(VIDEO) COMMISSIONER JANET CREIGHTON ON NEW YEAR'S DAY REVIEW OF 2013 & A LOOK AHEAD INTO 2014

Stark County Commissioner Janet Creighton sat down with the Stark County Political Report on Monday to discuss where the county has been in 2013 and how the county has dealt with matters that came up in 2013.

Beyond the 2013 discussion, Commissioner Creighton also looked forward into 2014 and provided a glimpse at what Stark Countians can expect to see in terms of practices, programs and policies from county government.

The full (almost 30 minute) interview can be viewed at the end of this blog.

Commissioner Creighton described 2013 as being a "year of restoration."

While a critical piece in county officials restoring the full range of county services to Stark Countians, that is to say the November, 2011 passed 0.5% sales tax increase (the Justice System sales tax [JSST]), started being collected in 2012, it was not until fiscal year 2013 that the full complement of a year's revenue was collected.

In 2013 - the year of restoration - Commissioner Creighton articulated three effects of the commissioners having the benefit of the additional revenue, to wit:

• a better feeling where the county is heading,
• getting a better handle on the safety and security of Stark County, and
• a realization of Stark County financial stability

She expressed what transpired over fiscal year 2013 (January 1 - December 31, 2013) in a triad context of being like "three silos."

2013

ACTUAL CHANGES SILO

Having money, Commissioner Creighton says, has had a "chemical effect" on county government operations in terms of affecting - in a positive way - the interactions among county employees and in the relationship between county employees and the general Stark County public.

She further refines 2013 (the year of restoration) as being "a year of change."

Stark Countians, Creighton says, are beginning to see better services.

BUDGET AND FINANCE SILO

Creighton says that Stark's commissioners have embraced "smart money management" practices in the context of a commitment of the county "living within its means" and also finding ways to put money aside (i.e. "a rainy day fund").

Because of these fundamental budgeting and financing changes, Stark County in 2013 was able to fund what she calls "quality of life" factors of county government.

THE SURPRISE SILO

The message here, it seems to the SCPR, is that the commissioners have taken "surprises" such as the roof more or less collapsing at the Board of Elections (BOE) facility on 3rd Street NE and turned them into positives for the county.

County officials have known for years that the 3rd Street facilities had seen their better days.  But nonetheless prior boards of commissioners seemed content with nursing the decrepit building along from year-to-year hoping against hope that they could get through yet another year.

Well, that hope came crashing down on April 10th when there was a partial roof collapse at the BOE.

The roof collapse was all that the Bernabei/Creighton/Regula Board of Stark County Commissioners needed to get the ball rolling for renovations at the Cohen-Joliet Building out on Atlantic Boulevard (Route 62) so that the BOE can relocate there in 2014.

Creighton also said the "surprises" of the commissioners having to deal with the destabilizing factor of Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2012) not being able to take office on January 7, 2013 due to what turned out to be a terminal illness.

While not a surprise, she cites the completion of renovations of the Bow Building (Cleveland Ave & 2nd St SW) as being indicative of how the commissioners have taken available assets (transferred from the federal government to commissioners for $1) and benefited Stark County taxpayers by thereby efficiently providing for sorely needed space requirements for county departments of government,which, of course, makes government more accessible to Stark Countians.

2014

Commissioner Creighton also framed her (and fellow commissioners Thomas Bernabei and Richard Regula) take on what 2014 holds for the improvement of Stark County government in another triad of silos.

FISCAL DISCIPLINE SILO

Creighton aptly defined fiscal discipline within the finances of county government in saying "I have the right ... you [a county taxpayer] have the right] as a citizen" to question the use of county funds and to insist upon self-discipline on the part of county officials on their use of taxpayer dollars.


CAPITAL REPAIRS SILO

Recently Commissioner Creighton went to a County Commissions Association meeting at which she learned that Franklin County has a $190 million "rainy day" fund.

Of course, Stark County is in no position to and likely has no need to have a $190 million "rainy day" fund.  However, witness the BOE roofing problem (April, 2013) and ongoing drainage problems (e.g. Zimber Ditch); the county does need to have a "rain day" fund.

Developing criteria for such a fund is a top concern of the commissioners for 2014 and Stark Countians will be hearing more on the specifics of dealing with what the targeted amount of the fund will be and how the county will come up with the money within budget constraints to fund it.

SOUND MANAGEMENT SILO

One of the major faults Commissioner Creighton sees with how the commissioners' of yesteryear have managed the county has to do with their having sat back and waited for situations to develop and then "react" to them.


The current Board of Stark County Commissioners, according to Creighton, is committed to changing that style of management into an anticipative proactive model.

To get to being a proactive body, Creighton says that the commissioners are implementing much more planning than the county has ever known before.

Right now the management approach is "by project" to catch up on what the SCPR thinks (Creighton did not specifically say this) has not been done by prior boards of commissioners in a "planning ahead" mode but, rather, in a "reactive" - "crisis management" modality.

However, as the SCPR interprets Creighton's words, Stark Countians should expect 2014 to be a year in which the commissioners start talking about and implementing plans on which Stark Countians can hold them accountable.

Commissioner Janet Creighton via video:

STARK COUNTY: "MIRED IN THE PAST?"

Stark County's commissioners are fully engaged in examining Stark's past (i.e. Citizens Review Committee) as is Stark County's only countywide newspaper (i.e. 20/20).

And such is all well and good, but how about Stark's future?

Recently, the Stark Development Board (SDB, Board) did a presentation to the commissioners about "the only game in town" in terms of economic development.  While something is certainly better than nothing, the SDB effort will not get Stark to where it needs to go in securing the future for oncoming generations of Stark Countians.

Surrounding counties have impressive economic development efforts underway.  Stark languishes. And the Stark County Board of Commissioners (via its budgeting process) is shorting the SDB on financial contributions which has the effect of stunting what the Board can achieve in seeding and cultivating new job building efforts.

It is laughable what the commissioners, apparently, since 1985 (when it was formed) have been putting into the SDB:  $100,000/50,000 to the Board and to its spin-off, the Stark County Port Authority (SCPA) which was created in 1995.

To the average citizen $100,000/50,000 is some serious change.  However, in terms of a serious commitment to competing on behalf of Stark Countians with nearby counties, other states and nationally for good paying jobs; it is - to say it again - laughable; even given Stark County's recent budgeting problems.

In last year's budget, the Port Authority got from Stark County?  Guess?  You'v got it - $0.

Does Stark County government's meager funding of economic development make any sense?

While the SCPR appreciates examining what is and the past so that Stark County does not repeat the mistakes of the past (which there are plenty of) through Citizens Review and a 20/20 look, that is where competing governments want Stark to be looking, while many of them are fully engaged in the future.

Medina County is beating the pants off Stark in its project to build a state of the art broadband infrastructure which in the 21st century is a highly attractive lure for entrepreneurial birth and company relocation (from outside Stark; not inside Stark like too many local governments are doing).

While he undoubtedly did in for political purposes, Stark County's lame duck auditor Kim Perez did a presentation on an opportunity that Stark has to get on board the broadband project at the Stark State College of Technology.

We will never know now, but would Perez have followed through as a Stark County proponent/sponsor of the CommunityOne opportunity?

Will his successor:  Alan Harold?  Will the commissioners?  Will the SDB?

Last Tuesday, the Stark's commissioners formed a variety of task forces in implementing a review of internal county operations (benchmarking, collaboration, et cetera).

But guess what kind of task force Summit County has created?

Will Stark County continue to spin its economic development wheels and march backwards in comparison to what nearby counties are doing?

That's the way it is beginning to look!!!

HOW INCONSISTENT ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE CAN YOU GET? COMMISSIONERS HARMON & FERGUSON "ANTI-CONSUMER" ON PROPOSED STARK COUNTY ELECTRIC AGGREGATION ?

It was December 30, 2008 when the Stark County Board of Commissioners voted to "impose" a 0.50 sales/use tax on Stark Countians. So you and I are "involuntarily" paying more taxes since April 1, 2009.

In July, 2009 they are in a more "democratic" mood. Now all Stark Countians get to vote on whether or not some Stark Countians will save money on their monthly electric bills. But we must wait until November to vote.

Note: According to a Repository report (Commissioners: Let voters decide about about electric aggregation, July 15) about 100,000 who have Ohie Edison/First Energy - OE/FE) are likely to save money.

However, the way the commissioners plan to set up the plan if voters approve county aggregation, the SCPR believes that "uninformed" Stark Countians could end up paying more.

Who might they be?

Folks who are American Electric Power (AEP) customers, that's who.

Because AEP is significantly cheaper than OE/FE, AEP customers may not save money under an aggregation plan but under the commissioners' plan will be automatically included and must "opt out" to not be included.

If it turns out that AEP customers will not be benefited, think a few might not know they need to opt out or forget to opt out?

Why would the commissioners make the gas aggregation plan an "opt-in" and the electric aggregation "opt-out?"

Is the county going to be put to extra expense in postage and administration costs notifying Stark Countians who turn out not to benefit that they need to opt-out?

Yours truly is not a part of the the county gas aggregation plan because cheaper rates are available under the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) "Apples to Apples" program.

Apparently, most Stark Countians are AEP customers. Let's say in the run up to the vote that the AEP customers take the position that they will not benefit and therefore vote down a county electric aggregation plan. Is that fair to the 100,000 or so who very likely will benefit?

In the final analysis it seem as if the commissioners are all turned around on what Stark's citizens ought to be able to vote on and what the commissioners should simply - err, not impose; let's say implement.

Voters in Stark County should have the right to vote on the sales/use tax.

The Commissioners should vote to "implement" an electric aggregation plan NOW and rethink the opt-out part of the plan. Opt-out (a mainstay of the credit card industry as a way for companies to use consumer information for indirect purposes unless the customer "opt-out") in an anti-consumer approach in that it is laced with consumer burdens and therefore needs to be scrapped.

According to The Massillon Independent's account (Stark County resident to vote on opt-out electric aggregation program, Rinker, July 15), Commissioners Harmon and Ferguson favored the opt-out plan whereas Commissioner Bosley was for the opt-in plan. Obviously, Harmon and Ferguson are doing the bidding of Mark Burns of Independent Energy Consultants, Inc. Why?

Bosley has it right with the opt-in, and, as usual, Harmon and Ferguson are on the anti-everyday person side of the issue and bending over backwards to accommodate the Mark Burns and his corporation. Again, why?

While the commissioners are rethinking the electric aggregation plan, they may also order up some "IronY Out" treatment in order to get the irony out of Stark County government.

DISCUSSION: AN ELECTED REPUBLICAN THINKS IT WOULD "LITTLE BIG HORN" ALL OVER AGAIN, IF TRAVIS SECREST WERE TO TAKE ON COMMISSIONER BOSLEY IN 2010?

The color depictions are reverse (red for Democrat Bosley; blue for Republican Travis Secrest), but a Stark County local government elected Republican used "Little Big Horn" to describe what this STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT 'S (The Report - SCRP) source thinks would happen in a Secrest and Bosley head-to-head, if it materializes in 2010.

It appears as of now that no other Stark County Republican wants to tangle with Bosley.

Along with The Report, the source likes Secrest but mused on the likelihood that Secrest could find himself emulating the Zeigler model of getting elected to office were he to take up the charge against sitting Commissioner Bosley.

The Report has heard various reports on the actual number of times that Treasurer Gary Zeigler ran before coming home a winner. Suffice it to say, God Bless his persistence, Gary ran a lot before "bingo!" was called at his election night party.


Secrest has run for public office twice so far. One for Canton Township trustee (losing by a mere 103 votes) and by substantially more to long time Stark County politician Tom Harmon in a 2008 race for county commissioner.

If the Zeigler model is the way Secrest chooses, then a race against Bosley makes sense.

lf his desire is otherwise, then maybe he ought to choose a more winnable race.