VIDEO: NORTH CANTON COUNCIL'S SIDE OF THE CITIZEN OSBORNE'S EFFECTIVENESS WITH COUNCIL

There is sort of a running battle in North Canton between North Canton Council (via spokesman Council president Daryl Revoldt) and citizen Chick Osborne who is a former North Canton councilman.

The SCPR has a bias in favor of folks like Osborne who courageously dig into the bowels of government (in this case, North Canton government) looking for errors in the implementation of policy and practices.

In Osborne's case, he  frequently uses the public forum at Council meetings to reveal his findings and advocate for corrective action.

The Report thinks that the Chuck Osbornes of Stark County provide a valuable public service and commends them for upholding the responsibility of every citizen to participate in  the activities of our institutions of government.

Osborne believes that Council treats him unfairly compared to other North Canton citizens who avail themselves of the public forum to address Council and Mayor David Held's administration on various issues.

Council and Held obviously disagree with Osborne and have told The Report that, from their perspective, they are more than fair to Osborne.

The SCPR has written a number of blogs presenting Osborne's side of the story.

In this blog, The Report presents the North Canton government's view (at least Council's view, assuming that Revoldt speaks for all of Council as he seems to be doing in the accompanying video. 

Here is a video of a recent North Canton Council meeting in which Council president Revoldt "advises" Osborne on how to be more effective.

View and listen to "Professor" Revoldt.  

SQUABBLES BREAK OUT IN NORTH CANTON AGAIN. COUNCIL PRESIDENT REVOLDT IS TRYING TO KEEP "THE DOGWOOD CITY" PRESENTABLE. FIRST, IT WAS THE "CHICKEN THREAT," NOW IT IS A DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT THAT THREATENS THE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY?

Politics makes for strange bedfellows?

North Cantonians will fall off their kitchen table chairs when they hear this one.

The SCPR has learned that community activist and former North Canton councilman Chuck Osborne and North Canton City Council president Daryl Revoldt are united in a common quest to block the construction of a Sonic Drive-In restaurant (as presently proposed) on the north side of East Maple immediately west of Walgreens, in what is known as the Washington Square shopping complex, located at East Maple and Market Avenue North.

Osborne and Revoldt have a storied history of going after one another in the give and take of democracy in action at North Canton City Hall.  A little over a month ago, Revoldt muzzled Osborne as North Canton's political gadfly attempted to speak at a regular North Canton City Council meeting about allegations that North Canton was illegally dumping street sweepings.

Apparently, Revoldt's muzzling of Osborne is catching on in North Canton.

On January 26th of this year, Osborne appeared at a meeting of the North Canton Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals (BOA).

To hear Osborne tell it, a request for a lot size variance (from the code 150" to 128") got ramrodded through without he or any other North Canton citizen getting a chance to speak to the matter before the 3 to 1 vote approving the variance.

For Osborne, this (the approval) was a stunning reversal of what he expected to happen.

Councilman John Snyder was telling Council (two weeks before the BOA January 26th meeting) that the BOA was going to turn down the the variance request (how would Snyder have pre-known?) and that the Council needed to amend the North Canton's zoning to accommodate McKinley Development, Ltd (run by developer-partners Bill Lemmon and Bob DeHoff) which had asked for the Sonic variance.

Snyder says that his pre-information was not based on direct contact with any member of the BOA, but rather passed on to him by Bill Lemmon (who lives in Snyder's ward) as being  the assessment of board member William Cline, who, it turns out, did not end up attending the January 26 meeting.

Revoldt tells the SCPR that he was on board with Snyder's plea to change set back rules from 150 feet to 125 feet because 125 feet is what the neighboring townships of Plain and Jackson have in their zoning codes.  But he has never approved of the gradual change, over time, of the architectural design of Washington Square.

Lo and behold, changing North Canton's zoning on the lot size matter became moot when the BOA surprised everybody in granting the requested variance at its January 26 meeting.

Snyder says he did object to a re-vote (after the 3 to 1 vote) as not being in accord with Roberts Rules of Order (a re-vote having been suggested by one of the board members).

Why the consideration of a re-vote.

Osborne had protested that he and other citizens had not been allowed to weigh-in on the variance issue prior to the BOA's vote.

Snyder offered to The Report that he had no objection to the BOA taking Osborne's statement, but not on the condition to doing a re-vote.

Next step, the North Canton Planning Commission.

More political theatrics were the order of the day at the Planning Commission's meeting of February 10th to consider the site plan for the Sonic (through McKinley Development) proposal.  Site plans require Commission approval as a followup to the granting of the variance.

Chuck Osborne  appeared at the Planning Commission meeting and, this time, was allowed to speak to the issue "prior" to a vote.  Osborne had complained about his denial of the right to speak at the BOA session at City Council's February 8th meeting.

The real drama came with Council president Daryl Revoldt getting up and speaking to the Planning Commission on the issue.  He said he was opposed because of a lack of developer promised consistency in implementing a higher order of architecture at Washington Square on the last several projects. Revoldt cited city records and conversations between the parties (the developers and North Canton) going back to the first days of the Washington Square project.

Revoldt's critique did not set well with developer Bill Lemmon. And for good reason.

The SCPR believes that the Osborne/Revoldt combo was being effective in getting in the way of the fruition of the Sonic project.

How effective?  The Planning Commission tabled its consideration of the Sonic Drive-in site plan.

Though he likes to say that he has only one vote, Revoldt wields enormous control in North Canton City Council and Lemmon and DeHoff know this, and they have reacted swiftly to Revoldt's opposition.

Revoldt had written a pre-Planning Commission meeting letter to Bob DeHoff (February 9th).detailing his opposition.

In the letter he made the following points:

• Developers Lemmon and DeHoff had made a commitment to a higher architectural standard in the planning for Washington Square complex.
• They had "wandered" from their commitment.
• The Sonic Drive-in plan is a violation of the commitment.
• The plan flies in the face of efforts by Walsh University to make its' East Maple Street presence aesthetic.
• "Sonic['s] architecture diminishes the investments made by others in the area."
• Sonic's present plan "raises questions about the city's and developer's credibility."
• Sonic's plan undermines North Canton's effort to rebuild its economy.

Pretty strong stuff, no?  But this is the public arena, this is America where citizens and public officials are allowed to discuss their concerns, their opinions.

Well, DeHoff hotfooted it off to McKinley Development's attorney Thomas W. Winkhart to have a rejoinder fashioned.

Here are some points of Winkhart's missive to Revoldt:

• Washington Square is not owned by DeHoff and/or Lemmon but by McKinley Development Co., Ltd.
• Questioned whether Revoldt is acting in an official capacity or in an individual capacity.
• Makes a public records demand for documents that are relevant to Revoldt's accusations on McKinley, Lemmon and DeHoff.

 Moreover, Winkhart has the following to say (excerpts from the actual Winkhart letter):

"I intend to determine if they rise to the level of libel and perhaps slander ... determine if a cause of action exists on behalf of my clients as a result there of"

Hmm?

Undoubtedly, Revoldt is shaking in his boots.

One other thing about Winkhart's letter.  Why the big distinction between McKinley Development Co., Ltd and the DeHoff/Lemmon duo.  It appears that Winkhart makes a distinction  without a difference.  What is that all about?

The Report did ask the question directly to Attorney Winkhart via email.  Answer:  "no comment."

Whatever the outcome of this fuss turns out to be (Revoldt believes a compromise will be worked out), the political drama has been and continues to be fascinating:

• Osborne and Revoldt allies?
• Osborne being denied his right to speak, once again.
• Councilman Jon Snyder thinking he knew and yet not knowing in advance (unreliable hearsay) what the Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals was going to do on the McKinley Development request for a Sonic Drive-in variance?
• Revoldt being at odds with long time  friend Bob DeHoff (e.g."Dear Bob") to the point of speaking out in a public meeting (a la Osborne) and then writing a nasty-gram to "Dear Bob."
• "Dear Bob" sicking his attorney on Revoldt; threatening a defamation suit.

Wow!!!

CLEAN UP OF STREET SWEEPER BACKFILL COULD COST $100,000 PLUS HOW MUCH IN EPA FINES?

The SCPR spoke with Mayor David Held last evening and asked him numerous questions about the city of North Canton being dealt with by the Ohio Environmentaql Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) as well as the Army Corp of Engineers and the Stark County Health Department over the city's illegal backfilling of street sweeping debris (considered to be "solid waste" as opposed to "yard waste") in a lot adjacent to North Canton's water and waste treatment plant located on Freedom Avenue in Jackson Township.

Ask questions?

Yes, ask questions.

So what is the big deal?

Well, North Canton citizen Chuck Osborne was not permitted to do so (nor make a prepared statement) during the "Public Speaks" portion of the North Canton City Council meeting of Monday evening.

The Report is told that Osborne was muzzled by North Canton City Council president Daryl Revoldt from reading his prepared statement of the dumping topic and ask follow-up questions because Revoldt feared that Held would provide answers that would get North Canton "deeper into the doo-doo" with Ohio EPA et al than it was already was.

So when the SCPR received a telephone call from Mayor Held, it was a "big deal!"

What did Held have to say?

To put it in a nutsehell, Held said that North Canton was merely doing what many other political subdivisions and government agencies throughout Stark County and, indeed, Ohio have been doing for years and had the misfortune of being turned in to the O-EPA.

 Mayor Held gave the SCPR an interesting example.  He said that material picked up by a street sweeper is "solid waste" whereas if it is sucked up by mechanism with a hose, the material is defined by Ohio EPA rules to be "yard waste" which makes all the difference in the world in terms of how one may dispose of the material.

According to Held, the former has to go into a landfill while the latter can be used as back-fill as North Canton was doing.

Held went on to say that North Canton had not yet put together a remediation program, but that when it did that the cost of remediating could be $100,000 taxpayer dollars.  Moreover, Held emphasized that now that North Canton knows that its "back-filling" is not allowable by O-EPA regulations, the city will now be placing its street sweepings in an approved land-fill at about $200 per load.

Held told the SCPR that he plans to be in touch with Ohio EPA officials and ask for a clarification of standards so that political subdivisions have clear guidance as to what is and what is not solid waste.  He cited numerous other examples of arbitrary distinctions made by the Ohio EPA that put the very same activity into the solid waste or hazardous waste category depending on the source of the waste.

At the end of the day, the SCPR agrees with Held that it is a nightmare for anyone to have to deal with the likes of the Ohio EPA and that Ohio EPA Director Chris Korleski needs to review the "double" standards that Held refers to and clear away the distinctions without a difference.

On the topic of muzzling Osborne, Held told The Report that he welcomed the opportunity to hear from Osborne and answer his question at the November 23rd Council meeting and "thank you - Councilman Revoldt - but I don't need anyone to protect me from myself" (a SCPR paraphrase).

One remaining question the SCPR has is this:  Will North Canton be fined by the Ohio EPA?

Answer:  it's anybody's guess.

But if a fine is in the cards, it will be North Canton taxpayers who suffer even more than they will suffer with remediation costs and the on-going into perpetuity expense of paying for landfill disposal of street sweeper debris.

Situations like the North Canton one, is an example why many citizens roll their eyes at the mere mention of agencies of government such as the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

In other North Canton news, Held acknowledged that some North Canton council members are unhappy with city administrator Earle Wise, Jr.

The unhappiness, according to Held, is grounded in the handling of the street sweeper debris disposition.  The mayor went on to say that he is pleased with Wise's performance as city administrator and it is his call (not Council's - according to North Canton's Charter) who is city administrator and the duration of a particular administrator's service.

HAS NORTH CANTON BENEFITED FROM THE HELD/OSBORNE POINT/COUNTERPOINT ON ARROWHEAD GOLF CLUB PURCHASE/MANAGEMENT?

UPDATE 090709@04:50 PM

The SCPR spoke with a North Canton Councilman today at the Stark County Fair who agrees with Osborne that Held did not consult with Council on the "security deposit forgiveness.

On the review by the North Canton Law Department. It is clear to the SCPR that the only thing that did not happen was for the Law Department to initial the document to indicate that it had reviewed it. The SCPR believes that Osborne is nitpicking on this point.

Here Osborne's e-mail the SCPR

Hello Martin,

I just read your BLOG and I would like to clarify a couple of things.

City Council knew nothing of David Held’s decision in 2003 to not collect the security deposit. The question is who did know of Held’s decision in this matter. I would certainly think that the former Finance Director, Julie Herr knew as she would have been the one to collect the security deposit. Furthermore, she was quite familiar with the Arrowhead Lease and kept track of the $50,000 in capital improvements that Larizza was required to make annually on the property as part of the lease. I am still not satisfied that this requirement was satisfied. In the first year of the lease $43,000 in business expenses were credited toward the required $50,000. Another story for another day.

I would like to know if former Mayor Tom Rice was aware of the decision by Held to not enforce the terms of the lease. As I mentioned, the lease called for collection of a security deposit, in two installments totaling $50,000. Did Rice participate in this decision. Who else had knowledge?

Also, I do not think it is clear under your bullet points that the North Canto Law Director did not review the lease as required by state law.

It is not for public release at the moment, but I suspect that I will file a complaint with the Canton City Prosecutor and possibly the Ohio Ethics Commission. Laws were broken and officials exceeded their authority resulting in a great financial loss to taxpayers.

I would think with all of this unfolding that city officials would want to call for an investigation and learn why this happened. But that traditionally has not been how North Canton has righted its wrongs. “Sweep it under the rug” is more the norm.

Chuck

ORIGINAL POST

Democracy is messy.

North Canton's council meeting of August 24th proves the point.

Former North Canton councilman Chuck Osborne read a prepared statement (some 13 minutes in length) at the meeting highly critical on Mayor David Held's role as city administrator and mayor in the purchase and decisions who would manage Arrowhead Country Club which North Canton purchased for $4.2 million in 2003.

Osborne, who was on council at the time, vehemently opposed the purchase.

Held says that the then ownership was bailing out and North Canton had a stark choice: Let the ownership go belly up or to move in swiftly to conserve a major community asset.

Major community asset?

Yes, Held aays in terms of the economics of the situation and to preserve the "greenspace" for future generations of North Cantonians and to not let the property fall into the hands of residential housing developers which burden the city with street maintenance expenses and the schools system with additional students.

North Canton opted to make the purchase.

But the city was totally unprepared to take on this "unique" asset without outside-the-city help. First, legal help costing the city $4,200 ("the best money he ever spent" - says Held). Secondly, North Canton needed a "new" manager to step forth.

With Osborne, that's where things really went awry.

For Held, the city made the best possible choice - at the time - by selecting Larizza Management Group because Larizza had actual experience owning/managing golf clubs (Chippewa in Doylestown and Rosemont in Akron). Other possible managers were inexperienced.

Osborne has a list of "should haves" that he lays at the feet of Held.

• Required a performance bond as recommended by North Canton's law director.
  
• Required a "personal guaranty" by Kevin Larizza.
• Requiring North Canton Law Department approval prior to signing and should have state law on the approval process codified in North Canton law (which Councilman Jeff Davies agrees with).
  
• Should not have hired outside legal help at the cost of $4,200. North Canton should have used the North Canton Law Department, exclusively.
  
• Collected (by legal action) the contract provided for security deposit when not made.
  

Held: The performance bond was too expensive (Osborne still disagrees), and that the city administration in consultation with the then council decided not to force the collection of the security deposit. And, Larizza (being the game in town at the time) simply refused to do the bond and simply refused to make a personal guaranty. Moreover, the North Canton Law Department did review the contract and the "missing stamp of approval" was simply an oversight.

Again, Held says that the $4,200 the city paid to a Texas law firm to assist in find "Larizza" through iths "Request for Proposals" recommendation was the "best money the city ever spent." Hmm?

Held repetitively makes the point that the golf course is a valuable North Canton asset.

Which makes the SCPR ask: why does he put such emphasis on this point?

Osborne does not say that North Canton should rid itself of the golf course/restaurant and agrees that current managers are doing an effective job of making the enterprise work.

Back to the point/counterpoint:

Osborne: Initiate action to collect some $104,000+ (confirmation of amount ABJ story 10/08/08).

Held: Is adamant about his "I have no regrets" in purchasing Arrowhead position and says North Canton is doing its best but is not in the best legal position because where would North Canton levy any judgment to satisfy the judgment (which, of course, is Osborne's "personal guaranty" - "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" remedy).

Enter North Canton Council President Daryl Revoldt, the referee?

Revoldt's main points at the August 24 meeting were: that mistakes were made in the 2003 purchase but lessons have been learned by "this council" (maybe not future councils) on contract management and that North Canton needs to learn to be a a team and that the legislative and executive sides of government in North Canton have historically not worked very well together.

Above a beyond all was Revoldt's call for legislature/executive teamwork.

The SCPR take.

So who wins the argument?

All the citizens of North Canton, that's who.

Osborne makes some telling points and Held has some effective rebuttals.

And Revoldt in what he says is his last up coming term (presuming he wins in November), tries his best to be a broker between the two.

However, what is the future for North Canton leadership?

It is hard to say.

If Revoldt quits after 2011, who will step forward?

For now, the SCPR sees Revoldt as the only factor in holding North Canton together with some sort of vision of the future of North Canton.

Over the next two years, Held (who will be mayor for at least 4 more years), needs to progress in his leadership style and become a much stronger mayor. He needs to decide how important being mayor of North Canton is to him. Applying for this job and that job over the last several years, put his commitment to North Canton city government in question.

About a year ago, a sitting North Canton councilman told the SCPR that Held is a weak mayor and that Revoldt was the "de facto" mayor. Is "weakness" a perception or is it a reality. If perception only, then Held needs to make the reality and perception merge.

If North Canton is going to make the best of its future, David Held must seize a strong leadership role if North Canton is to dig itself out of the economic hole that the loss of the Hoover Company left.

Can Held pull it off?

Citizen Osborne and some members of city council are skeptical as is the SCPR.

For the well-being of "the dogwood city," let's hope the skeptics are wrong!