importantly on the city payroll in the Canton Law Department. In fact, The Report learned that the Canton Law Department hired a specialist in labor negotiating skills especially for working the Canton Police union contract; only to be undercut by the Healy move hiring Johnson.
The Johnson hiring, then, again is an example of Healy moving Canton city taxpayer money to Cleveland. From what The Report can make of the result of the negotiations, it does not appear that Healy and Nesbitt can justify the hiring of Johnson in terms of money saved in the results obtained in the negotiations.
Healy (and The Report is sorry to say) a number of Canton City Councilpersons are trying to spin the contract as a 0% increase contract. The Report believes that it is a 3% contract. A contract if anything on the high side of what is being negotiated these days.
A third example: Redflex Traffic Systems of Arizona. The campaign contribution to the TeamHealy Committee connection figured out so far by The Report? A Joe Moore who the report has learned is a customer services manager for Redflex made a contribution on July 8, 2008.
Lo and behold, guess who ends up with a contract with the city of Canton?
You've got itl. The Report's readers are very smart people. Yes, indeed: Reflex Traffic Systems.
Canton City Council is complicit in this decision. Very interesting. Only Mary Cirelli voted no in a 9 to 1 vote.
Wholesale citizen opposition developed as the Healy administration tried to sell the camera system to local citizens at a series of meeting held throughout Canton after the vote.
A vote was scheduled for this past Monday, March 9th.
The Report was at the meeting with camera in hand. As soon as The Report had settled in, Councilwoman Cirelli and Council President Allen Schulman spoke with yours truly to inform that no vote would take place this evening.
Cirelli speculated that Council did not want to be on record prior to the May primary and that was the reason for the delay. Healy made an announcement that his administration needed to contact Redflex to have some "adjustments" made to the contract. Hum?
It will be interesting to see. Will the vote take place on the 23rd?
Will Healy be able to pull off yet another contract for an out-of-town company who had at least one employee (Joe Moore of Scottsdale, AZ) "co-incidentally" (undoubtedly the Mayor would say) make a campaign contribution (online).
Is there a PATTERN emerging from Healy's involvement in and connection with Canton City contracts ending up in the hands of a campaign contributor and companies whose employees contributed to the TeamHealy Committee.
Or is it all a mere co-incidence?
What do you think?
NOTE: MAYOR HEALY REFUSES TO ANSWER THE REPORT'S QUESTIONS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE DOCUMENTS.
ALSO, THE REPORT DID A RECORDS REQUEST FOR A LIST OF ALL CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE CITY OF CANTON. THE RESPONSE FROM COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR ADAM HERMAN - A LIST DOES NOT EXIST AND THAT THE RECORDS ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENTS OF CANTON CITY GOVERNMENT.
The Report believes that Mayor Healy could provide a list from memory?
I have a number of rebuttals to your latest update.
I am not
sure who your “Very Knowledgeable Source” is but let me just say
this about the assertions that source has made:
First, Are you trying to tell me that Arcadis had a
hand in
the original Aqua Ohio water agreement and then years later they are now
rendering an opinion that it was a very bad deal for the City of North Canton
and needs to be renegotiated?
...
If that statement is true, DO YOU THINK ARCADIS
WOULD ADMIT
THAT THEY GUIDED THE CITY IN FORMULATING THE ORIGINAL AQUA OHIO WATER
AGREEMENT? I do not think they would admit that nor do I think anyone
from
Arcadis had any hand in the original Aqua water agreement. If you
wanted to
prove or disprove that statement, the individual to contact at Arcadis
is water
engineer Bob McNutt.
Second, I also do not believe that the Aqua water
agreement
had anything to do with getting the Akron Canton Airport as a customer. There
is no reasoning for that statement and never heard of any connection
between those events.
Third, The council member involved in the current
negotiations is the same council member who had a hand in the original
Aqua
water agreement and is the same council member who has defended that
agreement
for years.
Fourth, In my comments to council in the summer of
2006, I
noted that the North Canton water superintendent was not consulted. That
statement has never been challenged since the presentation to council
nearly
four years ago.
Fifth, If you will look at the Arcadis Water Study,
they
clearly state that the city sold water at a rate of $1.52 per thousand
gallons
while at the same time production costs (variable costs only) amounted to $2.20
per thousand gallons (see page six of the water study). THAT IS A NET
LOSS OF
$0.68 PER THOUSAND GALLONS. And Arcadis spells that out in black and
white.
I also might suggest that you look to page four of
the
report where Arcadis breaks down production costs per “Expense
Subcategory.”
Budgeted 2009 water production costs per thousand gallons was $7.28 per
thousand gallons. Projected water production costs for 2010 is $5.74 per
thousand gallons up twenty-four cents from 2008 actual production costs
of $5.55
per thousand gallons.
I hope you add this to your update on that post.
Thanks,
Chuck Osborne
UPDATE: March 24, 2010 04:45
From a very knowledgeable source:
Water funds are enterprise funds. By law they may be only spent with the
enterprise. Water profit, for example, cannot be redirected to the
safety services.
Here is another factoid: the original contract was the work product
of a group consisting of our engineer, water supt, administrator (Mike Miller) and the very
same rep from Arcadis. It is my understanding that Miller accepted
some recommendations and rejected others based upon his experience in
Canton: hence the contract as it exists.
In addition, the contract gave the city a strategic customer: the
airport.
And I point out that the current report explicitly
states that depending on the accounting method "the city recognized a
net operating profit
of approximately $110,000 in 2009."
Better process now: yes because the negotiations include the law
department, finance director and a member of council.
Other
potential water sources for Aqua: Canton.
ORIGINAL POST
North Canton is facing upwards of $1 million in revenue shortfalls within the next year. And, the deficiency could result in about 15 layoffs from the city's workforce.
If the layoffs occur, it would be nearly impossible for North Canton to provide "current" service levels to the citizens of the Dogwood City.
So what is the solution to what ails North Canton?
It could be that the doggedness of "pain in the _ss" (to many of North Canton's councilpersons and city administration members) activist Chuck Osborne will help North Canton find a way out of its dilemma.
Chuck has found, what he says is a $13 to $15 million give-a-way that North Canton officials have made to Aqua Ohio, Inc. (a company that competes with North Canton for retail customers). Osborne says the give-a-way dates back to the Tom Rice administration.
Even if one accepts Osborne's numbers and rationale, it doesn't solve North Canton's current financial crisis. North Canton desperately needs to find about $1million in short order and needs to have North Cantonians to pass two tax issues in the May primary (a 1-mill, 5 year levy for street repairs; a 1.5-mill levy for two years for emergency services).
To understand and see the validity of Osborne's overall point (not necessarily the $13 to $15 million figures), look at the table (from a NC hired consultant/expert at $18,500 - Arcadis) below:
North Canton is supposed to be "business" friendly. But would a business believe it?
Businesses pay nearly 10 times what Aqua does while using about 1/3rd the volume. Okay, one might get a "bulk" rate. However, how does one explain that the big time "bulk" users - the combo "outside" North Canton user group (which would seem to more nearly match Aqua in terms of category) uses twice as much North Canton water as Aqua yet pays more that 12 times. Doesn't seem like a whole lot of rationality to yours truly.
Let's take look at an Acadis quote in its report to North Canton (January 15, 2010).
Kind of startling, no?
Whatever is past stays in the past. Now North Canton is about to turn a new page.
The City is negotiating with Aqua and is proposing to increase the price to Aqua at $3.60 per thousand gallons less a cost of production of $2.20 per thousand gallons, leaving North Canton with a mere $1.40 per thousand gallons "profit."
However, with Outside City Business Accounts the City's "profit" is $7.52 per thousand gallons.
Alas, alas; this matter is not that simple. There is a "market-force" factor that is at play, which the SCPR does not believe Osborne and Arcadis have reckoned with.
What is the maximum Aqua is willing to pay North Canton (who competes with Aqua at the retail level) before abandoning North Canton for an alternative?
One the the critical factors in negotiating with Aqua is for North Canton to know the "real" price at which Aqua would likely turn away from North Canton as a source for its water.
It appears that the only viable option is for Aqua to develop its own well-fields. And this is a very expensive proposition. How expensive? North Canton does not know and it needs to find out before it negotiates any new agreement. Once North Canton knows, then it can negotiate from power (remember: "knowledge is power; ignorance is - merely - bliss").
How can North Canton find out a realistic approximation of Aqua's maximum price?
An answer? Ask its consultant/expert Arcadis to supplement its study by going one more step. North Canton needs Acadis to construct a model of what it would likely cost Aqua to develop its own well fields.
The SCPR believes it would be well worth the extra cost of paying for a supplemental study/report.
Will North Canton do it?
Probably not.
Why not?
One, because Chuck Osborne is he one pushing Council and the administration to get more money from Aqua for City water.
Wow! That's a crazy suggestion.
It may be. But the SCPR is convinced that some, if not most, Council members are so annoyed with Osborne and his agitation of North Canton officials over the years of his activism over many, many issues that they have a hard time accepting anything coming from him as something to seriously consider.
Osborne is suggesting a pause and reflection. It is he SCPR's idea to have hard data developed. However, that will take some more time.
Secondly, one City official told the SCPR that North Canton does not want to appear to be "gouging" Aqua.
That sounds kind of strange to The Report. How many of us have been gouged by the likes of Aqua when a company thinks they have us over a barrel?
Gouging is perhaps the wrong word to use. It is an emotionally charged word. Market force should be the operative phrase.
Get Acadis to do the supplemental study/report and then North Canton has more or less objective data with which to do "rational" negotiating.
North Canton taxpayers get protected in the process. This needs to be the prime concern of North Canton Council and Held administration officials.
The SCPR salutes Chuck Osborne for his work on this issue and he should be publicly recognized by Council and Mayor Held for his hard work in sifting through the Arcadis report and for reminding City officials of past mistakes made.
For it from our mistakes that we human beings learn the most.
It is looking more and more to the SCPR that North Canton is looking to repeat the mistakes of the past in selling one of its most valuable resources: it's water and negotiating in too much of a hurry without an adequate handle on the negotiating landscape.
Who knows? A pause in the North Canton/Aqua negotiating process and North Canton equipping itself with knowledge might provide an opportunity for North Canton with a serendipitous opportunity to plug some the $1 million dollar hole in its 2011 budget.
Perhaps there will be enough of an annual revenue increase from a more equitable (to North Canton taxpayers) water rate structure for Aqua that North Canton might lean - in negotiations - on Aqua to make a sizable advance.
Of course, such a willingness by Aqua would command a consideration on reducing the price to Aqua to correlate with the cost of loss of the value of money in the hand of Aqua, if such an advance were made.
It could be a win-win-win: for North Canton, for Aqua and for a citizen (Osborne) trying to help he City he loves.
Will wisdom prevail from whatever its source may be? Or, will it be "damn the torpedos ... full speed ahead."
At Monday evening's Canton City Council Committee of the Whole work session, Canton Parks and Recreation director Derek Gordon presented a range of management models and funding models for the soon to be reconfigured parks and recreation system.
Right now the system is split in two.
Canton's parks are managed (in an overall sense, not "day-to-day" which of course is Director Gordon's job) by a Park Commission which was put into existence by Canton voters in 1920.
In 2013, Cantonians voted to fund the city's parks at 4 mills as a prelude to the reorganization which is projected to take hold on or about January 1, 2017.
Canton's recreation system is managed (again, in an overall sense) by a body named the Canton Joint Recreation District (CJRD).
Back in 2014 when reorganization of Canton's parks and recreation facilities and activities became a "hot button issue" in the wake of Canton voters having approved in November, 2013 the 4 mill levy (referenced above) which was the first step in Canton mayor William J. Healy's desire to reorganize parks and recreation functions for Canton; a challenge to the reorganization was mounted by an attorney connected with the provision of legal services to the CJRD (LINK).
There are those who think that former CJRD president Eric Resnick was in the thick of being a part of the challenge. And there was a controversy as to whether or not Resnick was entitled to serve on the CJRD itself inasmuch as his term on the Canton City Schools (CCS-BOE; which he was an appointee of) had expired on December 31, 2013.
Resnick has been replaced on the CJRD by CCS-BOE member Ida Ross-Freeman.
With J.R. Rinaldi replacing Resnick as president, it seems that a much more conciliatory relationship between the Canton Park Commission and the CJRD has taken hold which portends and meshing of the two organizations on a more or less amicable basis.
However, the "never say die" Resnick has taken out petitions to run once again for a CCS-BOE seat.
Resnick was at the center of a controversy earlier this year over the merger (he prefers the term "takeover") of Timken High School under the banner of McKinley High School which was part of a three phase Brighter Tomorrow project of the CCS Board of Education and being pushed by Superintendent Adrian Allison.
Resnick has taken out a petition to run again for school board (not for Rinaldi's seat).
Betcha John Rinaldi is cheering for Eric, no?
Anyway, with Resnick out-of-picture for now, it appears not IF the CJRD will blend into the Canton Park Commission but rather WHEN and HOW and the amount (in terms of millage) officials will ask Cantonians to approve in November, 2015 and, if it fails, in November, 2016.
It will be interesting to see whether or not Resnick becomes a leader to defeat the funding initiative and thereby stop the merger, no?
Putting that question aside, the focus now is the model of the reorganization and how much Cantonians will be asked to fund the new entity with.
Yesterday the SCPR attended the April meeting of the Canton Park Commission (Commission) and is making available at the end of this blog the entire videotaped discussion among board members on those issues.
The Commission voted yesterday to recommend to Canton City Council (which has the final say on how the merger will be structured and financed), to wit:
that the current Park Commission model be the framework of the reorganization,
that it be funded at 5 mills (on the City of Canton tax base), and
expressed a desire that the newly constituted entity would embrace a total community encompassing citizens advisory board that has meaningful input into Park Commission board decisions, and
expressed a desire that a strong connection be formed/maintained with the Canton City Schools and the Plain Local School District inasmuch city of Canton students utilize both school systems,
President Andy Black effectively articulated reasons that the SCPR agrees with as being persuasive factors compelling the Park Board Commission model as the one that Canton City Council ought to adopt.
On having a citizens advisory board as part of a Park Commission new entity model, here is the discussion from yesterday's meeting:
As seen in the video below, there was some contention about the amount of the millage.
Park Board Commissioner member and president Black references Canton City Council vice president and majority leader Frank Morris, Ill's comment - in response to Gordon's city council presentation: "Go BIG, or go home!" comment.
And, trying to avoid being an advocate for higher millage, Director Gordon did point out to members Andy Black, Wuyanbu Zutali and Drew Pelger that 5 mills on the City of Canton tax base will not financially sustain Canton's parks and recreation functions and that if 5 mills is the ultimate millage presented to voters and they approve same such would necessitate cuts to a parks and recreation system that is already substantially undermanned when compared to government entities across the nation that provide parks and recreation services.
One possibility discussed to try to make a Parks Commission 5 mill model work was that cuts in annual funding to the J. Babe Stern Center and the Southeast Community Center would have to be made.
The extract below shows the numbers that will work going through 2021 on the basis of a 5.5 mill levy on the Canton city tax base.
A 5 mill levy is projected to put a Park Commission model entity at a $3.75 million deficit by 2021 if no cuts are made.
A CJRD model 5 mill levy is projected to keep Canton's park and recreation not only solvent but indications are that there would be nearly a $875,000 carryover going into 2022.
There is no doubt to the SCPR that cuts to the Stern Center (located in Ward 5) would be vehemently opposed by Ward 5 councilman Kevin Fisher not only because the center sits in his ward but because he used the center's facility during his growing up years in Canton and knows firsthand the value of the center in providing wholesome activities for the youth of Canton.
So one can see Fisher joining Morris to ramp up the proposed Park Commission Board recommendation to at least 5.5 mills which Gordon says will keep operations on an even keel through 2021.
On the other hand there is Councilman Edmond Mack (Ward 8).
While he clearly wants the best for Canton's parks and recreation needs, he is also mindful that the burden of property taxation is on properties in Canton's most wealthy section of the section, that, of course, being Ward 8.
While Mack, Fisher, Mariol (Ward 7) and Morris (Ward 9) are in agreement on many issues facing city council, the millage issue might be an example of differences which they have with one another from time-to-time.
Yesterday's Park Commission Board action was primarily designed to give the go ahead for Canton's law department to go to work in fashioning properly worded legal documents for the accomplishment of parks and recreation reorganization and to ensure that whatever millage is asked of Canton's voters will stand a test of judicial scrutiny if challenged by opponents of a merger of the CJRD into the Park Commission.
For the SCPR's part, yours truly finds the Morris admonition appealing: that is to say "Go BIG, or go home!"
Perhaps rather than BIG, the mantra should be "bigger than 5.0 mills."
The Report sees a fully funded and therefore vibrant parks and recreation function as being a vital part of the upcoming Canton Citywide Plan which has the potential to hold Canton's population stable and perhaps be a lure for young families to take advantage of some very good home purchase values on the condition that city officials can:
get a grip on Canton's continuing crime problems,
devise a long term plan to replace the substructure of Canton's streets and highways so that repaving is no longer like pouring money down a rat hole, and
bring living wage jobs to Canton so that new generations will "work and live" within the city
Being a city councilman in an American city these days can be an overwhelming task.
That is why voters have to learn to be very selective in determining who constitutes having those qualities that will enable a body such as Canton City Council to cope with the overwhelmingness and over time turn despair into, to borrow the CCS expression,: "A Brighter Tomorrow!"
Here is the SCPR's video (about 35 minutes) of the complete discussion that the Park Commission Board had at its regular monthly meeting this past Wednesday:
SEE MULTIPLE VIDEOS ON 03/21/2018 "WATER ISSUE" MEETING
UPDATE: 10:14 AM (DOUG LANE RESPONSE)
DOUG LANE RESPONSE TO BLOGGER COMMENTS ABOUT HIM
ORIGINAL BLOG
So what is North Canton's abundant, pristine water supply: (choose one)
A Curse?
A Blessing?
Something In Between?
A blessing, a curse or something in between?
Hmm?
The Stark County Political Report (SCPR, The Report) opts for "3. Something In Between," at least initially.
A North Canton/mayor-council decision in the offing on whether or not a prospective buyer (OMNI)
of a Jackson Township located property (Portage & Whipple) from North Canton developer Bob DeHoff wanting North Canton water without annexing into North Canton can get North Canton's council and/or Mayor David Held approval will likely ultimately "tell the tale" on the question of the city having high quality water for sale ends up being a blessing or a curse.
Here is the ordinance as proposed:
THE BACKGROUND OF THE WATER ACCESS DISPUTE For a detailed understanding of the context of the "access to North Canton water" fight which erupted on the floor of North Canton Council on Wednesday night, readers of this blog should read a December 27, 2017 SCPR blog on the groundwork that has been carefully undertaken by a mysterious elected North Canton official apparently designed to help well known North Canton developer Bob DeHoff parlay access to North Canton water for a property sited in Jackson Township without the requiring of the property to be annexed into North Canton city limits.
Readers of this blog should opt to read the "in depth version" contained in the above-linked blog.
A shorter version of the "access" question goes like this:
Some apparently "unaccountable" (in terms of identity) official in North Canton government conjured up the need in October, 2017 to form a solely administrative arm of North Canton government (Water Board) to determine applications for access for North Canton water and whether or not a concomitant factor (i.e. a discretionary requirement of annexation into North Canton) will be imposed.
SIDE NOTE: A side note that is relevant is that North Canton civic activist Chuck Osborne has been in the thick of s sub-fight as to whether or it has been legal for the city to form a Water Board in the first place. The Report has learned that he plans to file a lawsuit in the coming week to challenge the legality of the Water Board.
For purposes of the proposed DeHoff (WILLMOLL)/OMNI transaction, in that North Canton City Council itself has taken up the matter for decision —it likely makes the legality of the Water Board establishment irrelevant as to whether OMNI get North Canton water without annexation.
One more thing, there is some tussle over whether or not the ordinance authorizing city water without annexation should be tagged as "emergency" legislation.
If an enacted ordinance is not designated as an emergency but passes with a majority of council and survives a Mayor David Held veto, the ordinance is highly likely to be challenged by a Chuck Osborne referendum on the November ballot.
To top things off, the SCPR has learned that Osborne will not be working on a referendum alone, if matters come to that. He will have heavy duty support from others with the names of whom would surprise readers of this blog.
Osborne is hopeful that the OMNI matter loses on a up or down vote so that a referendum would not be needed.
SIDENOTE: Readers are reminded that Osborne in 2012 challenged North Canton City Council's action in approving health care insurance benefits for themselves only to be rejected overwhelmingly by North Canton voters some 78% to 22%.
While the referendum was later declared by Judge John Haas of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to be invalid under referendum standards contained in Ohio law, council members rescinded the authorizing legislation in light of the obvious voter rejection of council members getting such benefits.
Originally the OMNI proposal included a provision that would have enabled a subsequent owner of the subject property piggyback into continuing to have access to North Canton water without annexation.
Now, supposedly, a new owner would have to annex or lose water access.
The SCPR thinks Law Director Fox is selling North Canton council a boatload of untenable legal certainty. Think about it. Do readers really think that if during the 30 year OMNI term OMNI sells out that a successor wouldn't be in a terrific position to convince a court of "equity" that it would horribly "unfair" to cut off the property's water supply. Especially so, given that the language of the proposed agreement does not have clear and explicit language in the NC/OMNI agreement specifically saying that there will be no water absent annexation that the contract provides for being a restrictive covenant in a deed from NC to OMNI.
Of course, Law Director Fox will likely be long gone if and when the matter becomes a down-the-road legal issue for future North Canton generations.
Along the lines of the Fox/council relationship, The Report hears that some council members (perhaps, a majority) think that all they need is a "easily attained to the needs of council Fox legal opinion" and then they will take their chances of a North Canton citizen filing a lawsuit challenging the Fox opinion.
The SCPR is told that Councilwoman Marcia Kiesling may have let it slip out that the main body of
council may have made a "violation of Ohio's Sunshine Law" decision to do the NC/OMNI deal.
Citizen Chuck Osborne's planned lawsuit challenging the legality of the formation of North Canton's Water Board could take on added significance. If he does file, undoubtedly Osborne's legal counsel in depositions will want to explore the alleged violation in questioning council members "under oath."
If the water access measure gets enacted without an emergency tag on it, look again for Osborne to challenge the enactment with an invalidating referendum.
Wednesday night's (March 21, 2018) "special council" meeting (a highly unusual time/day of the week for a North Canton council meeting) produced an intense debate among council members, the mayor and council and members of the North Canton public.
If one is a pro-water-access-without-annexation advocate,how does such a person convince North Canton voters that it is a good thing for North Canton government financing for the city to pass up a potential of $100,000 annually (1.50% income tax rate on approximately 75 jobs), more or less, income-tax-into-the-general-fund for $10,000 annually, more or less, in utility charges to OMNI as city revenue enterprise fund restricted to spending for water operations, maintenance and capital facilities?
If it comes to a referendum, the SCPR is willing to say here and now that North Canton voters will reject the proposed OMNI project application for annex-free access to water along the super majority lines as the health care referendum of 2012.
Osborne tells the SCPR that formation of a Water Board (October, 2017) is "deja vu, all over again" as with North Canton's Housing Council.
North Canton's Housing Council Office headed up by an "appointed" Housing Officer, once had the authority to grant tax abatements on the decision of one person; namely, the non-elected, "appointed" Housing Officer without any knowledge or participation of the elected members (i.e. the mayor and council members) in the decision.
As pointed out in the referenced blog, guess who was the center of the controversy over whether or not it was legal for the Housing Officer in 2012 to have granted a 100% property tax abatement for a period of years for a apartment project knows as North Ridge Place, LLC?
SCPR readers are so, so, so smart! Yes, the person is none other than Mister Robert DeHoff!!!
Only on action by Citizen activist Chuck Osborne (in bringing the abatement matter to light and keeping it in the limelight) did North Canton property tax recipients (in the main the North Canton City Schools) eventually get a recovery of 50% of the abatement.
If this blogger didn't know better (or do I?), Bob DeHoff and North Canton are synonymous somewhat like North Canton and Boss Hoover back in the heydey of The Hoover Company.
He seems to control a majority if not most of the North Canton City Council membership.
To the SCPR, Councilpersons Mark Cerreta, Marcia Kiesling, Stephanie Werren and Dominic Fonte seem to be "in thrall" to DeHoff.
Werren in particular should be ashamed of herself for what the SCPR thinks as being a councilperson locking onto the DeHoff interests inasmuch she is the director of the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce Leadership Stark County (which includes a program for schooling elected and aspiring to be elected Stark Countians) who, by her conduct on council, certainly cannot say that her model as a North Canton councilperson should be followed by aspirant Stark County political subdivision leaders.
Snow-Werren and her husband Canton Municipal Court judge Curtis Werren who the SCPR thinks never would have been heard of in Stark County subdivision political/government circles BUT FOR their coming from prominent Stark County based politically connected families.
There are bright spots in North Canton government these days.
However, there are definitely dark spots.
One of whom the SCPR thinks is Councilman at Large Mark Cerretta.
Watch/listen to this 2:20 video on Cerretta on the OMNI issue claiming everything was honky-dory on getting approval on OMNI until Monday night is more than a stretch. Note the entire video of the debate on the water issue is embedded in the appendix to this blog.
Now, read this:
Chuck Osborne <cosborne@neo.rr.com> Today at 1:30 AM To: Martin Olson ... I have pasted below my description of the video of the December 21, 2017 Water Board meeting. I am sending this to you to rebut Mark Cerreta’s statement that there has been no opposition to providing water to the DeHoff property and waiving annexation until last Wednesday’s Special Council meeting held on March 21, 2018. Opposition was raised immediately upon hearing of the request at the Water Board meeting held on December 21, 2017. The meeting was held on a Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m., two days before the long Christmas Holiday weekend. Mark Cerreta’s statement was patently untrue. Thank You, Chuck Osborne Pasted below is a link to a video of the North Canton Water Board Meeting held on Thursday morning, December 21, 2017. LINK to the video. (23:10 mark on video
The SCPR agrees with Osborne that Cerreta's claim of no opposition to the OMNI's attempt to "get water without annexing to North Canton" is untrue. As pointed out as described in his email to The Report, Osborne offers (see his video) irrefutable proof that Cerreta's Wednesday assertion is untrue. Newly elected Councilman Daryl Revoldt did oppose granting water to OMNI without much greater detail of the proposed transaction being revealed to, not the Water Board, but all of council for council to make the decision.
The Report that has learned that BUT FOR Mayor Held's pressure on Councilman Cerreta, the OMNI water access issue would not have made it to council. Consequently, you would have a decision made by a likely 'illegally constituted" Water Board with "yes" for approval votes made by the likes of Held administration appointees Finance Director Laura Brown, Chief Administrator Mike Grimes and administrative official Pat DeOrio with Councilman Cerreta being the ONLY elected official voting on the matter and, of course, "yes."
It is a curious matter that all the voting members (Law Director Tim Fox recused himself after a "conflict in interest" factor was brought to his attention) of the Held administration voted in favor granting OMNI water access right "with the right to pass access rights on to a successor owner" in light of Mayor David Held's assertion to the SCPR (in a conversation yesterday) that he has always opposed water access without annexation.
While Held says he encourages internal to his administration deliberation on various issues that come up in North Canton government, he expects and demands that once he has made a decision as the city chief executive that all of his appointees will fully and demonstrably support his decision.
There can be little doubt that the Water Board was somebody's (like the Housing Council) end run around democratic-republican elected official "accountability" for the actions processes.
The Housing Council and the Water Board offer compelling evidence that North Canton City Council has too many members who are willing to abrogate their duty to be front and center deciders-in-chief after open and accessible (not 9:00 a.m. in the morning as with the Water Board) and "opportunity to be heard" council meetings.
It seems that one cannot believe much of anybody from the president of the United States of America right down to a city councilperson these days in this country.
Shame on Councilman Cerreta!
During this past Wednesday's council meeting, Doug Foltz, the dean of North Canton Council, admonished the deliberative body to be civil to one another. and rightfully so. For the SCPR's part, the major offender of incivility was Councilman Mark Cerreta.
Undoubtedly, Cerreta fancies himself as urbane and sophisticated. His boorish behavior in the meeting of the 21st belies his being polished and diplomatic.
Newly elected Councilman Daryl Revoldt (a former council president and mayor of North Canton) is leading the charge to require OMNI to agree to an annexation to North Canton as a condition of the city approving the sale of water to the company.
Revoldt first challenged Cerreta at the December, 2017 Water Board meeting. "Get the details of the proposed deal out, Revoldt says was his injunction to Cerreta at that meeting.
So how, Councilman Cerreta, is that a show of disrespect? Cerreta as talked about what a terrific country we Americans live in. And, of course, he is absolutely correct. However, we are great not because we have "some know-it-all" who decrees on arbitrary standards what is good or not good for our communities, but because communities including our elected representative delve into the details of this or that issue and make a collective decision of what is best.
Here is SCPR video of Councilman Revoldt's back and forth with Councilman Fonte in which he underscores that he effectively quelches Cerreta's charge of disrespect which the SCPR thinks was aimed at Revoldt.
Revoldt and Mayor Held are allied on the annexation condition and the mayor says he will veto the proposed ordinance if it stays as it is.
Mayor Held, in the opinion of the SCPR, made Councilman Dominic Fonte (keep in mind he tabs himself as a "newbie') look foolish in a 10 minute back and forth between the two of them on the issue of water for OMNI without annexation.
Fonte's only argument was in allowing OMNI to open up adjacent to North Canton city limits without being in the city but nonetheless getting city water for 30 years creates a general vicinity energy that might one day produce neighboring to OMNI businesses which "might" want to annex to North Canton out of some sort of gratuitous civic affection for North Canton.
How ridiculous!
Held kept asking Why! Why! Why!, which and he wants to talk respect, motivated Cerreta to chime in using the expression "Why? Why! Why! in what the SCPR thinks was in a mocking manner.
The question "why" connotes an expectation of a reason or reasons. Why should always be a pre-eminent Q&A exchange in any endeavor of life and most certainly when elected representatives in the current decision making will be affecting untold quality of life issues for future generations of North Cantonians.
For Cerreta to mock the mayor doing the intellectually proper thing to do is an absolute disgrace on Cerreta's part. And he talks about respect? And he settles on a arbitrary, capricious and whimsical standard of "business by business by business" decision. To his credit, Held did not respond to Cerreta's mocking ways.
One thing that did not come up in Wednesday's discussion is the fact that North Canton's income tax is 1.50 which is probably one of if not the lowest in all of Ohio. Moreover, OMNI's employees bear the brunt of the tax; not the corporation itself.
Another thing when it comes to fire, police and EMS services, Fonte, Cerreta and other councilpersons of their persuasion seem to think that if OMNI does not annex then if a need arises for North Canton police, fire and EMS services that North Canton will sit idly by and refuse to respond if called to the OMNI site.
Really?
Ever heard of "mutual aid?"
As the SCPR understands "mutual aid" it is the "holy grail" of emergency services and it is a non-starter to say/suggest: "Oh, OMNI refused to annex to North Canton and therefore North Canton fire, police or EMS will not respond to OMNI's call for help."
The SCPR has always thought Cerreta was more reasoned than he showed on Wednesday night. What a disappointment to hear him settle on an arbitrary/capricious standard which of course is a fertile field for politics to be at play in a large way.
The Held/Fonte/Cerreta video is a compelling video for those readers who care about the processes of government to watch.
(NOTE: The Report has learned that Finance Director Brown was annoyed at Held's engagement of her in a rhetorical Q&A on whether or not enterprise water fund money could be used on North Canton's general fund functions (which they cannot. Who is Laura Brown to get annoyed with the mayor of North Canton. She serves at his pleasure. The SCPR thinks it was a master ploy to make a powerful point.)
There is no doubt on the part of the SCPR that there will be a majority of North Canton council members to approve OMNI's application for North Canton water WITHOUT ANNEXATION.
Passage of the OMNI exception is likely to occur despite this 2011 ordinance.
In October, 2017 council amended the ordinance to make annexation "permissive" rather than "mandatory."
The ONLY question on this issue in terms of ultimate passage is whether or not Councilpersons Peters or Foltz (one or the other, perhaps both) peel off their fellows to make the majority decision vulnerable to almost certain Mayor David Held veto.
The financial stakes to North Canton government?
To repeat, about $100,000 in income tax revenue going to the General Fund versus some $10,000, more or less, going to the city enterprise "water" account which CANNOT be used for the city's general government functions (confirming: see Held questioning of Finance Director Brown in Held video above) such as fire, police, roadway (construction/repair) and the like.
Though it appears that some North Canton councilpersons were "gung-ho" on passing Ordinance 19-2018 on Wednesday evening, there are those who think that foremost advocate Cerreta did not push on in the matter because he feared that he would only get five (5) votes, a number which would have made in likely that Mayor Held could sustain his promised veto.
In sum, the SCPR thinks that North Canton City Council's controlling majority (Cerreta, Kiesling, Werren and Fonte) are anti-democratic-republican in their "heart of hearts" and that North Canton government, consequently, will continue to fumble and bumble in the face of those who question their arbitrary ways.
Until North Canton's voters replace Cerreta, Kiesling, Werren and Fonte, North Canton will continue to take what could be blessings (e.g. the water asset) and turn them into curses
PUBLIC SPEAKS
Watch the following citizen responses (before Cerreta even made his assertion) about the "exclude the citizens" model of government demonstrated in this instance and pretty much historically by Councilpersons Cerreta, Kiesling, Werren and Fonte seemingly aided and abetted by Law Director Tim Fox.
First and compellingly Citizen Brandice Schnabel: (first name spelling correction)
Next
Citizen Melanie Roll:
Next, Citizen Chuck Osborne:
Next, Doug Lane: North Canton economic development liaison ($15,000 annually paid by North Canton government) and is a NC Chamber of Commerce official. Lane is also a former NC councilman. A highly reliable source tells the SCPR that North Canton Chief Administrator Pat DeOrio asked Lane to come and present at Wednesday's meeting.
Though Mayor Held says DeOrio is with him in Held's opposition to granting OMNI "no annexation required" water access, the SCPR is skeptical that such is the case. Some sources suspect that DeOrio's prior employment experience may have connected him with a long standing Jackson Township (the locale of the OMNI project) elected official and that DeOrio's, at least at the Water Board phase, pro-DeHoff/OMNI position might have been grounded in that connection.
Note: Though Lane implicitly claims to have "no dog in this fight" the tenor of his comments clearly indicate a preference of not requiring OMNI annexation. SCPR wonders whether or not as a Chamber official he has had dialogue with Bob DeHoff and is in reality advocating for the DeHoff/OMNI position. The Report thinks that Lane has a huge conflict in interest and his viewpoint should be looked at in that light.
The SCPR video of the Lane "public speaks" comments and Q&A with Councilman Dominic Fonte:
APPENDIX NORTH CANTON COUNCIL'S DEBATE ON OMNI WATER ACCESS WITHOUT ANNEXATION A SCPR VIDEO PRESENTATION
FIRST UP: LAW DIRECTOR FOX EXPLAINS CHANGES MADE IN ORDINANCE 19-2018
NEXT: COUNCIL/MAYOR HELD DEBATE THE MERITS/DEMERITS OF THE NORTH CANTON/OMNI WATER AGREEMENT (23:44)
B.A. - Political Science
J.D.
AN INDEPENDENT MINDED POLITICAL COMMENTATOR
Until 1976 I was a Republican. Since then I have considered myself a Democrat. So after long term stints of being a Republican, then a Democrat, I have come to the political position I feel most comfortable with - being an INDEPENDENT MINDED ANALYST who demands effectiveness of our politicians - Republican, Democrat or whatever.
I have changed my political affiliation to "non-partisan" by not voting in either political party primary election.
