(VIDEO) WILL CANTON COUNCIL BOW TO DEMANDS OF GROUP 175 ON WAY TO FUND ADDITION OF 25 CANTON POLICE OFFICERS?

It is appearing more and more that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II's plan to reorganize the city parks and recreation operation (with a November ballot 4 mill levy being a key ingredient) might well fall victim to his ongoing battle with Bruce Nordman of Group 175.

Some local political observers think the levy will fail with no formal opposition.

So it stands to reason that if there is organized opposition in the form of a competing levy for beefing up Canton's police force, then its failure appears to be a certainty.

Witness this video from yesterday's Stark County commissioners' regular meeting and the appearance of Nordman during the Public Speaks portion of the meeting.



As stated above, a key to Healy's plan is to get Cantonians to agree via the ballot on November 5th to add 4 mills to their property tax bills to take funding of Canton's parks and recreation out of the city's general fund and replace it with the approximately $1 million generated by a dedicated levy.

Nordman, who lives in Vassar Park, told Stark County commissioners yesterday that he plans on asking Canton City Council President Allen Schulman to place on council's agenda for Monday an informal resolution committing council - contingent on the parks and recreation issue passing - promising some $1.3 million in general fund monies needed in order to upgrade Canton's police force to 175 strong which means that some 25 officers will need to be added to the force.

The thinking is that if the Canton general fund is relieved of financing parks and recreation, then it will have the money to meet Group 175's demand.

If the resolution is not placed before council or if council votes it down, Nordman says Group 175 plans to submit an legislative initiative to Canton voters by the filing deadline (August 7th) in the form of a "police specific" levy to pay for the Group 175 demanded upgrade in numbers of Canton police officers.

While Canton's parks and recreation department will continue to operate if the levy fails, it will not operate at a robust and adequately capitalized rate that the proposed 4 mill levy would provide for.  So in that sense, the SCPR believes the facilities, programs and operations are at risk in the tug-o-war between Group 175 and Healy.

Healy was so concerned about Group 175 opposition that he sent Parks and Recreation Director Derek Gordon to meet with Nordman et al in order to finesse the activist group into supporting the levy.

But the effort failed.

Witness the following video which the SCPR captured on June 17th.  The Report captured about 45 minutes of a total 1 hour 10 minute post-council-meeting "argumentive brawl" between Nordman and Healy.



So why is Nordman taking this matter to the Stark County commissioners?

• REASON #1 - He says to keep the commissioners informed about his effort to make Stark County and its "crown jewel city" (which also happens to be the county seat) a safe community which is attractive for business and families to locate in.
• Nordman first appeared before commissioners on March 6, 2013 (LINK to SCPR blog on his appearance) and presented a challenge to them to find a way to expedite the increased use of the available beds (501) at the Stark County jail.
• Group 175 sees the jail's bed utilization factor as one of a number to help lessen Stark County's and Canton's crime problem.
• One of the historical reasons that Mayor Healy has given for not doing better in alleviating crime in Canton was the reduction of county jail bed utilization to some 300 beds during the county's recent financial crisis.
• Nordman cited the passage of a countywide "law enforcement specific" levy that Stark Countians passed in November, 2011 but still not fully implemented in March, 2013,
• The commissioners' initial reaction was lukewarm at best but perforce of Nordman's insistence, they rallied to his cause and brought interim Sheriff George T. Maier into a commissioners' meeting to explain how and on what timetable he would get the jail up to 501 inmates.
• In fact, Maier found a way to add 50 beds immediately in response to Group 175's persistence.
• Maier has said that one reason he has not brought the jail up to its full 501 bed capability is because he cannot find qualified corrections officers.
• Group 175 stepped up to the plate and put together a "job fair," designed to draw in military veterans, which was held in late April of this year and which provided a number of potential new hires.  Maier then decided to strike out on his own in setting up additional such events in a "thanks, but no thanks" to Nordman's offer to help organize future hiring events.

• REASON #2 - (A SCPR conjecture).  Nordman knows the negative personal history between Commissioner Janet Creighton (whom Healy defeated for reelection as mayor of Canton in November, 2007) and Commissioner Tom Bernabei (whom Healy fired as his service director/chief of staff on January 26, 2009).
• Creighton and Bernabei may be the most highly respected public officials in all of Stark County.
• Being the savvy guy he is, he knows that he will get a sympathetic ear from the commissioners in his overall drive to make Stark County and Canton a safer community.
• Undoubtedly, Healy bristles at Nordman's taking what appears to be a Canton situation to the county commissioners.
• And if the political "bad blood" helps Nordman and Group 175 push the mayor into hiring 25 new police officers, he has to be thinking "good for Canton and good for Stark County."

The question now becomes:  Will Nordman's game plan work?

The SCPR is skeptical.

It is likely to be a close call as to whether or not Canton City Council will agree to pass an informal resolution if Schulman engineers having it put before council.  And The Report believes even getting the matter before council is problematical.

Presumably we will know by the end of council's meeting of July 15th whether or not the demanded resolution is in the offing.

This matter of adding 25 police officers has now come down to being a matter of who has the stronger political will and strength (vis-a-vis council) between Healy and Nordman and his Group 175.

The Report believes that the mayor has the heft (Babcock, Cole, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West) with council to get to a 6 to 6 tie.  Such a scenario would leave it in tie-breaker Schulman's hands.

Which way will Schulman go, if it comes down to his exercising his tie-breaker role?

It is anybody's guess. 

If the resolution track does not work, then the only alternative is via an "initiative petition" as spelled out by Ohio Revised Code Section 731.28 (LINK).

The SCPR wonders whether or not there is enough time (to meet the August 7 deadline) for Group 175 to collect nearly 2,000 valid voter signatures, present the petitions to the Canton auditor (presumably on or about July 16) which after 10 days of the submission is to transmit them to the Stark County Board of Elections which has up to 10 days to certify the required number of valid signatures (10% of Cantonians voting in the Kasich/Strickland race of 2010).

The Report believes that failing the informal council resolution route, a successful effort to get a "for police only" levy on the ballot would be the death knell for the parks and recreation levy.

Canton officials have tried to talk Group 175 into waiting until the Spring, 2014 to push for a police levy.

But to no avail.

Healy and Nordman are very determined individuals and it appears that their differences may doom the parks and recreation levy.

Add to the Healy/Nordman (Group 175) rift:

• the fact that the Ohio Legislature has taken away the 12.5% rollback on property taxes, and 
• has disqualified future homestead exemptions for those with $30,000 and over in income from qualifying for the exemption.

It is hard to see how a parks and recreation levy passes even if for some reason the Group 175 folks cannot meet the petition filing deadline.

Remember, some folks think that the levy will not pass even with no formal opposition.

Monday's council meeting could be full of drama.

Of course, there is nothing unusual about that, no?

STATE REP. CHRISTINA HAGAN HELPED TO ALL BUT TORPEDO LAKE'S CHANCES OF PASSING ITS 7.95 MILL IN NOVEMBER?

At the last moment the Republican caucus of the Ohio House slipped in a provision to the state budget bill language which likely will make it next to impossible for the Lake Local School District to pass its 7.95 mill ballot initiative this coming November 5th.

Lake is the only Stark County school district with an issue on this fall's ballot.

As member of the caucus is Christina Hagan of Marlboro Township who represents the 50th Ohio House District which includes the Lake schools.

She voted for the bill.

This legislation did two things which had to give Lake school officials "that sinking feeling" in terms of whether or not its operations levy will pass.

First, it eliminated a 12.5% rollback in property taxes for all new tax levies (including schools).

Secondly, it took away a 10% homestead exemption for Ohio's senior citizens who have annual income of $30,000 or higher.

The Lake schools had an uphill fight to pass its levy without the barriers put in place by the Legislature in the tax action move that included no opportunity for those affected to make input.

Witness Lake's recent history on school revenue issues:

Going forward, it is not only Lake but all school districts and other local government entities (cities, villages and townships) who will have a tougher road to travel in getting voters to approve property tax levies.

The 12.5% rollback was a deal that the state of Ohio struck with Ohio's voters when the tax was implemented in 1972.

On April 25, 2013 Lake officials placed a levy on the ballot likely on a note of optimism.

On June 30th and Governor Kasich's action of approving the budget bill (with a few line item vetos) with the "adverse to local government property tax issues" provisions in place, any hope that may have beat in the hearts of Lake officials certainly evaporated into "that sinking feeling."

Will they be sending Representative Hagan a thank you for her help in bringing on that unease?

(VIDEOS) FINALLY! MASSILLON MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY SHOWS SOME LEADERSHIP.

VIDEOS

COUNCILMAN LARRY SLAGLE

PRESENTS

HIS

PLAN

FOR SOLVING THE

PARKS & RECREATION BOARD PROBLEM

MAYOR KATHY CATAZARO-PERRY

PRESENTS

HER

PLAN

FOR SOLVING THE

PARKS & RECREATION BOARD PROBLEM

POST-MEETING
HALTER
CHOVAN
DEL-RIO KELLER
&
SLAGLE
ON LAST NIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS

It appears to the Stark County Political Report that Massillon Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry had plenty to smile about at Monday's Massillon City County work session.

After Parks and Recreation Committee chairman Larry Slagle (D - at large) made his presentation as to what he thought should be the resolution of the long standing impasse between council and the mayor as to whom should be in charge of Massillon's Parks and Recreation Board (MPRB - Board), Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. (R - Ward 5) offered that council ought to hear from the mayor on the issue.

Probably most of us present were expecting her to administer a tongue lashing to council as has been the case for most of her 18-1/2 months as mayor on most issues that have arisen the administration and the legislative body.

But lo and behold:  a surprise!

Instead of chastising council for seemingly embarking on a path to take charge of the MPRB (assuming that Slagle's proposal was well received by his fellow council members), she took a much more reasoned and conciliatory tact than yours truly ever remembers her taking in the past.

FIRST, THE SLAGLE PROPOSAL

Councilman Slagle proposes that council repeal Massillon Ordinance 163:03, to wit:

163.03 POWERS.
     The Recreation Board shall possess all the powers and be subject to all the responsibilities of the local authorities under Ohio R.C. 755.12 to 755.18.
(Ord. 201-1995.  Passed 10-16-95.)

And Ordinance 163:04, to wit:

163.04  PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
     A City of Massillon Park and Recreation Department is hereby created within the City. The Park and Recreation Board shall determine the positions needed for the operation of the Department.  The necessary staffing, wages and the budget to operate the department shall be submitted by the Recreation Board to the Mayor and then forwarded to Council for approval.
(Ord. 201-1995.  Passed 10-16-95.) 

Beyond the repeal of these original statutes, Slagle is out to reconstruct them along the following lines:

• Spell out the exact duties of the Board,
• Indicate the authority that the Board is to follow (answer: city council),
• Under Slagle's plan, the Board would appoint the parks and recreation director subject to approval by council,
• Institute guidelines as to:
• what the position of director will entail,
• the minimum requirements needed to be director,
• what the director's authority would be,
• Provide that the Board submit a budget but approved and administered by council,
• Set up a Golf Advisory Committee and an Recreation Center Advisory Committee with no power but to make recommendations.

Though he admits his proposal carries his bias, Slagle is not insisting that the loggerheads between council and the administration necessarily be resolved precisely according to his suggestion.

It appears to the SCPR that the main purpose of his proposal is to get the solution to the ongoing controversy concerning the management of Massillon's parks and recreation system out of the political realm as much as possible and into a form that is effective and efficient.

Here is a video of the main body of Slagle's presentation including some reaction from members of council.

NEXT, CATAZARO-PERRY'S REACTION

All-in-all the mayor made a very persuasive case that the executive branch of government (no matter who happens to be mayor) is the only entity suited to administering any Massillon department of government regardless of what that department's function may be.

In support of her basic argument she brought out:

• That the main players in the controversy seemed a few months ago to be content with the notion that Law Director Perry Stergios was the appropriate person to look at the law (state statutes and Massillon ordinances) and make a determination out of his analysis whom he thinks the language of the law indicates (between the mayor, council or Board) has the authority to appoint the parks and recreation director,
• That his reading of the law was that the administration had the authority to appoint,
• That his take was rebuffed, 
• That the Parks and Recreation Board has been running things (not the administration) and consequently it has had some major goof ups. 
• For example: 
• an employee who is not being properly compensated according to her legal right, and
• the appointment of a director (Straughn) by the Board who (the mayor says) "lied and cheated and did things he shouldn't have done" and then the Board turns around and prevailed upon the administration to get rid of him,
• That neither council nor the Board is suited to run Massillon's parks and recreation operations and facilities because one (council) works two hours a week and the other (the Board) works two hours a month,
• That only the administration with its "hands on" day-to-day administration operations is situated to oversee the day-to-day functioning of the city's parks and recreation facilities and operations,
• That her team of administrators can and are working with interim director Doug Nist to put him in a position to competently if not expertly perform as permanent director and that they believe they can have him ready by September.
• That as things would unfold under Slagle's plan, Nist would have five park and recreation board members and nine council members to answer to rather than merely the mayor and interim safety director Jim Johnson,  which is too cumbersome and susceptible of political pressures from many directions,
• That she has no problem with council approving her appointments on parks and recreation,
• That she and her administration be permitted a year to work with parks and recreation (with the Board being "advisory" only) to straighten out the department's operations and if the administration cannot make it work, then council can revisit matters in terms of the Slagle plan.

Here the mayor is in action making her case:



A COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS?

Both Councilman Slagle and Mayor Catazaro-Perry are to be commended for their presentations last night.  They did get a little testy with one another but they kept their differences civil.

Slagle is to be lauded for getting the ball rolling with his plan which has the potential (in the ebb and flow of discussion) as never before for getting the parks and recreation problems piece of Massillon city government getting resolved.

Catazaro-Perry for making a compelling case for her administration being the key component in any resolution plan.

The mayor is to be applauded also for what she did not do.

She could have threatened to veto Slagle's proposed legislation should it in its essence pass council.  If she were to do so, it would take a six to three vote to override it.  

Had she threatened a veto, she would have undone all the good that she did for herself vis-a-vis council at last night's meeting.

For the first time in her tenure as mayor, it is beginning to dawn on the SCPR that perhaps she is getting her act together on the leadership front.

All Massillonians should certainly hope so.

The parks and recreation component is a small part of the overwhelming problems facing Massillon.

It is likely that Massillon will soon be designated by the state of Ohio Auditor as being under fiscal watch or fiscal emergency.

If so, council and the mayor and her administration working together is the only pathway to recovery.

Perhaps last night was the beginning of Massillon officials' reaching out to one another and a beginning of the end of finger pointing at one another?

Here is a video featuring Nancy Halter (R - Ward 2), Milan Chovan (R - at large), Michelle Del-Rio Keller (Parks and Recreation Board chairperson) and Slagle with the post meeting assessments.

CANTON'S "MISTER 'DO IT ALL'" MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II. TO CANTON POLICE DEPT: "MOVE OVER, I WILL SHOW YOU HOW IT IS DONE! "

Repository commenter Lucy Litten had it right!

In due course after the story broke, yours truly's Stark County Political Report would be all over Mayor Healy's try to show Canton's finest that in reality he is the Finest-in-Chief.

Other than underestimating his staying power, The Report figured out long ago what an insufferable egotist he is.

The inability of Tom Bernabei (as service director/chief-of-state; now Stark County commissioner) and Tom Nesbitt to work with the mayor was a clear signal that Healy was well on his way to being a "my-way-or-the-highway-sort-of-guy" as justified and vouched for by his being credentialed (i.e. his MBA from the New York Stern School of Business) as having extraordinary qualities.

Healy's Tuesday "cop-on-the-beat" takeover shows that he thinks Police Chief Bruce Lawver is mere window dressing.

If the mayor finds a need to show his "big-man-on-campus" side, Lawver is no more the "real" chief of police in Healy's mind than:

• Tom Ream was the "real" safety director, 
• NOTE 1:  While Healy tried to make it appear that it was all Ream's doing to change the rules of governance of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab so as to put in his personal friend and political pal and former Stark County chief deputy Rick Perez in as crime lab boss, the plan in reality could not have happened without the mayor's participation and blessing.  
• The SCPR hears that Ream supporters are furious at the way Healy "threw Ream under the bus" when the political scheme broke into the news and are saying so to anyone who will listen.
• Yours truly for one doesn't want to hear it.  Ream was richly rewarded by the mayor with an healthy increase in salary (from $70, 000 to $84,000 [a whopping 20%] over the space of time he has served as safety director.  He had to know what he was getting into.
• NOTE 2:  A story just broke about how Ream as an administration point man welched on behalf of the city (and, the SCPR believes, at the instruction of Mayor Healy) with some eight new Canton policemen over their rate of pay.  The city is proposing a settlement at $5,000 each.
• Councilperson Mary Cirelli writes:  I think Thomas Ream should be held accountable for his ACTIONS !!!
• So does the SCPR, however, it is shortsighted to think that William J. Healy, II was not part and parcel of the decision to not pay according to the base agreement.
• Warren Price is the "real" chief-of-staff, service director, annex director and safety chief, or
• NOTE:  The Report has been told by a reliable source that Price has been sporadically looking for alternative employment over the course of his Healy administration time.
• Fonda Williams is the "real" economic development director. 
• NOTE:  It appears that Williams has had the mayor pull the rug out from underneath him when it became obvious that necessary councilmanic support was missing.

And, on and on and on and on goes the lists of those who serve at Healy's beck and call in that a condition of serving in a Healy administration is that each and every one of them has to implicitly agree to step aside while the Wizard of the 8th floor takes charge.

As undoubtedly most SCPR readers know from The Rep's Matt Rink's coverage (Mayor stops driver, alleges stop sign violation, July 3, 2013) of an incident which occurred on Tuesday, July 2nd; Mayor Healy has landed himself in some deep, deep doo-doo for about the umpteenth time since he became the city's chief executive on January 1, 2008.

Rink in the article neatly summarizes the scrutiny that the mayor will now undergo at the hand of Chief of Police Bruce Lawver and Law Director Joe Martuccio:

• His use of a city-owned vehicle to do his police work,
• His use of an police-esque emergency light to make the stop,
• His presentation as to whether or not he represented himself or with one having police powers, and
• Whether or not, in so acting, he placed the apprehended one, himself, and onlookers at risk in terms of personal safety.

Healy for years has been trying to convince Cantonians that crime is on the wane in the Hall of Fame City and therefore there is really not much urgency to beef up the strength of the police force to Vassar Park's Bruce Nordman's demand that the administration bring the CPD up to 175 officers pronto.

A major aspect of his campaign in which he successfully unseated Republican Mayor Janet Creighton in the November, 2007 election was his much ballyhooed "Zero-Tolerance-of-Crime" oft repeated campaign cliche-esque mantra.

After his 2011 reelection,  one hasn't heard that phrase grace his lips inasmuch as it is obvious to one and all (unless one has been living under a rock somewhere) that Canton is a long, long way from achieving anything near zero tolerance of crime.

Being the politically slippery guy he is, he now says Canton is in "a post-zero-tolerance mode,"  whatever that means.

Post-zero-tolerance mode means whatever Healy says it means a la that famous Clintonian line: "It depends on what is, is."

The SCPR has often written that Mayor Healy is the envy of  a 9-lived cat because over his five and one-half years as mayor he has escaped political life threatening incident after incident after incident because he is more difficult to grasp than eel.

He is Stark County's version of former president Bill Clinton in the sense that he appears - on a number of occasions - to have "politically" killed himself, only to come springing back to life.

One should ask:  Bill Clinton - in the sense of his escape artist qualities - William J. Healy, II's political godfather?

The SCPR did the very first media publication (one year into his first term as mayor) suggesting that he and his administration was on a sinking ship.  (LINK:  SCPR blog of January 26, 2009)

But writing such was a clear demonstration of not understanding Healy's extraordinary Houdini-esque skills.

The way he is going, if he cannot find a bigger and better political landing place (e.g. the U.S. Congress or a statewide political office), the odds are that Healy is going to be around for a third term as mayor and perhaps beyond.

There is no doubt as Ms. Litten has pointed out, Hizzhonor does, by most people's standards, on becoming the de facto police chief of Canton look foolish at the worst, inappropriate at the least and tinged with a healthy dose of grandstanding (perhaps learned from Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione [a la Craig Conley's assertion in the Studer case]).

Of course, he has appeared to be an inappropriate, foolish and a quintessential grandstander frequently in his five and one-half years.

What might actually do him in is if one of his scrapes escalates into being illegal.

So far he has skillfully negotiated those waters and has avoided any such finding.

Nobody in officialdom will say for sure, but there appears to have been several times from among his multiple scrapes that there has been a look-see as to whether or not he slipped over the line and did something illegal.

While some folks might get a chuckle out of Healy's antics, that Canton voters keep this man in office makes Canton look every bit a foolish city indeed!

The Healy ongoing distraction is serious business for Canton because as the SCPR sees it his foolishness makes it very unlikely that Canton is going to recover its former status as being a great Ohio city.

If Healy is an embarrassment to Cantonians, who is to blame for that?

CANTON CITY COUNCIL LEADS THE WAY IN PROVIDING A MODEL FOR DISHING OUT BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES

UPDATED AT 09:45 AM.

Although the economy is improving in the city of Canton as evidenced by tax collections picking up, Canton city government is in no shape to be giving away future revenues.

Canton taxpayers should be pleased to learn that on Monday night council apparently smoked out Corporex Capital on its request that council agree to a 10 year, 75% Real Property tax exemption.

Smoked out?

Yes, that's the SCPR's take.

Canton council president Allen Schulman (joined by several other councilmen including Kevin Fisher (D - Ward 5) several weeks ago initiated questioning of a Corporex Capital company representative at a Council of the Whole meeting designed to get a straight forward answer as to whether or not the company was going to use local workers to construct a planned hotel (perhaps a second) at the intersection of Faircrest and I77.

Knowing Schulman and Fisher and their political biases, The Report infers that "local workers" from them means local "organized" labor workers.

Also a part of Schulman's line of questioning of whether or not the incentive was a difference maker in the project going forward in the first place.

Well, take a look at this from Monday's Canton City Council agenda:

Postponed indefinitely!

Which likely means one of two things:

1. The incentive is not a difference maker, but it is fashionable for American business and industry to ask for them these days inasmuch as government seems to be handing them out like "free" candy, or
2. The incentive is not a difference maker, but hiring union workers is.

The message delivered by Canton City Council members is "yes" they have and will continue to offer incentives for business, commerce and industry to locate within Canton's economic development sphere BUT there must be jobs produced which generate long term income tax benefits if not other body politic benefits which exceed the tax abatement incentive given.

At the end of the day, if properly done, tax and other incentives provided by local governments must be win-win.

North Canton, on the other hand, offers an example of "improperly done" (in the opinion of the SCPR) tax incentives.

Back in 2009 Acme Freshmarket did some renovating and expansion of its grocery store on North Main Street.

The F.W. Albrecht Company was going to do the work and had no idea that they were "out of fashion" in the sense that they did not go first to North Canton government and try to wring a tax incentive out of the representatives of North Canton taxpayers.

In the end, the Albrecht folks did not have to ask.

How's that?

At the time, Daryl Revoldt (now with the Ohio Department of Economic Development - to the extent that Ohio government is still into economic development as a government function) as president of North Canton's council pushed for North Canton's economic development people to contact Acme and tell them that in line with Revoldt's "anticipatory business friendly environment"  (translated:  "we want to show you how much we love you even though you haven't doubted that we do"):

• North Canton had a $6,500 property tax abatement for the grocery store operation for the mere asking.

Of course, the Albrecht company asked and as it is said "the rest is history."

Although The Report understands Revoldt's thinking, yours truly does not believe that such is an appropriate way to operate with taxpayer dollars.

Why?

Because there is no "but for."

But for?

Yes.

Had the Albrecht company gone to North Canton and said we would like to spend $1.2 million upgrading our North Canton facility however unless we can save $6,500 in real property taxes it is a no go.

And by the way, if we go ahead with the project, it is likely that the reworked facility will attract enough new customers which could well result in our hiring additional workers.  

Would that make sense to North Canton taxpayers?

Undoubtedly!

A win-win.  Acme improves it business model and makes more profit.  North Canton gets more tax revenues over the long haul exceeding the $6,500 loss in taxes because new jobs are likely created out of the company's increased gross revenues.

The "anticipatory business friendly environment" model is just a good ole fashion giveaway that is never going to be quantifiable in terms producing positively for the taxpayers.

And then there is the Massillon model.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog on topic)

This is the model in which in depth and far ranging economic analysis was at the outset missing.  

With the Cicchinelli administration it was the ill advised foray into the golf course business which certainly became compounded ill-advised with the addition of the final nine holes.

Added to the golf course as not being well-thought-out (especially the additional nine holes) is the Hampton Inn project as well as the 59 Duncan Place apartment complex.

Massillon continues to struggle with making a break-even transactions out of all three of these ventures.

Massillon's mayor and her economic development administrators do not appear to have a clue of how to creatively construct an exit plan which minimizes Massillon taxpayer losses let alone reach a hoped for nirvana point of breaking even.

Only Cicchinelli's annexation program seems to have produced positive results.  And that may be appearances rather than reality.  With annexation comes the costs connected with provided services to the annexed areas.

The real question with annexation is what do financial ledgers show in terms of revenues taken in as compared to additional costs incurred.

A sure winner on the the positive revenue side was the R.G Drage annexation.

Otherwise, yours truly suspects that annexation is not really a sustainable economic development model. It likely is front end heavy with revenues but back end heavy with services costs.  The end of annexation is that in time there is nothing to annex.

An area of economic development which is highly suspect in terms of accountability is the viability of Tax Incentive Review Councils (TIRC) to inform taxpayers whether or not tax incentives have been worthwhile for the taxpayer.

Alliance, Canton, Massillon and North Canton have their own TIRCs.

The SCPR has taken in a number TiRC reports given at Stark County commissioner meetings on an annual basis.

A favorite story of yours truly is the Brewster Dairy TIRC process.

In 1999 the dairy signed a 10 year $2.7 million in taxes savings agreement with Stark County whereby it promised to retain 135 employees for the first five years and 125 for the second five year stint. Moreover, the company agreed to invest $1.75 in real property and $7.5 million in personal property expansion expenditures.

Brewster Dairy complied with its promises throughout the ten year cycle.  In fact, it exceeded the real property investment by $1.25 million in realty and $4.5 million in personal property.

Now the TIRC agreement is expired.

An unqualified success, no?

Not so quick.

The SCPR believes that nobody really knows the answer.

A gnawing question has to be:  would Brewster Dairy have retained the 135/125 employees without Stark County taxpayers anteing up $2.7 million?

The implication of the retention of the employees and the investment in expansion real estate and personal property is that "in and of themselves" those factors indicate a net gain for the taxpayers above and beyond the $2.7 million taken from county revenues.

But the SCPR again says:  "no so quick."

What self-respecting financial guy would accept an implication as proof that the company won and that the taxpayers won too in quantifiable context?

To the SCPR, TIRCs are somewhat of a joke if one thinks they are a measurement of taxpayer benefit.

All that TIRCs can honestly say is to be is a tracking mechanism  of whether or not the terms of an agreement of being met year-in, year-out so that a participating company is not subject to a claw back of taxes not paid.

As far as The Report can tell, TIRCs are a suggestion of community economic benefit to the taxpaying body at large.  Yours truly fails to see how TIRCs are constructed to quantify whether or not the agreements result in net taxpayer loss or gain as measured against specific number of dollars not collected into - in the case of Brewster Dairy - the county treasury.

And the question is how effective are the members of the TIRCs in holding companies' feet to the fire in terms of contract compliance.

The only Stark County official that has impressed the SCPR in this regard is Commissioner Janet Creighton.

And finally this.

Taxpayers are about to get even less accountability.

Stark County state Senator Scott Oelslager (R - the 29th District - Plain Township) slipped into the recently enacted 2014/15 state biennium budget language that empowers local government officials to go into executive session when discussing economic development matters.

Overall it appears to the SCPR that Ohio and many local governments have the wrong approach to economic development in that the ways and means lack:

• accountability, and
• transparency

So it is something to cheer about that Canton City Council in using "the right approach" grounded in due diligence just may have avoided giving away hard earned taxpayer dollars in that it appears:

1. It is not needed for the project to go forward, and
2. The company will not commit to hiring in the construction phase local "union?" workers.

Another aspect of "negative-net" economic development project  is that they cost the affected community in yet another dimension:  the loss of public school revenues.

Yet another reason why communities need to be much more scrutinizing about the overall ramifications of jumping on board to this or that hyped economical development project.

The Report's focus Canton council's probing of the Corporex project (as compared to the North Canton example) is intended to show an example of legislators making sure that economic development subsidies do not result in giving away taxpayer dollars for very little if anything in return.

Hence, a  SCPR "hats off: to the Canton City Council it its exercise of due diligence on behalf of the taxpaying public!

(VIDEO) HOW ABOUT - NOT A 100% COUNTYWIDE CENTRALIZED 9-1-1 DISPATCH - BUT A 75% COUNTYWIDE DISPATCH? AT LEAST FOR STARTERS.

VIDEO

CAD PROJECT TEAM (CAD-PT) MEMBERS

MEET WITH

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

On February 26th of this year, a special task force (CAD Project Team [CAD-PT]) appeared before the Stark County commissioners in one of their work sessions (set up on Mondays and Tuesdays of most weeks to review the operations of Stark County government) to summarize where the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) Governing Board is in terms of creating a countywide 9-1-1 centralized dispatch.

Here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog which details the February meeting as well as the overall background of Stark's 9-1-1 infrastructure and history.

Yesterday, the CAD-PT was back before commissioners.

Spokesman Joe Concatto (spokesperson for the group who also serves as the part-time project manager for the SCOG countywide 9-1-1) had a stunning request as far as the SCPR is concerned.

Stunning?

Yes, in the sense that the SCPR thinks the team was ill-prepared to be asking the commissioners for anything.

The group wanted a commitment from the commissioners that the county is going to move forward with a county CAD system before the two top bidders on system bid out would be asked to come to Stark County to demo their respective systems.

At stake is how the commissioners are going to spend some $2.35 million of taxpayer money (remaining from what they collected from a now repealed (November, 2009) 2008 commissioner (Bosley, Harmon and Vignos) "imposed" sales tax they are holding for financing some aspect of Stark County emergency services.

The commissioners' options appear to yours truly to be:

• purchase a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system for Stark County to be run from the Stark County Sheriff's dispatch center and the Canton Communications Center (redundant in case one becomes inoperable),
• buy 800 mhz radios (favored by the Stark County Police Chiefs Association) so that all of Stark's emergency forces (police, fire and EMA personnel) have state-of-the-art radios, 
• purchase a Stark County CAD at about $1.5 million and use the remaining money to match 70/30 or 50/50 with the political subdivisions on the radios and thereby achieve both the centralized dispatch and upgraded radios objective, or 
• apply the money so as to fuse with a state of Ohio MARCS CAD and Radio system in about year,

The Report's take on the group's presentation is that there was "no way, Jose" that the commissioners could responsibly make a commitment based on what they heard yesterday from the CAD-PT.

What did they hear?

They heard:

• build it (centralized dispatch) and they (the eight or so independent dispatch centers that remain in addition to the sheriff's dispatch operation and Canton's dispatch operation) will come,
• CenCom (Nimishillen's operation will never join up with a centralized countywide system) thereby making a 100% countywide system impossible to achieve leaving the county with a start of about 75% countywide coverage (note:  75% equals the sheriff's operation, Canton's operation and the RED Center),
• that the RED (Regional Emergency Dispatch) Center does not need a updated CAD whereas the sheriff's department will need one soon and which Canton desperately needs now,
• Because of the sheriff's and Canton's need, there presently exists a short window within which to get centralized dispatch done,
• a fair amount of conjecture as to what setting up a Sheriff/Canton Communications Center redundant CAD operation (i.e. one system in two buildings) would actually cost, and
• that a 75% countywide system will need to build up capital account for future financial needs of such a system but precious little discussion of how to generate revenue for such an account, 
• that the state's system will not be available for another year and its numbers keep changing (downward so far) as to what it will cost for Stark County to join,
• that centralized dispatch (even if only 75% of the county participates) will save Stark's political subdivisions money over the longer run, and
• the eight dispatch centers are not taking in direct calls from land line calls and therefore are not operating at full efficiency.

What the commissioners heard was not enough for them to  grant the CAD-PT the commitment they wanted.

The SCPR applauds the commissioners (through President Tom Bernabei) for in effect sending the CAD-PR back to the drawing board.

Going back to the drawing board does not in this instance mean starting from scratch.

But it does mean touching base with all the Stark County potential participants in countywide system and making sure they are overwhelmingly on board.

Moreover, it means sharpening the financial calculation pencil and coming up with a plan that overwhelmingly convinces the commissioners that the CAD-PT has devised a plan that has a high, high probability of working effectively and efficiently.

The commissioners have to be convinced that buying a county CAD system is in the best interests of the Stark County taxpayers before making the commitment asked for yesterday.

While the SCPR is impressed with the work that task force members Concatto and Randy Gonzalez have done on centralized dispatch going back years (some 20 years in Gonzalez's case), The Report is increasingly concerned that they and their fellow group members may now be in a "rush to judgment" mode that putting the $2.35 million in in a county CAD is the way to go.

Concatto and Gonzalez said they were more convinced now than they were six months ago that the county buying its own CAD was gaining more acceptance among Stark emergency service providers and that given the sheriff's and Canton's dire need (Gonzalez's words) for updated CADs presents a "window of opportunity" that may evaporate if commissioners do not act soon.

To their credit, the commissioners in light of what the SCPR thinks was a CAD-PT substantially razor thin (or, perhaps deficient) justification for acting now resisted the entreaty.

At Commissioner Bernbei's direction, the task force is to come back to a commissioners' work session in several weeks with refined numbers and a better grasp as to what Stark's emergency forces will support.

Fire, police and EMS personnel throughout Stark County should keep close watch in the interplay between the commissioners and the CAD-PT (also SCOG Governance Board) on the disposition of the $2.35 million that the commissioners have at their disposal.

It is critically important that going back to the drawing board produces a nearly sure fire plan.

It is hard to see how a 75% countywide, centralized dispatch plan (with the hope that others will eventually join) can be convincing to the commissioners.

The money comes from "all" Stark County taxpayers; not just 3/4ths of them.

Yours truly did talk to Dean McKimm after the meeting and he said that if commissioners did not buy a CAD, disaster was not imminent at the Canton Communicatons Center.

Also, Concatto et al did not give any evidence for the building of support among Stark's political subdivisions over the past six months or so.

Rather they acknowledged the SCPCA radio purchase preference, failed efforts to get Perry Township and North Canton on board.

The Report thinks it is fair to say that Director Mark Busto (RED Center director) was noncommittal as to whether or not it would join a centralized countywide effort.  When asked by the commissioners, he said that the decision was up to his board.

So it is a mystery to the SCPR as to where the support is coming from.  

When CAP-PT comes in again, if the group's plan is not clearly convincing, then the commissioners need to back off and do nothing for now.

They have the options of waiting for the state of Ohio to provide definite numbers as to the cost of joining its MARCS systems, or, alternatively, follow the recommendation of the Stark County Police Chiefs Association (SCPCA) and spend the money on upgrading Stark political subdivisions' 800 mhz radio system to "state-of-the-art."

The SCPR believes that a case exists that it would be irresponsible to Stark's taxpayers for the commissioners to do anything with the money they hold (county CAD or applying it to 800 mhz radios) until the state MARCS CAD and Radio systems become a known factor in terms of cost and whether or not they can meet Stark's emergency services (fire, police and EMS) needs better than a county run system.

If it takes a year or the better part of a year, so be it.

We should not forget that even the advocates for a county CAD acknowledge that the MARCS system is the wave of the future.

Commissioners met with the CAD-PT members for almost an hour yesterday.

Here is the video of the entire meeting for your viewing pleasure.

EMPTY WORDS. THE REPOSITORY EDITORIAL BOARD?

When one lacks the knowledge or courage to get specific and directed in writing or speech, the alternative is to tail off with the vague generality "blah, blah, blah ... ."

When it comes to getting pointed with members of the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) over "chapter and verse" legislative deficiencies on their part, such is what Stark Countians generally experience at the hand of the county's only countywide newspaper editorial board and to a certain extent, the executive-editor-directed focus of the reporter staff.

That is the thought that came to mind as the SCPR's took in The Rep's recent editorial (Bureaucracy 1, common sense 0, 06/27/2013) about how Plain Township taxpayers will have to spend a totally unjustifiable $100,000 because of a defect in Ohio's building code law.

The lead line under Reason No. 1 in the editorial:  "Someone should have known ... ."

Someone? The equivalent of:  "blah, blah, blah ...," no?

Maybe just maybe - in a specific accountability mode - :  the editors' should have named state Senator Scott Oelslager (R-the 29th-Plain), state Reps Christina Hagan (R-the 50th-Marlboro), Kirk Schuring, (R-48th-Jackson) and Stephen Slesnick (D-49th-Canton)?

These are folks who, when they sponsor a bill to name a section of a highway that runs through Stark County or to authorize the issuance of license plates to recognize the Massillon Tigers and the like, send out their press releases and which The Rep pretty much prints word-for-word.

This is the kind of stuff that a newspaper like The Hartville News dutifully prints and makes it very clear that such is what it is doing.

For The Rep, these press releases often come off having been the work product of a vigorous news gathering organization.

But generally it is not.

What it is amounts to is:  a "feet up on the desk; this is like falling off a wet log journalism" type of newspaper operation that anyone with journalistic experience could do with ease.

Canton's only newspaper can't even seem to get all over the likes of Scott Oelslager who inserted in the Ohio's budget bill (HB 59) a provision curtailing Ohioans (and, of course, Stark Countians) knowing what local governments are up to with taxpayer dollars in negotiating economic development packages.

Such is telling inasmuch as ensuring "openness in government" is supposed to be a prime mission of newspapers.

The editors did ask the governor to line-item-veto the measure.

Guess what he did?

He left it in!

The Rep and the Ohio Newspaper Association has so little clout these days that Kasich felt he could politically afford to blow them off without a second thought.

When The Rep brought in a new executive editor (Therese Hayt, October 2012), one could only hope that she would begin to turn our only local broadly based newspaper around to a state of more effectiveness.

Here is what Brad Dennison (GateHouse Media vice president of publishing, who oversees The Repository and  said of Hayt (on the occasion of her appointment as Rep executive editor:

[She] is one of the best newspaper editors out there.
“We are fortunate to have her as executive editor of The Repository and GateHouse Ohio, and our readers are in for a treat, ... I think you can expect to see more enterprising project journalism with Teri at the helm, and I have no doubt our watchdog status will be kicked up another notch — that’s a real strength of hers.”  (emphasis added)

Hmm?

"[N]o doubt our watchdog status will be kicked up another notch - that's a real strength of hers."

Really?

When are Stark Countians going to see it.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the Bureaucracy 1, common sense 0 editorial is a current indication that nothing has changed at The Rep since the days of Jeff Gauger.

So it appears to The Report that under Hayt, Stark's only countywide newspaper will continue to be respecters of persons and fearful of offending day-in, day-out news sources (i.e. public officials), and keep its editorializing and reporting at a banal, safe level.

Apparently, the beat is to continue a la:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ... ad infinitum?