Protection of Well Fields Should Be North Canton’s Priority Not Expanded Parking with Limited Funds

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

April 22, 2013 

            North Canton’s ongoing push to put in additional parking spaces at the East Maple Street Ball Fields seems to defy logic as everyone seems to forget that the property is the site of a city aquifer first and foremost. 

            The aquifer is a raw water source for the citizens of North Canton as well as water customers outside the city.  The ball fields and surrounding area are designated as a Source Water Area Protection area. In a designated SWAP area the Ohio EPA suggests protective strategies to minimize risks in these areas. 

The Ohio EPA considers parking lots a potential source of contamination. If a SWAP area already has a parking lot, the EPA has recommended strategies in its SWAP assessment reports to deal with these potential sources of contamination. The EPA does not endorse expanding any existing source of contamination such as a parking lot that lies within a SWAP area.  

One would surely think that with the experience the City of North Canton went through in 2001 with the East Maple Street well field that protection of our sources of drinking water would be the top priority.  

On Wednesday, June 13, 2001, the City of North Canton was featured on the front page of the Repository with headlines proclaiming, “North Canton well field is contaminated.” 

On Thursday the 14, North Canton again made headlines with, “Water danger zone expands.”

On Friday the 15, more disturbing headlines concerning North Canton’s East Maple Street well field proclaimed, “Well field ruined ‘forever.’”  

The City of North Canton continued to make headlines in the Repository for another five days. Citizens in North Canton and surrounding townships were in a panic. North Canton’s mayor announced his resignation as all of this unfolded.  

One would think that a community that had experienced such a calamity would now want to take extra precautions to protect its water sources from contamination. 

The East Maple Street Ball Fields already have parking to accommodate 227 vehicles. There is no reason to increase the level of risk to the City’s aquifer with additional parking. In the last week I forwarded to the Clerk of Council an email that I received from the Ohio EPA entitled, “SWAP protective strategies for parking areas.” 

This email clearly defines parking lots as a potential source of contamination. After the near disaster that took place in June 2001, why would you not exercise the utmost diligence to minimize any and all risks to the City’s well field? 

I would also like to add that it makes absolutely no sense to spend $50,000 of the $150,000 bequest to expand the ball field parking lot when it is known that the liner at the Dogwood Pool needs to be replaced at a cost of $300,000 or more. 

Given that the city is struggling financially, the bequeath is a godsend for the city and would cover half the cost to reline the Dogwood Pool.

Why would a community projecting budget deficits spend public money on a parking lot rejected by its’ Planning Commission when there is a need for several hundreds of thousands of dollars for major maintenance to Dogwood Park pool? 

The vacant lots purchased by the city to provide a buffer for the well field against development should not be developed for parking. Doing so undermines the reasoning for purchasing the lots and undermines the credibility of the individuals who gave that reasoning for purchasing the lots.

 

I ask that this council show its residents that the City of North Canton has learned from the past and that everything possible will be done to minimize and or eliminate risk of contamination to its sources of drinking water.  There is absolutely no reason to increase the risks of contamination to drinking water sources beyond what exists with the present level of parking. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

City of North Canton

 

Handout to City Council follows.

 

NORTH CANTON WATER CRISIS

JUNE, 2001 

FRONT PAGE HEADLINES - REPOSITORY NEWSPAPER  

 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001

“NORTH CANTON WELL FIELD IS CONTAMINATED”

-          SOLVENT FOUND AT E. MAPLE SITE  

 

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001

“WATER DANGER ZONE EXPANDS”

-          RESIDENTIAL WELLS AT RISK IN LAKE, PLAIN TOWNSHIPS

 

FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2001

“WELL FIELD RUINED FOREVER”

-          NORTH CANTON PROJECT, $1.4M DOWN THE DRAIN

-          EPA BEGINS WELL-WATER TESTING TODAY

 

SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 2001

“TWO WELLS TEST CLEAN”

-          AREA UNDER ALERT COULD BE REDUCED

 

SUNDAY, JUNE 17, 2001

“WATER WORRIES LINGER”

-          CONTAMINATED WELL STRAINS FAMILY

-          PEOPLE NOT TAKING CHANCES WITH WATER

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2001

“WELL-WATER BAN LIFTED”

-          RESIDENT CAN USE WATER AGAIN, BUT OFFICIALS WILL CONTINUE TESTING

 

WEDNSDAY, JUNE 20, 2001

“ADVISORY OVER, BUT WELL-USERS STILL CAUTIOUS”

 

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2001

“SALVAGING WELL FIELD DEPENDS ON EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION”

Mayor Held Provides Millions of Dollars for Developers but Only Lip Service to North Canton YMCA

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

April 8, 2013 

            The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a story on January 28, 2008, titled, “Developer Stuart Lichter closes purchase of Hoover property.” The first paragraph of the news article states, “California developer Stuart Lichter swept up the vacant Hoover Co. campus at a bargain price Monday – paying $5 million for a property that, when occupied, might have fetched four times that. And the value’s likely to rise. Lichter and his business partners plan to turn the aging 1.4 million-square-foot property into a complex of homes, offices, manufacturers, neighborhood shops and restaurants and - possibly – a small hotel.” 

            Stuart Lichter laid out this vision of redevelopment for the Hoover property, and for a community such as ours that lost its identity and thousands of jobs, it certainly sounded like all of our prayers had been answered.  

In spite of the fact that Mr. Lichter is a multi-millionaire who surely has the resources to make his vision for the Hoover property a reality, he has asked our struggling community and the State of Ohio for millions of dollars in financial assistance.  

A recap of that financial assistance includes $440,000 for gantry cranes to bring Meyers Controlled Power from Massillon to North Canton and approximately $65,000 made available to outfit and relocate space for Stark State to the Hoover District. 

            Totaling $505,000, this is money that came directly from city coffers to Mr. Lichter and local partners, Chris Semarjian and Bob DeHoff, collectively known as Maple Street Commerce. 

            In 2009, the City of North Canton secured a $5.0 million grant from the State of Ohio. Three million dollars of the grant was to be made available to Maple Street Commerce to allow for the conversion of industrial space to office space for the Shroer Group. The remaining $2.0 million was to be spent on city streets and utilities in the surrounding Hoover District. 

            Two weeks ago I learned that the Held Administration had applied to the State of Ohio to divert half of the remaining grant funds away from the planned expenditures for city streets and utilities and provide an additional $1.0 million to the developer. In discussions with three city council members that night, I learned that none of them had any knowledge of the actions of the administration to divert additional grant funds. At last week’s council meeting it was clear that city council had been left totally in the dark as to the Held administration’s efforts to reallocate grant funds.  

            A records request has revealed that the Held administration had asked state officials in a letter dated September 26, 2012, to reallocate the balance of the grant funds. On October 25, 2012, Mayor Held executed an amendment to the Grant Agreement which was finalized in a November 6, 2012, letter from the Ohio Development Services Agency to Development Director Bowles.  

            Mayor Held, when City Council authorized Economic Development Director Eric Bowles to fill the role of Project Manager in Ordinance No. 56-09 on June 22, 2009, I do not believe that they expected to be left uniformed as to the expenditure of those funds. Why the secrecy, Mayor? 

            Was it your idea of an April Fool’s joke at to reveal at last week’s council meeting, what you have known for five months, that your Economic Development Director had applied to State officials and been approved to reallocate grant funds that council thought were going to be used for city streets and utility work? 

And further, to tell this council that these remaining funds must be spent by the end of September of this year, a mere five months away?  

Mayor Held, your actions to withhold information regarding your efforts to reallocate distribution of the grant funds and then revealing at the eleventh hour to council that the funds must be spent with undue haste are entirely underhanded and raise alarm for me and I suspect others.   

Why have you not kept city council informed? Why have you let the clock nearly run out to tell city council that the remaining grant funds must be spent in the next five months? 

The actions of the Held Administration bring about urgency on another issue that I have been raising privately ever since the Hoover property was purchased by Stuart Lichter.  

The urgency is that the North Canton YMCA needs more room for future growth and further financial assistance to the developers of the Hoover District should be contingent on cooperation on this issue.  

The YMCA needs the two parking lots that front on East Maple Street and lie east and west of McKinley Avenue. Furthermore, if the remaining portions of McKinley Avenue that dead end at East Maple are vacated, the value of these two parking lots to the YMCA will be greatly enhanced. 

Mayor Held, I am asking that you provide no further financial assistance to Stuart Lichter and Maple Street Commerce, including the reallocated $1.0 million in grant funds yet to be spent, until Stuart Lichter and Maple Street Commerce deeds over both parking lots in their entirety to the YMCA. 

The City of North Canton has already provided the developers $3,505,000 in financial assistance. This is far more than the value of the two parking lots. The additional $1.0 million that you now propose to divert to the developers will raise the level of public monies given to Stuart Lichter to nearly equal the purchase price Mr. Lichter paid for the entire 78 acre Hoover property.  

Mayor, the recent ceremony in city council chambers in February when you proclaimed February 19, 2013, as North Canton YMCA Day in honor of the Y’s 90^th anniversary isn’t worth the paper it is printed on if you don’t take meaningful action to ensure its future growth.  

The North Canton YMCA needs more than “lip service” to be successful for another ninety years. This added acreage is very critical to the future success of the North Canton YMCA. 

City Council, I ask that you take action to block any further distribution of grant funds should Mayor Held not have the wherewithal to do what is best for the North Canton YMCA and the citizens he has sworn to serve.

 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

City of North Canton

 

 

 

Further Development at Little League Ball Fields Threatens City Well Field, Destroys Greenspace and Continues the Exclusion of Residents From Public Park Gifted to City!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

February 11, 2013           

            Last week many people spoke pro and con before this body regarding the addition of lighting at the North Canton Little League Ball Fields. Obvious for most who heard the remarks, the concern is the intrusion that the lights bring to the surrounding neighborhoods along with traffic and parking issues and the noise from crowds and loud speakers that are already disruptive in daylight hours, a disruption that may now extend into the evening and nighttime hours.  

Beyond the obvious intrusions, I think everyone is forgetting the larger picture and that is the fact that the North Canton Little League Ball Field is the site of a City well field. 

The designation of the area as a public park is supposed to prevent development and protect the aquifer below. That is not being considered now, nor has it been considered in the past as many structures have been built on the property by the North Canton Little League during the term of the present lease.  

Protection of the City’s well field should be paramount and development limited as the addition of infrastructures on the property further complicates security of the well field and the underlying aquifer.  

In addition, the property was gifted to North Canton by the Hoover Company to be used as a “Public Park.” Park land brings with it the presumption that it will be maintained as Greenspace to be enjoyed by all of its citizens, not developed with buildings and parking lots with large numbers of people converging and trampling nature with lights ablaze into the nighttime. 

I also have concerns that nineteen acres of public park land have been handed over to a select few for their exclusive use and I am talking about the lease of the property to the group known as the North Canton Little League, most of whom are nonresidents of North Canton.  

The Hoover Company gave the citizens of North Canton this acreage and the terms of the gift state that the property be used exclusively for a “Public Park.”  

There is nothing in the terms of the Hoover gift that says the property can be handed over to a select few to use as they see fit, no matter what their intentions are. 

North Canton residents are being denied the peaceful use of a public park and are losing the Greenspace that the park was intended to provide. 

The exclusion of a great majority of North Canton residents from the entirety of the nineteen acres of property gifted to the city bothers me greatly. My distress over the lease arrangement with the North Canton Little League Board of Directors is heightened by the fact that I have learned that North Canton children are being barred from participating in or using the ball fields for lack of financial resources. 

I have received word from a parent of four children that her kids were not allowed to play at the Little League Ball Fields as they were unable to pay the registration fees demanded by the Little League Board. The parent asked to make payments and was turned down by the President of the Board of Directors. 

How many other children have been denied playing time at the ball field for financial reasons? And to add insult to the hurt for this parent, the parent says at the same time other children were offered scholarships so they could play without payment of registration fees. 

This particular mother is a taxpayer in the city, owns her own home, and her four children attend North Canton City Schools. This individual tells me that she is familiar with numerous parents who can’t afford to play any longer at the North Canton Little League Fields and have chosen other sports options outside the City of North Canton for their children. 

This is supposed to be a “Public Park” but that is not the way it is being run.  

I drive past the North Canton Little League Ball Field without any thought as to what is happening there. The sign at the entrance is titled “Hoover Community Recreation Complex.” 

I have learned that the only recreation going on there is recreation approved by the North Canton Little League Board of Directors, to the exclusion of most North Canton residents including North Canton children whose parents cannot afford the required registration fee to play.  

The request to add lights to the North Canton Little League Ball Fields should be denied for many reasons. I have given you many of those reasons. The opponents who spoke before this body last Monday night gave you many more. 

I ask that you call three strikes on this issue and end the game on the lighting request.
 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

North Canton Neighborhoods Are Under Attack in Many Ways!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

February 4, 2013 

Neighborhoods in North Canton are under assault. Throughout the city, neighborhoods are dealing with foreclosures and rentals. In my neighborhood, my wife and I have seen the attack on the serenity of our neighborhood escalate. Early last year, an arsonist torched a rental property and due to the close proximity of house next door, two homes were destroyed. 

In the last few months, another rental property, three doors down from my home, was discovered to be a “Meth House.” 

Foreclosures that linger in our neighborhoods, single-family homes that are turned into rentals and multiply up and down streets destroy neighborhoods and drive families out of their homes. This is how communities lose good solid law-abiding citizens. 

But it is not just the activities that I have described that drive away the solid citizens who live in our neighborhoods. There are other more subtle causes. 

The proposed expansion of the activities conducted by the North Canton Little League is an intrusion on the peace and serenity of a neighborhood that can start the decline of a neighborhood.  

In the past, this council has been well aware of the need to maintain peace and tranquility for homeowners.  

Ten years ago, in order to maintain neighborhoods surrounding Arrowhead Golf Course, City Council saw the need to spend $4.2 million and purchased Arrowhead Golf Course to insure peace and tranquility of the surrounding neighborhoods. 

A few years later, City Council acted to ensure that Briar and Weber Streets remained as dead-end streets and were not opened up when the Sanctuary subdivision was developed. There have been other streets that have remained dead ends. The residents of Grassmere Street did not want their street opened up into Monticello. A street in Surrey Hill subdivision was kept a dead end to maintain peace and tranquility at the request of residents. 

In each instance, City Council heard the concerns of the residents and acted to protect homeowners from unwanted intrusions in to their neighborhood. 

Why is it now that residents surrounding the East Maple Street Little League Ball Fields are not given the same protections that have been afforded many other North Canton neighborhoods?  

            The fact of the matter is that the neighborhoods surrounding the North Canton Little League Ball Fields have received little support from the Administration or City Council in their effort to maintain the serenity of their homes and yards.  

Parking issues in violation of the current lease have been flagrant for years. I myself have driven down East Maple Street and phoned in blatant parking violations when games are played. I do not live adjacent to the ball fields but I have heard from many residents regarding the intrusive use of loudspeakers during little league games. 

All of these intrusions destroy the peaceful atmosphere nearby residents should be able to enjoy. It does not take many intrusions such as this to push residents out of their homes and out of North Canton.  

The activities conducted by the North Canton Little League have exceeded the intent and purpose of the gift made to the City of North Canton.  

It is a little league ball field intended for North Canton Little Leaguers. It was never envisioned to be Candlestick Park.  

The property is also on the site of a well field that deserves protection from activities that could harm the underlying aquifer. 

How can the security of the well field be maintained when numerous structures are built, light poles implanted, and additional parking installed to accommodate hundreds of automobiles? 

What about the Greenspace that is being obliterated in the process? 

I have a problem with the fact that 19 acres of public property have been given to a select group of individuals for their exclusive use.  

Under the terms of the quit-claim deed gifting the property from the Hoover Company to the City of North Canton, the property was to be used “…exclusively for a public park and/or any other public use consistent herewith….” 

Leasing the entire 19 acres to individuals at the exclusion of North Canton residents seemingly violates the terms of that gift from the Hoover Company.  

How many little leaguers who play at the ball field are actual residents of North Canton? 

I urge this council to deny any further expansion of activities at the North Canton Little League Ball Field and further urge that the Administration enforce all the terms of the current lease. 

Lastly, I would like to commend the principals of the North Canton Little League for their efforts in providing organized sports for our youngsters but it cannot come at the expense of the peace and serenity of the residents and neighborhoods of North Canton.

 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

Resident, City of North Canton    

Proposed Leachate Pipeline from American Landfill Shifts Leachate Disposal Problems To City of Canton Taxpayers & Sewer Users

Prepared Comments Made to

CANTON CITY COUNCIL

January 14, 2013 

 

      The City of Canton anticipates increased costs for the disposal of sludge as a result of Federal environmental regulation. This is a problem that was set in motion in the early 1970s when Canton chose to shorten its wastewater treatment process and eliminate the use of digesters at the treatment plant.
 

      Digesters render the mass of sludge that remains at the end of the treatment process and converts it into a non-hazardous form so that it may be handled or used with minimal health hazards. 
 

      This council body should be discussing the restoration of the use of digesters at the treatment plant so you are not left with hazardous sludge that requires special handling.
 

      Concocting an arrangement where Canton agrees to accept a waste product from American Landfill in exchange for their agreeing to accept Canton’s hazardous sludge for disposal at a landfill only serves to increase the amount of hazardous materials going into a landfill.
 

      The taxpayers of Canton expect city leaders to handle the city’s waste in an environmentally friendly manner. Sending ever growing amounts of hazardous sludge to a landfill when this can be avoided is NOT a prudent course of action to take in this situation.
 

      Any course of action that does not return to a more complete and environmentally friendly treatment of wastewater at the treatment plant simply compounds the predicament that this Council is now facing. 
 

      The legislation before you  to approve a contract between the City of Canton and American Landfill,  allowing American Landfill to construct a 12-mile pipeline to dispose of leachate, has been presented as a means to avoid increases in sewer rates for rate payers who utilize sewer services provided by the City of Canton. 
 

      After analyzing the sewer charges I pay to the City of Canton for residential sewer treatment, I am wondering why the leachate pipeline is being contemplated at all. 
 

      For my wife and me, if the City of Canton would prefer to not accept the leachate from American Landfill, with all the pitfalls that the deal entails, a 5.0% rate increase would increase my monthly costs for Canton Sewer from $5.00 per month to $5.25 per month. A 7.25% rate increase that has also been proffered would raise my monthly costs from $5.00 per month to $5.36 per month. These are not burdensome increases.
 

      Is this really what the concern is all about? Entering into a deal such as is proposed simply to avoid increasing sewer bills by an amount that equals pocket change that most of us carry in our pockets! 
 

      I would think that there is NOT one single Canton sewer rate payer who would suggest that the City of Canton accept leachate from a landfill simply to avoid a monthly increase in their sewer bill of what amounts to pocket change.
 

      The need to dispose of sludge at a higher disposal rate has come at a convenient time and what I believe to be only a smokescreen for the highly questionable contract to accept leachate from a landfill. 
 

      The disposal of sludge at a lower rate is camouflage for the contract that asks the taxpayers to take on the problems of a landfill. 
 

      The upcoming increase in costs to dispose of sludge can easily be absorbed with an increase in Canton sewer rates with little impact on rate payers as I have shown.
 

      I believe the proposed leachate pipeline is driven by politics and that the reasons that have been put forth by the Administration to move ahead with the contract with Waste Management do not warrant passage of the legislation. 
 

      The parent company of American Landfill is Waste Management, a corporation with more than $12.5 billion in revenue in 2010, and they are looking for ways to reduce expenses related to the disposal of leachate.  That is what this deal is all about. And what better way than to wrap this deal up and make it appear to be beneficial to the City of Canton when it absolutely is not good for Canton. 
 

      I strongly urge Canton City Council to vote down the proposed contract with Waste Management.
 

      In the interim, I urge Canton City Council to cover the cost of sludge disposal through an increase in sewer rates and to look into restoring the digester treatment process at the treatment plant that was once utilized by Canton’s wastewater treatment plant.
 

      Any action short of that is a band-aid on the problem of sludge disposal. 
 

      Until Canton further refines its treatment process, you will always be left with sludge that must be landfilled and you will again find yourselves at the mercy of people looking to unload their waste issue on the taxpayers of Canton. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

City of North Canton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Canton’s Search for a Full-time Law Director Was a Charade That Calls for Close Examination!

Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 24, 2012 

       The public announcement at the July 2, 2012, Committee of the Whole meeting of City Council that North Canton Law Director Hans Nilges had submitted his resignation came as a shock to me and I am sure many other city residents. 
 

       A July 3, 2012, Repository story titled, “North Canton law director resigns,” reports that Mr. Nilges had submitted a resignation letter, dated June 29, 2012. In the story Mr. Nilges states, “…his move was sparked by council’s ‘desire to transition from a part-time director of law to a full-time director of law [and] it is the council’s belief that such a move will result in a savings to the city’….” 
     
       The resignation of Mr. Nilges came little more than five-months into a one-year professional services agreement that this council approved with the firm of Morrow and Meyer, Ltd., on January 30, 2012, where then Law Director Nilges was a law partner.
      
       The legislation, Ordinance No. 12-12, authorizing the agreement passed unanimously as “emergency legislation” and was touted as a way to help cut legal costs.
      
       A January 30, 2012, Repository story titled, “North Canton hires law firm to handle legal matters,” reports, “Councilman Timothy Fox, Ward 3, noted the city is getting good legal service at a rate of $52 per hour. Fox and Councilman Dan Griffith, at-large, both are lawyers and sided with fellow council members to unanimously approve the contract.” 
     
       In a July 10, 2012, online news report titled, “City Law Director Says Goodbye at Final Council Meeting,” North Canton Patch Editor Morgan Day writes, “Talks of what to do with the city law director position started at council’s Jan. 23 meeting, when members brought up the possibility of a legal firm assuming the duties of the city law director.”  
      
       How long and in what manner those talks progressed over time to arrive at a decision by City Council to announce the creation of a full-time law director position is a question that requires close examination by individuals with the proper authority.
      
       The point of my remarks tonight is two-fold.  
      
       First, I do not believe that the decision to create, for the very first time in the City’s history, a full-time Law Director position for the City of North Canton, appeared spontaneously. I believe, as stated in the North Canton Patch, what to do with the Law Director position was discussed by all members of city council for months. That is my opinion. 
      
       I also question what remaining council members were thinking or discussing when time after time, the former Ward 3 Council member excused himself from executive sessions in which the announced topic of discussion was either the creation of the full-time Law Director position or the subsequent interview of applicants.
      
       Didn’t the repeated absence of one of your own Council members at these executive sessions generate concern or raise questions amongst anyone of you in attendance at these meetings held behind closed doors?
      
       Second, I am stunned by the manner in which the City of North Canton filled the position of full-time Law Director. I am talking about “due process” or should I say the lack thereof. 
      
       On Sunday, July 8, 2012, the City of North Canton ran a classified employment ad in the Repository, titled Director of Law. The deadline to apply, clearly stated in the ad, was July 16, 2012. The ad cost the City $348.00. 
      
       The Repository reported sixteen attorneys had applied for the Law Director position in a July 21, 2012, news story and followed with another report on August 30, that five of the sixteen applicants were to be interviewed. 
      
       A September 4, 2012, North Canton Patch online post titled, “Appointment of City Law Director Still up in the Air” reported the following: “After a round of interviews last Wednesday and Thursday, members of the city’s Personnel and Safety Committee are now ready to present their thoughts about who should be the next North Canton Law Director…. ’It could go pretty quick. We may ask for another round of interviews. We may make an appointment….’ Peters said.” 
      
       The Patch report gave the names of the five individuals in the running: Stephan Babick of Cleveland, Rodney Baca of North Canton, Julie Bickis of North Canton, Judith Carlin of Hudson, and Donald Wylie of North Canton. 
      
       After listing the attorneys, the Patch quotes Mr. Peters as saying, “…The interviews went well and all five are clearly qualified for the position – there was no question about that….And in our minds we had a couple that stood out….” 
      
       Two days later, on September 6, 2012, both the Repository (story titled, “North Canton councilman resigns”) and the North Canton Patch (story titled, “Tim Fox Resigns From Council Seat [to] Pursue Law Director Position”) report that Tim Fox had resigned from Council to pursue the Law Director position. Patch reported that the resignation was effective immediately. 
      
       Wasn’t the application deadline for the advertised position clearly stated as July 16, 2012?  
      
       The September 6, Repository story, states, “…Council President Jon Snyder, Ward 4, said council members will interview Fox on Monday evening and council will likely decide then whether to appoint as law director Fox or one of the five candidates interviewed last week….Fox said he decided to apply for the full-time law director position after Councilman Jeff Peters, Ward 2, the chairman of council’s personnel committee, asked him this week if he would be interested in the job.” 
      
       The Repository continues its report on the resignation of Fox stating, “Peter’s inquiry on Fox’s interest in the job indicates that Fox is the favorite for the position.” 
      
       There is no arguing with that statement. People do not leave a position voluntarily unless they have a position ready and waiting for them. 
      
       One would think that attorneys are quite attentive to deadlines and that they understand “due process.” After all, it is safe to say that most attorneys earn their bread and butter insuring that “due process” is followed. “Due process,” is what we all depend on to insure fairness and transparency.
      
       There was no “due process” for the applicants who responded to the classified employment add for Law Director.
      
       There was no fairness or transparency for the applicants or for the citizens of North Canton. 
      
       We have all seen Mayor Held ignore “due process” in his hiring practices as he appoints neighbors and friends to fill high-level positions in the city. That is what we can expect from North Canton’s highest elected official. 
      
       For city council to totally abandon “due process” and fill the position of Law Director as it has done with the appointment of the former Ward 3 council member is indefensible. 
      
       The City Law Director is the highest law enforcement officer in the city. How can we expect the City’s Law Director to insure “due process” is followed when there was no “due process” followed when filling that very position?  
      
       All attorneys have ethical standards and canons they must comply with as officers of the court. That is what makes this situation that much more egregious.
      
       At the very least, North Canton has a major PR problem as a result of the way it has conducted itself in the search for and appointment to, the full-time position of Law Director.
      
       At most, North Canton may very well have invited calls for outside review and examination as a result of the apparent “charade” it conducted in the search for its first full-time law director. 
      
       North Canton can do better than this! 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

City of North Canton

North Canton Tax Abatements Fund European Vacations?

Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
August 27, 2012

     We have all heard the amusing elementary school kid’s explanation that “My dog ate it” when asked why he does not have his homework.

 

     A variation of that explanation was given to Council President Jon Snyder last week when Mr. Snyder queried Mr. Patrick J. Palonder as to why he failed to appear at an annual meeting in March of the Tax Incentive Review Council to explain his failure to comply with the terms of a tax abatement agreement.

 

     Mr. Palonder replied that he and his wife were out of the country vacationing in Europe. Mr. Palonder’s candid response prompts me to ask this question: Are North Canton tax abatements given to businesses being used instead to help fund European vacations?

 

     Mr. Snyder, as President of City Council, Chairman of the Finance Committee, and a member of the Tax Incentive Review Council (TIRC) who recommended the termination of the agreement, I heartily concur with the recommendation of the TIRC committee. Furthermore, I concur with your admonishment of Mr. Palonder when you suggested that Mr. Palonder should have notified the TIRC committee of his inability to appear at the annual meeting to review compliance of tax abatement agreements.

 

Mr. Cerreta, I must say I was dumbfounded with your suggestion that a modification of the tax abatement agreement for Mr. Palonder might be in order. As was explained by TIRC member Snyder, the TIRC exhaustively discussed the issue at their March meeting. The decision by the TIRC to terminate the agreement did not come without care and due diligence.

 

     Mr. Palonder further explained last Monday that there had been a parting of the ways with his business partner and that his former partner had taken away the very jobs that led to the creation of the tax abatement.

 

     Paragraph 2 of the agreement requires the hiring of 2 full-time positions and an increase in payroll of $50,000 per year. That is gone with the departure of the business partner. The Repository states that these requirements were not met for a portion of 2010 and all of 2011. On an annual basis, Mr. Palonder has failed to meet these requirements for the last two years.

 

     Why is it only now that this agreement is being scrutinized?

 

     Paragraph 3 of the agreement requires Mr. Palonder to alert the Community Reinvestment Area Housing Officer of any new tenant during the abatement period. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the Housing Officer would naturally be notified when a new tenant leaves the property as well?

 

     Mr. Snyder’s remarks last week detailing that one of Mr. Palonder’s employees was a 1099 contractor who had not paid all of the income taxes owed to the city also does not bode well as it undermines the sole purpose of the tax agreement, to increase tax revenue through increased payroll taxes.

 

     Mr. Palonder’s business partner was the key component of the job creation requirement for the tax abatement agreement and this individual left North Canton along with the jobs needed to qualify. Clearly, one cannot buy loyalty to the community with tax incentives.

 

     The tax incentives that this city has given out over the last ten years do not seriously factor into the decision of businesses to locate or stay in North Canton and yet they continue to be handed out. This flies in the face of the hundreds of other businesses who support the city and the school system by paying their fair share.

 

     Mr. Fox and Mrs. Kiesling, I also noticed that each of you were sympathetic to Mr. Cerreta’s suggestion of modifying the tax abatement agreement. I can only surmise that you want to make sure that Mr. Palonder is able to continue to take vacations in Europe at the expense of the North Canton City Schools. For it is their revenue you are giving away willy-nilly to individuals who appear not to need the money.

 

     On tonight’s agenda is Ordinance No. 68-12 authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Industrial and Commercial Retention Grant for Crowl, Montgomery &, Clark, Inc.

 

     An Industrial and Commercial Retention Grant is just another fancy name for corporate charity.

 

     The Community & Economic Development Committee, on June 4, 2012, tabled discussion of a Retention Grant for Crowl, Montgomery & Clark for the purchase of new furniture for their existing offices in North Canton on Wilbur Drive NE.

 

     According to a July 2, 2012, memo from Eric Bowles, Director of Permits and Development, the company has been in North Canton for a number of years. If Crowl, Montgomery & Clark had plans to upgrade their long-time office on Wilbur Drive NE, that would indicate they are happy staying in North Canton.

 

     We all talk about how great it is to live, work, and play in North Canton and yet city leaders feel compelled to pay businesses to come or stay in our community.

 

     The corporate charity that city leaders hand out is unfair to all the other businesses in North Canton who pay their fair share.

 

     I did not attend the ribbon cutting by Mayor Held for the new North Canton Dollar General that Mr. Bowles announced would take place this last Saturday but that store did not require incentives to bring them to North Canton.

 

     The owners of North Canton Collision on South Main Street have not asked for assistance to improve the appearance of their business on South Main. Why do we continue to provide handouts to a select few while other businesses pay their fair share to support our City Schools and maintain city services?

 

     Lastly, I would like to know if former Mayor Tom Rice, the seller of the property at 713 South Main Street that was purchased by Crowl, Montgomery & Clark had any bearing on the decision to enter into the Industrial and Commercial Retention Grant for this company. After all, assistance with property improvements would sweeten the sale for both the seller and the buyer, all at the expense of The North Canton City Schools and the City.

 

     I urge that this council terminate the tax abatement agreement with Patrick J. Palonder as recommended by the Tax Incentive Review Council and further urge this council to say NO to entering into an Industrial and Commercial Grant for Crowl, Montgomery & Grant as proposed in Ordinance 68-12.

 

     Threats by a business to leave the city if they do not get corporate handouts should not be the criteria for handing out tax incentives. Businesses either desire to locate here for viable business reasons or they do not.

 

     Revenue desperately needed for City Schools and City coffers should not facilitate lavish vacations in far off places for owners of select businesses in North Canton.

 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

City of North Canton