IN THE FINANCIAL BLACK & RED: "AT THE SAME TIME!"

REVISED ON 02/25/2015

VIDEOS

MASSILLON COUNCIL DISCUSSES
2015 BUDGET
SORT OF?
==========================

KEN KOHER

MASSILLON BUDGET DIRECTOR

ON

INADEQUATE ANNUAL CARRYOVER

==========================

COUNCILMAN MILAN CHOVAN

ON

PLAN TO INCREASE MPD BY 8 OFFICERS

Even before she took office, Massillon mayor Kathy Catzaro-Perry was pressing the State of Ohio Audtor's (SOA) office to place the city in fiscal emergency.

She was initially denied.

But in May, 2013 she finally succeeded.  And even that determination was on the slimmest of criteria:  Massillon only meeting one of six criteria that qualifies a city to be thrown in to emergency financial status.

Ever since, it has been a roller coast ride for Massillon finances, to wit:

• Two failed levies one of which (November, 2014) was part of a SOA approved recovery plan, 
• A reduced income tax credit that will expire on December 31, 2015 unless a levy passes in the meantime generated about $275,000 (more or less) of revenue for 2014 but which have not yet shown up in city revenues,
• Increased income tax income revenues due to a general Ohio/USA Great Recession recovery,
• A claimed $2.6 million budget deficit by Mayor Catazaro-Perry (at the beginning of her administration in 2012) which miraculously and mysteriously turned into a $785,000 surplus (carryover) in 2015, and
• On and on goes the highs and lows of Massillon finances.

Last night's Massillon City Council proved to be more of the same.

There was considerable discussion of what to do with the $785,000 "apparent?" surplus.

For starters, the $785,000 is not really $785,000 because some $400,000 is spoken for to cover a 27th week payroll obligation due in 2015.

And then last night in sort of discussing the 2015 Massillon budget, council reached a consensus (no votes allowed at work sessions) to designate $123,000 for a workers compensation obligation.

And then there was Councilman Paul Manson (D, at-large) advocating that Massillon institute a $50,000 annual plan move from the general fund to Parks and Recreation.

Only to be disagreed with by Councilman Ed Lewis who wants what remains of the original $785,000 (about $362,000) left alone or, alternatively, some portion thereof to be moved into the capital improvement fund where it is said that Massillon is "millions behind" in dealing with road repair and the purchase of sorely needed equipment (e.g. snowplows, new cruisers, et cetera).



And to top it off, Catazaro-Perry administration financial official Ken Koher (Budget Director/Income Tax Administrator) said in effect that the $785,000 that everybody including his boss (Mayor Kathy) was a pittance compared to fiscal recommending bodies saying that a city in good financial health with a budget of Massillon's size should have an annual carryover (surplus) of some $2.8 million.



Note that Koher ends his points on the annual carryover (surplus) saying that though the $785,000 doesn't cut it, Massillon is heading in the right direction.

The SCPR questions that even though most councilpersons mouth the same phrase.

No new revenues on the horizon, how can Massillon be thought to be heading in the right direction?  Austerity and cuts can only do so much, no?

Is there any doubt that Massillon's financial world is a confusing if not a chaotic world?

The really solid bright note from last night's meeting was a plan unveiled by Councilman Milan Chovan (R, at-large) to increase, over 18 months, the numbers of Massillon police from 36 to 44 to get within hailing range of 50 officers that in recent times (10 years ago) once staffed Massillon's security forces.

And get this.

Chovan's plan is likely to save Massillon (which paid $750,000 in police overtime last year) about $200,000 which would go where?

But hold your breath.

Service/Safety Director Al Hennon has signed on. 

But it is an open question whether or not the mayor will go along with Chovan's plan.

All of this is confusing, no?

Levy failures,  abbreviated income tax credit,  general fund surplus, capital improvement deficits, a belligerent major, and policing at a savings.

But that is the order of the day in Massillon these days.

So what is the financial instability attributable to?

A mayor and majority of council who cannot work together, so the SCPR thinks.

Usually, such scenarios are a mixed bag as to whom is at fault.

However, The Report thinks that Massillon topsy-turvy financial world is almost completely, if not totally, the inept leadership of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

Though she clearly lacks the skills, temperament and attitude to be an effective mayor, it is likely that she will be reelected to a new term in November.

There will be some changes on council with the coming and going of the election.

However, it appears to the SCPR that there will still be a majority of council that the mayor will refused to work cooperatively with.

So the result?

Financial confusion will continue to reign.

Consequently, Massillon will continue to muddle along in minimalist mode of governing to meet the needs of its citizens.

The SCPR is highly impressed with "most" of Massillon City Council with Chovan being among those at the top of the list.

Overall, Massillon City Council is the best in all of Stark County.

If council only had a mayor to work with?

(VIDEOS) IT AIN'T EVEN THE 4TH OF JULY AND THE FIREWORKS ARE GOING OFF AT MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL!

CORRECTION:  The second Massillon BOE appointee is Moe Rickett and not Ester Bryant as originally reported.

VIDEOS

LAW DIRECTOR PERRY STERGIOS

AND

COUNCIL

ON

HIS OPINION ON PARKS & RECREATION

THE RELATIVELY CALM PART

OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE

PARKS & RECREATION ISSUE

PARKS & RECREATION MEMBER

JOHN WOLF'S

SOLUTION TO THE

PARKS & RECREATION ISSUE

(GETS INTO IT WITH COUNCILMAN PETERS)

COUNCILMAN LARRY SLAGLE

ON

HIS PLANS

TO RESOLVE

THE PARKS & RECREATION ISSUE

SAFETY DIRECTOR JIM JOHNSON

&

MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY

TAKE ON COUNCIL ON THE

STREET LIGHTING ISSUE

COUNCILMAN PAUL MANSON WEIGHS-IN

COUNCILMAN ED LEWIS WEIGHS-IN

All the ingredients were in place for fireworks at Massillon City Council's work session last evening.

Indeed, a few of fireworks banged loud in a spectacular display of political combustion involving:

• Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry, 
• interim safety director Jim Johnson,
• Law Director Perry Stergios,
• Councilman Paul Manson (D - at large), 
• Councilman Milan Chovan (R - at large), 
• Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr (R - Ward 5), and 
• Ed Lewis, IV (R - Ward 6) as well as
• Parks and Recreation board member John Wolf 

But it took more than the mix of these persons to set things off.

Okay.  Exactly what is the "more than?"

Add in two issues:

• What to do about the Parks and Recreation issue of appointing a new director, and
• Who is to blame for Massillon over paying by perhaps as much as $100,000 plus (when early termination fees are included) for street lighting expenses.

THE PARKS AND RECREATION ISSUE

The explosiveness of the meeting all started with (after Parks and Recreation Committee chairman Larry Slagle opened the topic what to do about the Parks and Recreation Board) Director Stergios.   Check out this video of Councilman Ed Lewis asking for Stergios for his imput:

Chairman Slagle went on to conduct a discussion of what to do about the seemingly forever controversy in terms of what authority the Parks and Recreation Board (Board) has with respect to:

• controlling its finances (which with an 0.3% income tax levy [1995] and fees takes in about $4 million annually, and 
• determining who is to be the Board's director

The SCPR was very impressed with how Slagle kept the discussion on track amidst the outbursts.

It appeared that Slagle's mission was simple.  He was intent on gathering information from council members as to their feelings about the aforementioned primary issues and the lingering issue of what to do with the golf course aspect of Board operations.   After the meeting, The Report spoke with Slagle as to what is next.

Most of the meeting discussion on Parks and Recreation went smoothly, witness this video:

That is until Parks and Recreation Board member John Wolf (one of two member appointed by the Massillon Board of Education [the other being Moe Rickett]) was invited to speak by Chairman Slagle.

With Wolf came a second round of pre-4th-of-July fireworks.

First, he compared the 30 or so minute council discussion  on Parks and Recreation to the Battle of Gettysburg (which, by the way, yours truly is a native of Gettysburg and the Battle of Gettysburg marks the 150 anniversary of "the turning point in the civil war" 1863 conflict next week).

Second, he announced to council that Parks and Recreation Board is to meet on July 12th and that he was confident that the Board would cobble together its idea(s) of what's its authority should be and that he would present it council soon thereafter.

Wolf's plea with council to be patient with the Board while it came up with a resolution expressing its desires set off Donnie Peters, Jr (Ward 5.).  Here is the video.

At the end of the day, it appears to the SCPR that Chairman Slagle has the matter of Parks and Recreation in hand and will be the catalyst in solving this long simmering Massillon department of government problem.

Here is Slagle post-meeting sharing how he plans to approach resolving the Parks and Recreation problem:

THE STREET LIGHTING ISSUE

Ward 1 Councilwoman Sarita Cunningham-Hedderly heads up council's public utilities committee.

She has been waiting until Ohio Edison area manager Ray Martinez could make it to a work session to get into an issue that has been bugging council for a couple months now.

It came to light in April, that Massillon was paying about $15,000 more a month in street lighting rates since former Safety Director George T. Maier (now serving as the "appointed" sheriff of Stark pending the outcome of Ohio Supreme Court litigation as to his qualifications to hold office) negotiated a deal in September, 2012 (effective in October) with American Electric Power (AEP) to  what he thought at the time (according to administration officials) was a good deal for Massillon and would result in substantial savings to the city over the two year life of the contract.

But he thought wrong.

How's that?

It appears to the SCPR that on the surface of the consideration,  Massillon was getting a better deal from AEP than it was from Ohio Edison (OE).

However, because of the rules of Ohio's Public Utility Commissions (PUCO) on rates (called tariffs by the PUCO) that allowed OE to issue credits to Massillon, the fact of the matter turned out to be that existing OE contract, notwithstanding the seeming better AEP rate, was much the better deal for Massillon on street lighting.

What came out of council's discussion last night was that Maier failed to get back to OE's Martinez and let him know that Massillon was thinking about switching to AEP and that the failure is the core reason why Massillon got nailed for about $15,000 a month more in street lighting costs (January through May).

To add insult to injury, when the lights came on (no pun intended) with Maier replacement and interim Safety Director Jim Johnson in April (in consultation with Martinez) that Massilon had made a costly mistake in negotiating the switch to AEP, it was only some splendid work by Martinez that got Massilon back on track with OE.

In other words, the Catazaro-Perry administration looked like a bunch of fumblers and bumblers.

And there was nothing Martinez could do to make that embarrassment to vanity part of the administration's problem go away.

What came to light at last night's meeting (likely the first that council knew about it) is that in addition to paying AEP a higher rate for street lighting, Massillon had to pay OE/First Energy Solutions (FES) a termination fee of $150 for what one source tells the SCPR is some 100 or so Massillon accounts held by OE/FES or combination thereof.

It appears, but nobody seemed to know for sure, that AEP must have waived a $16,000 early termination fee when Massilon switched back to Ohio Edison for street lighting.

Somebody had to eat "humble pie" to pull that one off, no?

"Nobody seemed to know" (from the administration standpoint) was at the heart of the matter of the resulting fireworks-esque discussions that took place between Mayor Catazaro-Perry, Safety Director Johnson from the administration side, and Massillon council  led by Councilpersons Manson, Chovan and Lewis.

A note:   Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. took the tack that the matter is over and done with and the council persistent questioning was unavailing.

The SCPR sees the street lighting brouhaha as a proxy for the overall issue between the administration and many if not most of council that the adminstrators and councilpersons do not trust each other.

The video (on the street lighting discussion) at the end of this blog amply demonstrates the deep, deep distrust that exists between the administration and council.

It is hard to see how Massillon gets it fiscal affairs straightened out in such a climate.

The key problem, as The Report sees it, is that the tone of the administration (not communicating with council) comes from the clerk of courts office and Clerk Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and his chief deputy Shane Jackson.

He and his sidekick (as well as other Massillon officialdom adherents to the Maier power model) seem hellbent on beating down any opposition to their plan and vision for Massillon.

Unless and until Mayor Catazaro-Perry separates from the Maier political machine, she is destined to be a one-term-mayor and will likely be remembered as a monumental failure as the city's chief executive after the 24 reign of Frank Cichinelli as mayor.

While Cicchinelli may have brought troubles onto himself which provided the Maier forces an opportunity to pounce on him, his 24 years had to have been - by and large - a very good time for Massillon.

Those days are long gone as Massillon now faces the prospect of being placed in fiscal watch or emergency ironically at the initiative of Mayor Catazaro-Perry herself.

At one time in her political career, yours truly thought she had a very bright future.

But that all vanished when she threw in "lock, stock and barrel" as the political appendage to the former Stark County Democratic Party chairman.

In doing so, she has lost her individual political identity and is largely seen as the window dressing of a de facto Maier administration.

Here is the full video of the street lighting fiasco discussion including sharp exchanges between Safety Director Johnson and the mayor with council members:

Weighing in on the night's fireworks were Councilman Manson:



and

Councilman Lewis:

WHO IS RIGHT IN MASSILLON? A HOUSE DIVIDED OR FAIL-SAFE LEADERSHIP? MASSILLON'S VERSION OF THE "FISCAL CLIFF" FIGHT?

It is kind of interesting to take in the discussion that is going on in Massillon these days about how to deal with the looming financial deficit.

Depending on whose numbers one wants to latch on to, the projected 2013 deficit in Massillon ranges somewhere in the mid-$2.5 million scale of things.

The real argument between Mayor Kathy-Catazaro-Perry and what seems to be a growing viewpoint on the part of various members of Massillon City Council seems to be whether or not the people of Massillon are going to be given the opportunity to decide the question of how the city increases its revenue.

Catazaro-Perry wants to put the onus of raising revenues on backs of council.

She is adamantly insisting that council reduce the credit that Massillonians who work outside the city get against their Massillon city taxes for taxes they pay to another village/municipality.  Moreover, she wants council to implement a street lighting assessment on city property owners.

It is hard to believe that councilpersons up for election next year would under any circumstances agree to the adopt the mayor's position.

Perhaps there are a few who are suggesting that their incumbency means nothing to them, but we shall see.

Already candidates are taking out petitions to run.  Republicans astonished everybody in 2011 in taking majority control of council in electing four new members (Halter, Lewis, Chovan and Cunningham-Hedderly).  They joined Donnie Peters (Ward 5) to form the new majority.

And, if the petitions get filed, it appears that at least three (Chovan, Lewis and Halter) of the Republicans caucus will have competition from the Democrats in order to retain their seats.

A majority council viewpoint may be forming to push back on the mayor in which Massillon voters decide whether not Massillon is to get a revenue boost in next May's primary election cycle.  The thinking appears to be to place before the voters a decision of whether to raise the city income tax from it's current 1.8% to 2.1% and to cap the credit paid by Massillonians to other taxing jurisdictions at the 1.8%.

To the SCPR, this is a very politically wise position for any incumbent councilperson to support; Republican or Democrat.

If the voters say yes, revenue problem more or less solved.

More or less?

Yes.  The most optimistic guesstimate of how much such an increase might raise is in the neighborhood of $1.5 million.

With the mayor projecting a deficit to be ranging from $2.1 million to $2.6 million, there would be a half a million to a million to cover.

But how?

Apparently, with cuts.  There are councilpersons who presently are insisting that the administration has not come up with enough austerity.

Even Catazaro-Perry's plan seems to indicate cuts will be needed even in the face of revenue enhancement.

What if Massillon's voters turn thumbs down on a tax increase proposal?

What then?

Obviously, additional (to those already made) and draconian cuts will be in the offing post May, 2013, pure and simple.

This is where the "fail-safe" factor of the ballot initiative viewpoint kicks in.

The SCPR spoke with Councilman Ed Lewis about the blossoming proposal which he says might pass even in the face of Catazaro-Perry's opposition.

The Report interprets his explanation to be that he and others interested in putting the initiative before the voters are not endorsing the tax but merely providing Massillonians with a "democracy enhancing" opportunity to be heard on the matter of Massillon government getting additional revenues.

Hence, the SCPR's tabbing such a plan as being in the nature of a fail-safe political leadership plan.

What Councilman Peters (Republican - Ward 5) is suggesting with his statement:

I’m not interested in wasting any more of my time unless everyone is on board.  If the administration is not going to back it, there’s no sense putting it on.  (Reference:  On tax hike, council may go it alone, Massillon Independent, Matt Rink, December 10, 2012)

and his Lincoln-esque "... house divided, cannot stand ... " stance that the standoff between Catazaro-Perry and council is an either/or situation.

But is it a question of either/or?

Should it be?

Does the Catazaro-Perry administration want to put the next Massillon election into a framework that you are either for a tax increase or you are not?

Is she looking for political profit or she about seeking consensus on the future financial well being of Massillon?

Has Councilman Lewis come up in his "let the people decide" with "a third way"  that solves everybody's political problem and, perhaps, might end up solving Massillon's looming "fiscal cliff?"