STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MIFFED AT AQUA OVER RATE INCREASES. DO THEY HAVE THE MOXIE TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS?

Was talk about Stark County forming its own water facility political posturing?  Or, was it legit, in terms of being a serious consideration?  

At Wednesday's meeting (June 9th), the commissioners appeared to be interested in finding an alternative to Aqua water.

Why?

Because of the huge increase (percentage wise) that Aqua is seeking for water sold in bulk to the Stark County Metropolitan Sewer (Water) District.

With the county experiencing a financial crisis which could result in a 30% or higher cut in departmental budgets come 2012, the county cannot afford to subsidize retail water rates from its general fund.

Back on August 28, 1997, the then Commissioners Don Watkins, John Dougherty and Gayle Jackson (now working for the Ohio Lottery Commissioner on an appointment from Governor Strickland) obligated Stark County to a 20 year commitment to buy water at rates negotiated by the city of Massillon.

There is a way out of the contract.  But, according to contract language, it could take about three years.  A two year notice and a year more for the piping connection to be maintained.

However, the SCPR believes that the talk about alternatives by the current set of commissioners is a lot of political huffing and puffing.

Commissioner Bosley is running for the Ohio House (50th) which includes Lake Township from which 2,300 households are served by the Stark County Metropolitan Sewer (Water) District (SCMSD).  And, of course, Commissioner Meeks has an uphill battle against former Canton mayor Janet Creighton to retain his commissioner seat.

The SCMSD raised rates for Lake its users in 2002 and in July, 2008 (12 1/2%).  Will this bulk rate increase be passed on to the users.  Stay tuned.  That possibility will be looked at by SCMSD officials.

Other constituencies which could potentially be affected by bulk water rate increases include Jackson and Perry Townships as well as Massillon and Hills and Dales.

The alternatives are to get water from North Canton, from Canton or to develop its own well fields and get into the water business itself. 

Interim Sanitary Engineer James R. Jones, P.E. told commissioners that getting into the business would be a big ticket item cost wise.

Stark County will end up paying $1.82 per thousand gallons as of January 1, 2012 whereas it is currently paying $1.58.  Apparently, this is a "deal."  As pointed out by the SCPR in discussions about the Aqua/North Canton arrangement whereby North Canton sells water to Aqua as a backup is by terms of a new contract set at $3.60 per thousand gallons.

This very point was made by James Purtz, who is the District Manager for Aqua at its Massillon facility, commissioners on Wednesday.

The Report's take on this exchange that it is mostly political theater designed to make Commissioners Bosley and Meeks as "fighters for the people."  It would be a shock if commissioners were to seriously explore the alternatives.  Perhaps, the commissioners will surprise us all?

Here is a video of the exchange between commissioners and Manager Prutz:

SERIES: HOW ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE STARK COUNTY DELEGATION TO THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOING? TODAY: SNITCHLER #3

As readers will note, very little of what is introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives gets passed by the House much less passed by the Senate and signed into law by Governor Strickland.

Along the way, legislators such as Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake) attach their names as sponsors and co-sponsors of bill which have no chance of passage and many of which are a waste of legislative resources.

From the graphic above, only four of the ten covered in this Part 3 of Representative Snitchler's work in the Ohio General Assembly have seen the light of day in any way, shape or form.

Here is a report of the nine bills co-sponsored by Snitchler as reported on in this Part 3 which languish in committee:

HB 187

Primary Sponsor(s):  Huffman 

Subject:  Bureau of Motor Vehicles-accept credit/debit cards

HB 203

Primary Sponsor(s):  Bubp & Martin

Subject:  Concealed handgun-ok in liquor-selling restaurant if not intoxicated 

HB 210

Primary Sponsor(s):  Morgan & Boose

Subject:  G.A./state elected officer salaries-5% decrease-until Ohio GDP increases

HB 212

Primary Sponsor(s):  Stebelton & Okey

Subject:  Amateur radio antennae-codify federal restrictions on local zoning

HB 214

Primary Sponsor(s):  Letson & Huffman

Subject:  National Ski Patrol System-immunity from civil liability for emergency care

HB 246

Primary Sponsor(s):  Yuko & Stewart

Subject:  Emergency responders-disabled by disease- workers' comp presumed as if on duty

HB 254

Primary Sponsor(s):  Balderson 

Subject:  Claim unemployment benefits for dependent child if in legal custody

HB 255

Primary Sponsor(s):  Balderson 

Subject:  Income tax credit-volunteer firefighters

SEE VIDEOS (ORIGINAL VOTE & REVOTE) OF COMMISSIONER DECISION. POETS GLEN ANNEXATION GOES DOWN. MASSILLON SET TO APPEAL?

After about a three and one-half hearing at Tuscarawas Township Hall yesterday evening before a standing room only crowd, Stark County commissioners denied Massillon annexation bid even though only one property owner of five opposed the annexation.

This hearing is a rehash of the very same issue that got started more than two years ago with the commissioners then finding that on balance there was no detriment to Tuscarawas Township by the annexation.  Stark County Court of  Common Pleas Judge Lee Sinclair affirmed the commissioners but the 5th District Court of Appeals found a basis on which to reverse the annexation approval.

The reversal is the reason for the filing of a new petition for annexation which required Thursday's hearing.

So will Crockett Homes (David Hayes, president) have to build the Poets Glen housing development ($140,000 to $180,00 in projected selling price range) in Tuscarawas Township as he said Crockett would if the commissioners denied he opportunity to be annexed into Massillon?

Let's take a look at the two votes taken by commissioners on the matter.

Apparently, legal counsel (Prosecutor Deborah Dawson) told Commissioner Todd Bosley after the meeting seemed to have been adjourned that the motion to deny as originally framed by Commissioner Steven Meeks ("I make a motion that we deny this annexation") was not properly crafted and therefore the commissioners had to reconvene to revote on language that met one of the specifications of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 709.033.

The re-vote was on a motion made by Bosley that seemingly comported with the language of ORC 709.033(A)(5), to wit:

The re-vote motion was constructed to say that the "benefits ... will NOT outweigh the detriments to the territory proposed to be annexed ... ." (paraphrase)

Certainly, Massillon will appeal this decision.  The SCPR believes this annexation battle is far from over.

DICK REINBOLD TO RUN "HIGH BROW" CAMPAIGN - NO PAC MONEY; NO ENSORSEMENTS SOUGHT: WILL IT WORK?

As readers of the SCPR know, The Report has written off former Stark County Common Pleas judge Richard Reinbold as a viable candidate to unseat long term (25 years) combined senator/representative W. Scott Oelslager.

Oelslager endeavors to get back to the Ohio Senate one more time.  He has already some 17 years in the Senate before being term-limited out eight years ago.

The Report has been highly critical of Oelslager and J. Kirk Schuring for defeating the purpose of the term limits law (which was the brainchild of Ohio General Assembly Republicans) in switching back and forth between the 29th Senate district (which covers all but Alliance and the eastern most townships of Stark County) and the 51st House district in a "musical chairs" fashion except that in this version of the parlor game each gets a seat:  just a different seat.

Also, The Report's position is that for all the time this duo has spent in the Ohio General Assembly (about 40 years), they have been unproductive in being factors in making Ohio one of the top states in the 50 despite being in a majority (supermajority) for a good part of the 40 years.

So there is nothing more than the SCPR would like to see than for somebody, even Dick Reinbold, take Oelslager out.  But, as The Report sees this race, Oelslager has very little to worry about in terms of returning to the Senate.

In an interesting series of moves and statements, it appears that Reinbold is trying to become a local version of an "outsider" type candidate.

Back in February, he told The Independent's Gregg Kohntopp (Richard Reinbold, Tom Bernabei, Steven Meeks join Democrats 'team' for Nov. election):

“I’m 63, I’ve finished my career,  It doesn’t matter to me what party somebody is from if they have an idea. Even if it’s not a great idea, maybe a lot of people working on it can make it a great idea. I just want somebody to do something. People in Columbus pass laws and make mandates and we feel it back home.”

Then on this past Wednesday The Repository's Lori Monsewicz wrote Reinbold says he'll reject PAC money, endorsements.

Hmm?

Sounds like The Report's type of candidate, no?

Sort of.

However, The Report is skeptical of Reinbold's conversion from "insider" politics.  Dick Reinbold has been the quintessential Stark County Democrat "insider" for his entire political career.

The Report takes the Reinbold "come to Jesus" politics with a grain of political salt.  It could be a case of seeing the handwriting on the wall.  Take this endorsement of Reinbold opponent Oelslger by a traditional Democratic candidate supporter Service Employees International Union (SEIU):

Well, if as a Democrat you cannot get the endorsement of a SEIU, why bother at all.  Undoubtedly, the Ohio Education Association will be, if it hasn't already, endorsing Oelslager.  Moreover, the SCPR expects that a number of traditional Democratically inclined organizations will be endorsing and supplying PAC money to Oelslager.

So it could be that Reinbold, understanding the political realities, is trying to turn a negative (among those who practice "realpolitik") into a positive by positioning himself on the high moral ground as far as politics go.

The latest campaign finance reports are due to be filed today.  As soon as they become available, The Report will do a follow-up to this blog.

However, the April filed (pre-primary reports) show Oelslager skunking Reinbold on fundraising.

Reinbold's report is only to designate a campaign treasurer.  Apparently, because the law requires it.  Not that any money had come to his campaign.

So it is as of the pre-primary reports Oelslager $45,647.36 to Reinbold $-0-.

And to underscore the hopelessness of Reinbold's PAC prospects, look at the following graphic.  Of seven contributors that Oelslager had on his 2010 pre-primary report FOUR were PACs, to wit:

Yes, the SCPR is an anyone but Oelslager supporter, but the political reality is that "it ain't going to happen" with Reinbold. 

The SCPR believes that the Reinbold candidacy is a "hoist the white flag" operation by the Ohio Senate Democratic Caucus.  But at least this time the Democrats have a candidate.  In his last run for the Ohio House (51st), Oelslager was unopposed.

A VIDEO TO WATCH: IS IT THE "ARROGANT" ELECTRIC POWER OR THE AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER?

UPDATE:  06/10/2010 11:30 AM - Here is a copy of the actual e-mail text from AEP's David Wheeler to County Administrator Mike Hanke.

We are in the process of defining the economic impact AEP Ohio has on the many communities we serve.  

We elected  to look at the county level as the basis for allocating our tax,payroll, purchased goods / services and philanthropic impacts.  I was astounded to learn that in 2009, AEP Ohio spent $71,595,940 in Stark County.  We spent just under $31,000,000 in purchased goods and services and nearly $11,000,000 in property and payroll taxes.

I thought you might find this interesting.  Have a safe day.

David M. Wheeler
General Manager, Community Affairs
AEP Ohio

ORIGINAL POST

According to an e-mail received by County Administrator Mike Hanke, it appears to the  SCPR that American Electric Power (AEP/Ohio Power) is looking for a little love in its service area.

One of the places is with the Stark County commissioners?

A strange place, indeed, 

The e-mail sender (David Wheeler, General Manager of AEP's Community Affairs and Economic Development) sent what apparently could be construed to be a private? communication to "County Administrator" Hanke (i.e. Hanke is shown on the accompanying video as saying that he asked Dave for permission to share its contents with commissioners and  got permission to do so).  Perhaps, Administrator Hanke has a little explaining to do about the implication of private?  Didn't he receive this e-mail at the office?  If so, per force of the situs of receipt by a public official, it would be a public document. Why would permission to share be needed?

The SCPR has asked Hanke for a copy of the e-mail on the premise that it is a public document.  It will be interesting to see what his response is.

In the e-mail Wheeler talks about the large financial expenditures that AEP makes within Stark County and therefore impliedly boosting the Stark County economy.

But nowhere does he talk about the 23% in rate increases that Stark County's Ohio Power customers are to being subjected to over 2009, 2010 and 2011.

The SCPR applauds Commissioner Bosley for coming right back at Hanke with the "what about the huge amount of the dollars AEP is taking from Stark Countians via the gigantic rate increases" (paraphrase)  point upon Hanke finishing his "Stark County education moment" on behalf of AEP.

Further kudos to Commissioner Steve Meeks for asking AEP, with Hanke as facilitator, to fund a new grandstand presumably for the Stark County Fairgrounds. 

The only worse place for AEP to be looking for Stark County love may have been with the Plain Township trustees.  In particular, Trustee Louis Giavasis who was the most active, vocal and energetic Stark County government official opposing the AEP original increase request.

One would think that the likes of AEP would just go away and hide when it gets it way with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

It appears that the PUCO cut AEP original request about in half.  But many of us of Stark County are not buying that line.

The Report believes that companies like AEP, as a matter of predesigned calculation, ask for unrealistically high rate increases as a first initiative so as to give the PUCO room to cut the increases actually granted to make the PUCO look like it is consumer friendly.

AEP is happy, the PUCO is happy and unsophisticated consumers are happy.

But for those of us who have insight into how the game is played; we truly understand that we have been gamed by American Electric Power and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

That's how arrogant these folks are!!!

And they want to be loved? Watch this intriguing video of the exchange between Administrator Hanke and Commissioners Bosley and Meeks.

NORTH CANTON FACES $200,000 PLUS DEFICIT IN 2011, $1.2 MILLION IN 2012. WHOSE FAULT IS IT?

Well, if you buy Ron Ponder's take (Points to Ponder, WHBC - 1480, 10 a.m. to noon M-F), you have no further to look than North Canton's Daryl Revoldt (president of North Canton City Council and a former mayor).  At least, that is, in the immediate sense ($231,000 for 2011).

Here is Ron's comment on Edd Pritchard's story North Canton still projecting a deficit, The Repository, June 8, 2010:

The SCPR contacted Revoldt for a reaction.

And have a reaction, he did!

After pointing out that Ponder is primarily an entertainer and not to be taken seriously as a city government analyst, Revoldt jumped all over WHBC's popular Canton talk show host (Points to Ponder).

Revoldt says that the $200,000 plus spent on the the annexation battle versus Canton and Jackson Township did not come out of the general revenue fund but out of water department funds.  Consequently, the expenditure - Revoldt says - is not a factor in the projected $231,000 year 2011 deficit.

Of course, Revoldt says, Ponder would not have a clue about the intricacies of city government finances and only shows his ignorance in making the comment.

Water appears to be a major North Canton asset and protecting the North Canton water treatment facility from being annexed  into the city of Canton (and coming under Canton's police powers) was a major factor in the decision by North Canton officials.  Also, North Canton has limited directions in which to annex and therefore needed to make a major battle on the joint effort by Canton and Jackson Township to bottle North Canton up on its western flank.

Council President Revoldt says he only wishes he had the kind of power in North Canton that Ponder attributes to him.  However, he says, he does not and that the fact of the matter is that Councilpersons Peters, Davies, Kiesling and Snyder were in accord with him as well as city administration officials and various legal counsel.

And there was the problem (in terms of not being part of the deliberations) of Councilpersons Foltz (who works for Canton) and DeOrio (who not only works for Canton, but works for Canton Municipal Chief Deputy Randy Gonzalez who also happens to be fiscal officer for Jackson Township).

As far as Revoldt is concerned, he couldn't disagree more with Ponder's assertion on the lawsuit that "everybody knew the city would lose[.]"

He still thinks that North Canton was correct on the law.


Revoldt muses about his own observation that Ponder is targeting him.  But why?  The council president can only speculate on the reasons.

He thinks it centers on his unwillingness to be at the beck and call of Ponder when he calls.  He says he has a day job and can't just drop everything when Ponder calls.  Moreover, he believes that Ponder is a buddy with Gonzalez, Sliman (Canton's annexation director), and Canton Mayor William J. Healy II, and others involved in the matter, and now that North Canton has been unable to get the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the case, it is retribution time.

There is no doubt to the SCPR that the feelings between Ponder and Revoldt run strong.  Ponder is generally understanding of public officials.  Much more than yours truly.  So it is interesting that he does seem to single Revoldt out for less understanding.

This could be Revoldt's last term as a public official.  The Report gets the impression that at the end of this this council term that Revoldt will hang it all up.

The question is this.  Will Ron Ponder be happy or unhappy, if that's what Revoldt does?

MARLINGTON & PERRY: ISSUES OF TRUST SURFACE YET AGAIN IN OTHER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICTS. HAS TRUST BEEN RESTORED IN NORTHWEST?

Over the past year the discussion has been whether or not Northwest Local School District officials had rebuilt trust enough to pass a 1% earned income levy in May, 2010.

The levy passed, but the SCPR thinks it is too early to tell on the matter of rebuilding trust.  Soon the District will be faced with another test.  Ohio, faced with an $8 billion shortfall in the next biennium, will be cutting local school districts like Northwest up to a third of its state monies.

It appears to the SCPR that the Northwest victory in November may have been more the product of a massive public relations effort rather than genuine trust at work.  A post-election Akron Beacon Journal articles reports: 

The district [Northwest] hired a Hudson public relations firm for five months to improve communication with residents, which included conducting a survey last June that revealed that the district had a perceived trust problem on handling finances. (Northwest finally wins at polls with planning, lots of communication,  John Higgins, May 9, 2010)

It is in crisis situations that we find out whether or not trust is sufficient to solve a problem.

The Northwest Board has held at least one post-election community meeting.  This is a step in the right direction.  However, the true test will come as the space between the May, 2010 election success and the current day widens.  Will the meetings continue with regularity and vigor?  If they continue, will they be pro forma or will district officials find a way to make them productive in rebuilding trust.

On to the Marlington situation.

Now we get news of yet another Stark County school district which is in a crisis mode.  The Alliance Review reports in Marlington board talks finances in a special meeting (Joni Bowen, June 5, 2010) that Superintendent Jim Nicodemo suspects that school district voters do not trust school officials.

The answer?

A la Northwest (at a cost of $13,000) about a year ago, the Marlington Board of Education (MBOE) has commissioned The Impact Group ($14,500) to determine the trust level between Marlington voters and the MBOE.

According to The Review, The Impact Group assignment will be:

...  to conduct phone interviews with 360 of the district’s 11,000 residents in order to obtain a 5 percent margin of error, Nicodemo said. The survey may include questions such as what type of levy individuals would support; whether the community trusts the district; whether the community trusts the superintendent; and whether the community would support passing a bond to construct new buildings within the district.

Depending on how the renewal/replacement levy scenario plays out, Marlington faces anywhere from a $918,391 to $2,824.575 deficit by 2013.

As with Northwest, it is obvious that Marlington school officials have be infected with myopia.  Moreover, they have not realized that trust building is a 24/7 year around operation.  Now the MBOE finds itself in a big financial problem.

And, of course, none of the deficit numbers factor in the upcoming state of Ohio cuts of up to one-third within the next year.

Think it might be smart on the part of the school folks at Northwest, Marlington, indeed, all of Stark County's school districts to construct something like the "A-Frame of Trust" and a day-in, day-out way of conducting business within the district.

On to the Perry school district.

The Perry school district is in the midst of destroying trust over the Whetstone matter.  Perhaps, if an "A-Frame of Trust" were in place, that situation would not have taken the ugly turn that it has.

Of many if not all Stark County school district officials, it needs to be said on the issue of trust:


Oh, when will they ever learn.  Oh, when will they ever learn!!!