SEE VIDEO OF ANNEXATION - (HEARING?) APPARENTLY, THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT. ANNEXATION TYPE 2 PROCESS IS ABOUT FAR FROM A SENSE OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" AS ANYONE CAN GET. ADD IN "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" TO UNDERSCORE AN UNDEMOCRATIC CONSEQUENCE OF A POORLY THOUGHT OUT LAW - IF YOU TREASURE DEMOCRACY

Democrat Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley is running for the Ohio House (50th) and, if elected, he already has one item of legislation on his agenda:  correcting a glaring problem with expedited annexations.

At Wednesday's  commissioners' meeting, the commissioners (Meeks and Ferguson voting yes) were compelled under existing Ohio law as advised by Stark County Prosecutor (civil side) Debbie Dawson to approve a Massillon petition for annexation under Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 709.023.  Bosley held out and voted no.

The video below shows all the commissioners' dissatisfaction.

As long as seven objective criteria as listed in the law are certified as having been substantially complied with, the commissioners have no choice.  Had either Commissioner Ferguson or Meeks voted with Bosely, the county would have certainly faced a Mandamus action in Stark County Common Pleas Court brought by Massillon to force the annexation.

No subjective factors are allowed to be considered.  Not the concerns (i.e. emergency services, snow plowing and the like)  of any residents in the area being annexed have the right to testify at a hearing (if that is what you want to call it) held by commissioners as part of the approval process.

Massillon's petition is commonly thought to be nothing more than about income tax revenues for Massillon from the employees of the R.G. Drage Career Technical Center (Drage).  


Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr. affirmed to the SCPR last Thursday that the revenues are indeed a part of the goals.  However, he insisted that long term Massillon will be pushing forward with additional annexations in the area which should yield true economic development for Massillon and Stark County.


He pointed out to yours truly that any jobs produced in Massillon are jobs that will be staffed by non Massillonians as well as Massillonians and therefore benefits all Stark Countians.


You talk about "taxation without representation," it is immediately clear that ORC 709.023 annexation has been used by Massillon as the vehicle to subject the employees at Drage to a reduction of 2% of their income (unless they happen to live in Massillon currently). The newly taxed folks having no say in the matter. They can't even vote against the Massillon elected officials (Cicchinelli and the Massillon councilpersons) who foisted the forced taxation on them. 


The Mayor told the SCPR that not one Drage employee contacted Massillon to protest the taxation.

So?


Does that mean they are glad to be taxed?


Hardly.  

What their inaction means is that it is obvious to them that they can do nothing about being drug into being Massillon taxpayers.  Undoubtedly, Cicchinelli understands this and it is disingenuous for him to take the employees' failure to protest as an endorsement by default.

In proceeding in this fashion with the added insult of no immediate economic development goal on the table, Massillon officials have joined Ohio elected officials, who passed the law in the first place, in undermining a basic democratic tenet.


What the Ohio General Assembly needs to do is to add  "economic development" and "public safety" factors to ORC 709.023 and require the taking of testimony from statutorily defined interested parties including those who will have taxpayer status if the annexation is approved.

The timetables can remain the same (i.e. expedited).  However, the process needs to be more consistent with the spirit of notice and opportunity to be heard (due process) that is at the very heart and soul of the American system of government.


Here is the video that is a compilation of the "public speaks" presentations made to the commissioners.  Remember, the 709.023 hearing itself, allows no public testimony.

COMMISSIONERS BOSLEY & HARMON DISAGREE OVER AMOUNT OF "IMPOSED" SALES TAX THAT WILL GO TO 9-1-1 CENTRALIZED DISPATCH. HOW WILL COMMISSIONER PETE FERGUSON VOTE?

It appears that Stark County commissioners Bosley and Harmon get along.

And they may well - on a personal basis and on many policy issues.

But on 9-1-1 funding from the commissioner imposed sales/use tax (December, 2008) which was repealed by Stark County voters on November 3rd past, they clearly are at loggerheads.

How will the stand-off be resolved?

By Pete Ferguson's vote, that's how.

If Bosley and Harmon continue to see the matter differently, as the SCPR believes they will, then the question becomes how will Pete vote.

The SCPR's prediction?

Ferguson will vote the Harmon view.

What is the basis of the SCPR prediction?

First, Harmon and Ferguson have had a much longer relationship than Bosley and Ferguson.  And, make no mistake about it, public officials who have long standing connections don't jettison those connections easily.

Second, Stark County departments of government who survive, at least in part, and many - totally, on general fund revenues are looking at 10/15/20% reductions come the 2010 budgeting process because of the recent imposed sales tax repeal.

The Report believes that the Harmon/Ferguson relationship factor and the expense cutting measures of Stark County government will coalesce to compel Ferguson to vote with Harmon, if Bosley sticks with his position.

However, SCPR can see a scenario of Bosley coming over to the Harmon view.  He does have a re-election bid coming up in less than a year now.  The SCPR will be looking for indications that he is beginning factoring his political future into the decision on "what happens to the collected revenues" from the tax.

Once the "stark" Stark County financial realities hit home with Bosley and sees that draconian government services cuts might not be all that good in an election year, he could all of a sudden see the the Harmon light.

After all, as Harmon pointed out in an e-mail exchange today, the SCOG 9-1-1 group has not requested any 2010 collected money in a budget presented for public consumption at the Stark Council of Governments Governance Committee this past Thursday.

But before Ferguson decides how to vote (assuming that Bosley does not flip), he might want to consider the following scenario.

Looking at Project Manager Concatto's budget figures, there is the distinct probability that there will be almost $1 million is excess revenues over expenses.  Couple this with Bosley's desire to have 9-1-1 get about $1.2 million more as its share of imposed sales/use tax revenues (2010) and you end up with $2.2 million in unbudgeted expenses.

What to do with it?

Concatto tells the SCPR that it will take $3.2 million (maybe less because a reassessment of need might indicate a lesser number of radios) to buy the remaining necessary 800 megahertz radios required to fully implement the up-to-date radio system started by Sheriff Swanson.  The new radio system is key, if the revamped 9-1-1 is to work properly.  Eventually, the 800 system will be integrated into a statewide system.

At worst,  splicing the monies together,  leaves the Stark Council of Governments (SCOG) Governance Committee about $1 million short of having a full complement of 800 megahertz radios.

The SCPR has to believe that public safety grant opportunities exist to bring in the $1 million.

Staffing (i.e. dispatchers and supervisors) costs will be some $4.3 million plus other ancillary costs of $0.8 million will make for total annual operational costs totaling $5.1 million.

Where does that money come from?

They are to be paid by user fees or some equivalent thereof.

Presently, Concatto says that Stark's political subdivisions (villages, townships and cities) are paying $6.8 million.

So subtracting $5.1 million from $6.8 million saves political subdivisions $1.7 million.

What Commissioner Pete Ferguson needs to do is look at the numbers as he said he will do in coming to his decision of whether to go with Bosley or Harmon.

The numbers are there to possibly do a "complete" 9-1-1 conversion to countywide 9-1-1 without the need to do anything in terms of a tax issue - in the short term.

Ferguson has a lot of pressure on him.

Does he opt to salvage the 2010 money for general fund purposes (the Harmon approach) or does he elect to finish up the 9-1-1 conversion (the Bosley plan)?

Harmon and Bosley have their supporters.  Harmon, most county workers.  Bosley, the emergency worker corp and, very likely, the general public

Which way will Pete go?

Below is a video showing Bosley and Harmon expressing their positions

EVER WONDER WHY STARK COUNTY HAS AN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF 12.1%?

Could Stark County being in the economic doldrums have anything with what the commissioners are dealing with at their weekly meetings these days?

The date for Halloween trick and treaters in Stark County. When is Halloween? Commissioners getting preoccupied with how the county dog warden is dealing with a pack of "reportedly" vicious dogs and one commissioner (Bosley) actually micromanaging the techniques used to deal with the dogs. Why does Stark County have a dog warden?

Wow!

No wonder why Harmon can't get on with his "promised" (when appointed and in his re-election) campaign to work on creating jobs for Stark Countians.

No wonder why Bosley can't make any headway with his "economic development?" biomass project with Chevron.

No wonder why Ferguson can't seem to put his self-described influence with the U.S. Department of Defense to convert the former Doctors Hospital into a Veterans Administration veteran health care facility.

More and more these days, Stark County government seems as if the "Dog Days of Summer" are becoming a yearlong event!

But you can be sure that they will "awaken" and "spring into action" if the Stark Citizens for the Right to Vote get the repeal of the commissioner (Bosley and Harmon) sales/use tax on the ballot.

Can't get economic development and its concomitant of job creation going, but you can always raise taxes. No?