Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
March 26, 2012
Most of us have the understanding, whether one works in the public sector or the private sector, that vacation days must be accrued before they can be taken. To be voted on tonight, titled as Ordinance 24-12, is an ordinance amending Chapter 155 of the City’s Personnel Regulations, which will allow the taking of vacation days without the requirement of accrual.
I am curious as to what has prompted this change in vacation policy and if this change has come about for political expediency.
In recent weeks after securing payroll records of an employee recently hired by the City, I found that the employee has taken all their personal days allowed for the year, all their sick leave allowed for the hours worked and the one vacation day they had accrued on the job. Even with the sick time, personal days, and vacation time taken, the employee lost several days of work due to the need for major surgery.
The changes proposed in Ordinance 24-12, would have allowed this new employee to use their ten days of vacation to cover their lost work days even though they had been on the job for only a few weeks.
This begs the question. Does the City require a pre-employment physical before hiring an individual for employment and are political appointees made promises as to the availability of medical benefits for known major health problems before they are hired?
In recent weeks, I have received two frantic calls from Mayor David Held asking me who is revealing this information. The source of the information is not relevant. But information available says that the new employee was unable to physically perform all the duties of the position from the first day of their employment and has had to undergo major surgery. Mayor Held himself has acknowledged to me that the employee did indeed have major surgery and was later readmitted to the hospital shortly after the surgery due to complications.
If this information is true, what kind of financial hit does the City’s self-insured health insurance plan take with major claims such as was apparently required in this situation? It is, after all, the taxpayers you are asking to foot the bill for an individual who begins their employment with the City, allegedly, needing very expensive surgery and unable to perform the duties of the position from the outset.
Hiring individuals needing major surgery drives up the City’s healthcare costs and jeopardizes the availability of healthcare for all other individuals covered under North Canton’s self-insured health benefits plan.
Are North Canton’s personnel regulations and policies protecting the taxpayers of the City? North Canton must implement common sense personnel policies in the recruitment, screening, and hiring of city employees and political appointees to minimize the risks to the city and to protect taxpayers.
I ask this council to vote down Ordinance 24-12 as it only serves to facilitate manipulation of personnel actions.
As recommended to me by the Stark County Prosecutor’s office, I urge this council to ask that the FBI be contacted, as was done recently in Canton, to investigate the events surrounding the recent employment of this individual.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Legal Services Agreement with Law Director’s Firm Violates City Charter
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
January 30, 2012
On tonight’s agenda is legislation proposed as Ordinance No. 12-12, and titled as “An ordinance authorizing the Mayor of the City of North Canton, through the Board of Control, to enter into a Professional Services Agreement, by and between the City of North Canton and Morrow and Meyer, LLC (“M & M”) for the purpose of providing legal services….” As is the usual course for North Canton legislation, it is to be passed as an emergency.
Unfortunately, as is the normal course of legislation before City Council, there was little or no discussion or debate at last week’s Council of the Whole meeting. Before this council affirms passage of this legislation in the unanimous fashion that it does, I would urge more deliberation before voting and suggest all city council members consult Section 3.04 of the North Canton City Charter, titled Director of Law, which states:
"A Director of Law shall be appointed by Council as legal counsel for all divisions of the municipality in connection with municipal affairs and may be removed at any time by an affirmative vote of four (4) Council members.
The Director of Law shall be an attorney-at-law admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, and shall have engaged in active practice in excess of five (5) years prior to appointment."
Clearly, the City Charter specifies that the Law Director shall be an attorney. There is nothing in the Charter that says a Law Firm can fill that role and that is exactly what is being proposed in the Legal Services Agreement before you tonight.
Paragraph 1 of the proposed Agreement states, “The Law Firm shall perform those duties as are customarily performed by a Director of Law of a municipality….”
The North Canton Law Director is a person who is appointed to handle the legal affairs of the City. At this moment that person is Hans Nilges. The City Charter does not allow the Director of Law to delegate his duties and responsibilities and that is what is being proposed in this Agreement with the law firm of Morrow and Meyer.
Furthermore, the Law Director is a member of the Law Firm of Morrow and Meyer and thus Mr. Nilges has a financial interest in this Agreement. This is a conflict of interest and raises the appearance of impropriety for all parties.
Law Director Nilges, in the last paragraph of a letter to Council President Jon Snyder dated January 19, 2012, you state, “…as a technical matter, please note that the Charter requires that a Director of Law is a person licensed to practice law for at least five years, rather than a firm. Accordingly, I would continue to serve as the Director of Law, but would receive no compensation for doing so.”
There is compensation being paid. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, states “The City shall pay the Law Firm Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty Seven Cents ($4,166.67) each month as compensation….” This equates to $50,000 per year.
Is this how we circumnavigate the City Charter?
Telling the public that the Law Director will receive no compensation and then sending the salary the Law Director now receives to the Law Firm of Morrow and Meyer where he is a law partner does not undo the violation of the City Charter as Mr. Nilges suggests in his letter to Council President Snyder.
As for the Law Director’s presentation last week that the legal affairs of the City can be handled by attorneys with various specialties, I am not swayed.
Mr. Nilges, you are the individual appointed to the position of Director of Law. I would expect you to be the attorney handling the legal affairs of the City of North Canton. You and no one else have been given that responsibility and title.
I think the City of North Canton deserves better than to see any one of six attorneys on staff at Morrow and Meyer show up to handle law director duties on a particular day at City Hall.
I do not imagine you handle the legal affairs of other clients in this manner. If you were my attorney, I would speak only to you and you alone. Not to whatever attorney happens to be available at your firm.
Mr. Nilges, is it also your intention to use attorneys outside your law firm to handle the duties of Law Director in addition to attorneys affiliated with your firm?
I ask this because the attorney’s name you proffered last week to handle some of the law director duties is not listed as a staff attorney on the Website of Morrow and Meyer.
A revolving door of attorneys handling City affairs is no way to run a municipal law department.
In spite of the Law Director’s recognition that there is a “technical matter” regarding the City Charter, if City Council is still inclined to affirm this Agreement, I would ask that this Agreement and a copy of the City Charter be reviewed, either by the State Auditor or the State Attorney General as was done before the creation of the North Canton Community Disaster Relief Fund.
Ordinance 12-12 comes from thinking outside the box as they say. Unfortunately it is thinking that violates North Canton City Charter, creates conflicts of interest, and has the appearance of impropriety for all parties. It also creates revolving door legal representation for the City of North Canton.
This Agreement should not be enacted.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
January 30, 2012
On tonight’s agenda is legislation proposed as Ordinance No. 12-12, and titled as “An ordinance authorizing the Mayor of the City of North Canton, through the Board of Control, to enter into a Professional Services Agreement, by and between the City of North Canton and Morrow and Meyer, LLC (“M & M”) for the purpose of providing legal services….” As is the usual course for North Canton legislation, it is to be passed as an emergency.
Unfortunately, as is the normal course of legislation before City Council, there was little or no discussion or debate at last week’s Council of the Whole meeting. Before this council affirms passage of this legislation in the unanimous fashion that it does, I would urge more deliberation before voting and suggest all city council members consult Section 3.04 of the North Canton City Charter, titled Director of Law, which states:
"A Director of Law shall be appointed by Council as legal counsel for all divisions of the municipality in connection with municipal affairs and may be removed at any time by an affirmative vote of four (4) Council members.
The Director of Law shall be an attorney-at-law admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, and shall have engaged in active practice in excess of five (5) years prior to appointment."
Clearly, the City Charter specifies that the Law Director shall be an attorney. There is nothing in the Charter that says a Law Firm can fill that role and that is exactly what is being proposed in the Legal Services Agreement before you tonight.
Paragraph 1 of the proposed Agreement states, “The Law Firm shall perform those duties as are customarily performed by a Director of Law of a municipality….”
The North Canton Law Director is a person who is appointed to handle the legal affairs of the City. At this moment that person is Hans Nilges. The City Charter does not allow the Director of Law to delegate his duties and responsibilities and that is what is being proposed in this Agreement with the law firm of Morrow and Meyer.
Furthermore, the Law Director is a member of the Law Firm of Morrow and Meyer and thus Mr. Nilges has a financial interest in this Agreement. This is a conflict of interest and raises the appearance of impropriety for all parties.
Law Director Nilges, in the last paragraph of a letter to Council President Jon Snyder dated January 19, 2012, you state, “…as a technical matter, please note that the Charter requires that a Director of Law is a person licensed to practice law for at least five years, rather than a firm. Accordingly, I would continue to serve as the Director of Law, but would receive no compensation for doing so.”
There is compensation being paid. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, states “The City shall pay the Law Firm Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty Seven Cents ($4,166.67) each month as compensation….” This equates to $50,000 per year.
Is this how we circumnavigate the City Charter?
Telling the public that the Law Director will receive no compensation and then sending the salary the Law Director now receives to the Law Firm of Morrow and Meyer where he is a law partner does not undo the violation of the City Charter as Mr. Nilges suggests in his letter to Council President Snyder.
As for the Law Director’s presentation last week that the legal affairs of the City can be handled by attorneys with various specialties, I am not swayed.
Mr. Nilges, you are the individual appointed to the position of Director of Law. I would expect you to be the attorney handling the legal affairs of the City of North Canton. You and no one else have been given that responsibility and title.
I think the City of North Canton deserves better than to see any one of six attorneys on staff at Morrow and Meyer show up to handle law director duties on a particular day at City Hall.
I do not imagine you handle the legal affairs of other clients in this manner. If you were my attorney, I would speak only to you and you alone. Not to whatever attorney happens to be available at your firm.
Mr. Nilges, is it also your intention to use attorneys outside your law firm to handle the duties of Law Director in addition to attorneys affiliated with your firm?
I ask this because the attorney’s name you proffered last week to handle some of the law director duties is not listed as a staff attorney on the Website of Morrow and Meyer.
A revolving door of attorneys handling City affairs is no way to run a municipal law department.
In spite of the Law Director’s recognition that there is a “technical matter” regarding the City Charter, if City Council is still inclined to affirm this Agreement, I would ask that this Agreement and a copy of the City Charter be reviewed, either by the State Auditor or the State Attorney General as was done before the creation of the North Canton Community Disaster Relief Fund.
Ordinance 12-12 comes from thinking outside the box as they say. Unfortunately it is thinking that violates North Canton City Charter, creates conflicts of interest, and has the appearance of impropriety for all parties. It also creates revolving door legal representation for the City of North Canton.
This Agreement should not be enacted.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Amended Lease of Arrowhead Golf Course Proposes Taxpayers Finance Unadvertised Sale of Property to Current Operators
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
January 17, 2012
A little over a month ago on December 12, 2011, Finance and Property Committee Chairman and City Council President Jon Snyder held a committee meeting prior to that night’s council meeting to discuss authorizing legislation to amend the lease agreement between the City and R & S Golf Properties, Inc.
Chairman Snyder’s public explanation for amending the Arrowhead Golf Course lease was that without amending the lease, the City was precluded from selling the property if it chose to do so.
This explanation rang hollow with me as Law Director Nilges had previously notified the Lessees five-months earlier in a July 13, 2011, letter that as a result of the Lessees’ default in its Lease obligations, the City was exercising its right to terminate the Lease, effective December 31, 2011, pursuant to Article XII, Section 12.1.1 of the Lease.
With termination of the lease just a little more than a handful of days away from the December 12 council meeting, the City would have had no limitations on selling the golf course property. Thus the reason provided by Chairman Snyder for amending the Lease on the Golf Course was little more than political misdirection.
The agenda for the December 12 council meeting was amended after the published agenda items were addressed and Ordinance No. 114-11, proposing to amend the Lease, was added. The added agenda item was titled: “An ordinance authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Addendum to the Lease by and between the City of North Canton and R & S Golf Properties, Inc., an Ohio Corporation and Robert C. Purcell and David Scott DeMuesy as individuals (“Lessee”) executed on December 22, 2008, for the premises known as The Fairways fna Arrowhead Country Club, and declaring the same as to be an emergency.”
I would like to know who would like to take credit for drafting the less than two full pages of the Addendum to the Arrowhead Golf Course Lease and if council members read the amended lease before voting!
My concern is that each of the two sentences comprising paragraph 3.1.7 of the amended lease clearly violate Ohio state law and the Ohio Constitution.
The first sentence in Section 3.1.7 states, “Lessee shall have the option to purchase the Golf Course Premises for a mutually agreed upon amount not less than the appraised value of the Golf Course Premises provided Lessee exercises such option by the earlier of thirty days following any termination of the Lease pursuant to this Article III or December 31, 2014.”
I am stunned that anyone would propose to sell Arrowhead Golf Course property in this manner and codify this into law since the method of sale described in the amended lease clearly violates state law.
Ohio General Code Section 3699 specifies that the sale of real estate by a municipality must be advertised once a week for five weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the corporation and bids secured before municipal real estate is sold.
The provisions as to advertising for bids are designed for the protection of the taxpayer. This procedure insures that the most advantageous terms possible are secured for the city, its residents, and its taxpayers.
The second sentence in Section 3.1.7 of the amended lease states, “The Parties agree to meet and discuss in good faith the possibility of the City holding a note for purchase in the event that Lessee exercises its option to purchase the Golf Course Premises.”
I am again stunned that members of this council and the Held Administration would propose the possibility that the taxpayers of North Canton finance the purchase of Arrowhead Golf Course to benefit private interests.
This is in direct violation of the Ohio Constitution, Section 8.06, which states in part, “No laws shall be passed authorizing any county, city, town or township, by vote of its citizens, or otherwise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, corporation, or association whatever; or to raise money for, or to loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation, or association….”
As is typical of all voting of North Canton City Council, Ordinance No. 114-11 passed unanimously with seven votes in favor of amending the Lease that five months earlier the City of North Canton had already exercised its right to terminate following default R & S Golf Properties.
What I failed to note earlier regarding the Finance Committee meeting that preceded the vote to amend the Lease was that Councilmember at-Large Kiesling was absent for the committee meeting and heard none of the discussion and yet she voted on the legislation after arriving at the council meeting that was already in progress.
Equally noted in the vote to amend the Lease was the fact that Councilmember at-Large Cerreta voted on the legislation when Mr. Cerreta, as an abutting property owner to the Golf Course, clearly has a personal interest in the activities and use of the property. Mr. Cerreta, the prudent course of action for you would have been to abstain on the vote to amend the Lease. Furthermore, the praise heaped on you by Finance Chairman Snyder regarding your accorded prominent participation in negotiating the amended lease is equally disturbing as again you have a personal stake in the activities and use of the golf course property abutting your residence.
The amended Arrowhead Lease benefited no one but R & S Golf Properties. North Canton forgave R & S Golf Properties for property tax payments to the City owed by the Lessee in the amount of $16,089. Not addressed in the amended lease is whether the required annual $80,000 in capital improvement obligation has been met over the last three years and if the Lessee would or could continue meeting its infrastructure obligation in the future.
What are the odds that the current Lessee can exercise the option to purchase the golf course property if they are unable to pay the property taxes? Finance Chairman Snyder would have the public believe that is a possibility. If that is the case, advertise the property for sale and let all interested buyers submit a bid for the golf course property as the law requires.
The amended lease is flawed, taxpayers are fed political misdirection, and North Canton taxpayers continue to pick up the tab on this debacle.
At this time I ask that the amended Arrowhead Lease be voided and be replaced with
a new lease that does not violate the Ohio Constitution and Ohio State Law. If the Administration and this Council fail to correct the shortcomings of Ordinance No. 114-11, the violations in the amended lease can be resolved by the courts if that is the course the City desires to take.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
January 17, 2012
A little over a month ago on December 12, 2011, Finance and Property Committee Chairman and City Council President Jon Snyder held a committee meeting prior to that night’s council meeting to discuss authorizing legislation to amend the lease agreement between the City and R & S Golf Properties, Inc.
Chairman Snyder’s public explanation for amending the Arrowhead Golf Course lease was that without amending the lease, the City was precluded from selling the property if it chose to do so.
This explanation rang hollow with me as Law Director Nilges had previously notified the Lessees five-months earlier in a July 13, 2011, letter that as a result of the Lessees’ default in its Lease obligations, the City was exercising its right to terminate the Lease, effective December 31, 2011, pursuant to Article XII, Section 12.1.1 of the Lease.
With termination of the lease just a little more than a handful of days away from the December 12 council meeting, the City would have had no limitations on selling the golf course property. Thus the reason provided by Chairman Snyder for amending the Lease on the Golf Course was little more than political misdirection.
The agenda for the December 12 council meeting was amended after the published agenda items were addressed and Ordinance No. 114-11, proposing to amend the Lease, was added. The added agenda item was titled: “An ordinance authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Addendum to the Lease by and between the City of North Canton and R & S Golf Properties, Inc., an Ohio Corporation and Robert C. Purcell and David Scott DeMuesy as individuals (“Lessee”) executed on December 22, 2008, for the premises known as The Fairways fna Arrowhead Country Club, and declaring the same as to be an emergency.”
I would like to know who would like to take credit for drafting the less than two full pages of the Addendum to the Arrowhead Golf Course Lease and if council members read the amended lease before voting!
My concern is that each of the two sentences comprising paragraph 3.1.7 of the amended lease clearly violate Ohio state law and the Ohio Constitution.
The first sentence in Section 3.1.7 states, “Lessee shall have the option to purchase the Golf Course Premises for a mutually agreed upon amount not less than the appraised value of the Golf Course Premises provided Lessee exercises such option by the earlier of thirty days following any termination of the Lease pursuant to this Article III or December 31, 2014.”
I am stunned that anyone would propose to sell Arrowhead Golf Course property in this manner and codify this into law since the method of sale described in the amended lease clearly violates state law.
Ohio General Code Section 3699 specifies that the sale of real estate by a municipality must be advertised once a week for five weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the corporation and bids secured before municipal real estate is sold.
The provisions as to advertising for bids are designed for the protection of the taxpayer. This procedure insures that the most advantageous terms possible are secured for the city, its residents, and its taxpayers.
The second sentence in Section 3.1.7 of the amended lease states, “The Parties agree to meet and discuss in good faith the possibility of the City holding a note for purchase in the event that Lessee exercises its option to purchase the Golf Course Premises.”
I am again stunned that members of this council and the Held Administration would propose the possibility that the taxpayers of North Canton finance the purchase of Arrowhead Golf Course to benefit private interests.
This is in direct violation of the Ohio Constitution, Section 8.06, which states in part, “No laws shall be passed authorizing any county, city, town or township, by vote of its citizens, or otherwise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, corporation, or association whatever; or to raise money for, or to loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation, or association….”
As is typical of all voting of North Canton City Council, Ordinance No. 114-11 passed unanimously with seven votes in favor of amending the Lease that five months earlier the City of North Canton had already exercised its right to terminate following default R & S Golf Properties.
What I failed to note earlier regarding the Finance Committee meeting that preceded the vote to amend the Lease was that Councilmember at-Large Kiesling was absent for the committee meeting and heard none of the discussion and yet she voted on the legislation after arriving at the council meeting that was already in progress.
Equally noted in the vote to amend the Lease was the fact that Councilmember at-Large Cerreta voted on the legislation when Mr. Cerreta, as an abutting property owner to the Golf Course, clearly has a personal interest in the activities and use of the property. Mr. Cerreta, the prudent course of action for you would have been to abstain on the vote to amend the Lease. Furthermore, the praise heaped on you by Finance Chairman Snyder regarding your accorded prominent participation in negotiating the amended lease is equally disturbing as again you have a personal stake in the activities and use of the golf course property abutting your residence.
The amended Arrowhead Lease benefited no one but R & S Golf Properties. North Canton forgave R & S Golf Properties for property tax payments to the City owed by the Lessee in the amount of $16,089. Not addressed in the amended lease is whether the required annual $80,000 in capital improvement obligation has been met over the last three years and if the Lessee would or could continue meeting its infrastructure obligation in the future.
What are the odds that the current Lessee can exercise the option to purchase the golf course property if they are unable to pay the property taxes? Finance Chairman Snyder would have the public believe that is a possibility. If that is the case, advertise the property for sale and let all interested buyers submit a bid for the golf course property as the law requires.
The amended lease is flawed, taxpayers are fed political misdirection, and North Canton taxpayers continue to pick up the tab on this debacle.
At this time I ask that the amended Arrowhead Lease be voided and be replaced with
a new lease that does not violate the Ohio Constitution and Ohio State Law. If the Administration and this Council fail to correct the shortcomings of Ordinance No. 114-11, the violations in the amended lease can be resolved by the courts if that is the course the City desires to take.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Public Health Order against North Canton Distressful & Costly to Taxpayers
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
December 12, 2011
For the second time in the last ten years, the City of North Canton finds itself facing a governmental order to clean up a dump site where, for years, the city was open dumping solid waste in violation of state law. North Canton taxpayers will certainly be getting a lump of coal in their stocking this Christmas as the cleanup will require the expenditure of city funds and needlessly place added stress on the city’s budget.
In 2002, North Canton was mandated to clean up its own Dressler well field as a result of dumping practices that dated back to the 1980s. That cleanup cost taxpayers approximately $500,000.
Mayor Held, you were the City Administrator at that time and as administrator you oversaw the cleanup for the city. One would think that after overseeing the expenditure of approximately one half million dollars of public funds to abate illegal dumping practices that that experience would make an indelible impression and that thereafter you would make an extra effort to ensure the proper disposal of city waste material.
Apparently, no lessons were learned as open dumping of solid waste continued during and after the cleanup of the Dressler well field site. This appears to be the case as in a December 10, 2009, Repository report titled, “Cleaning up a mess in North Canton” it is stated “…City administrators say the two dump sites has been used for more than five years, while one former employee indicates the site has been used since the 1990s.”
The discovery of the illegal dumping of street sweepings began with a complaint from the Ohio EPA to the Stark County Health Department on October 6,2009. The original complaint cited two dump sites, one on a farm on South Arlington and a second site north of Portage Avenue on Freedom Avenue known as the Mathie property.
I have been told by city officials that the dump site on South Arlington has been cleaned up and that it was done in-house with city employees and city equipment. Mysteriously, no one in the city can provide to me information as to when and at what cost?
I would like to see documentation as to the man hours expended, the equipment used, and the cost to dispose of the solid waste at a licensed disposal facility.
I would also like to know why City Council has not asked for any accounting of the cost of cleanup of the South Arlington site.
The Mathie dump site is adjacent to North Canton’s water treatment plant as well as to a city well field. It also lies within the Zimber Ditch flood zone.
Two years have passed since state and county regulatory agencies have weighed in on the violations of state law regarding the illegal disposal of solid waste by the City. The Mathie property dump site was also identified as a wetland.
Fortunately for North Canton, the property was deemed not to be a “regulated” wetland as dumping apparently began before creation of the Clean Water Act in 1972. This ruling by the Army Corp of Engineers spares North Canton the cost of wetlands mitigation.
Consequently, North Canton will only be required to remove the street sweepings that were open dumped on the Mathie property. This is detailed in a November 16, 2011, “Public Health Order” from the Stark County Health Commissioner William Franks to City Administrator Michael Grimes requiring the City of North Canton to remove solid waste that was dumped in violation of state law.
The cost of the cleanup is on everyone’s mind but as of last Friday, Administrator Grimes would not provide any estimate to me of the cost.
In a November 25, 2009, interview published in the Stark County Political Report (SCPR) titled, “Clean Up of Street Sweeper Backfill Could Cost $100,000 Plus How Much in EPA Fines?” Mayor Held tells the Report that “…the cost of remediating could be $100,000….”
Mayor Held, I would like to know if your estimate of the cost of a cleanup that you gave to the SCPR two years ago is accurate.
A November 23, 2009, Repository report titled, “North Canton council won’t discuss dumping probe” stated, “City officials said they didn’t know that dumping street sweepings at the site would be a violation.”
Mayor Held, having formerly overseen the cleanup of a previous dump site here in North Canton as City Administrator as well as having held the position of Director of the Joint Solid Waste District for Stark, Tuscarawas and Wayne Counties since July of 2004, I am flabbergasted as to your professed ignorance regarding the disposal of solid waste.
In the November 23, 2009, minutes of City Council, former Council President Daryl Revoldt states, “…in addition to funding remediation, this council may consider other appropriate actions it deems necessary to satisfactorily resolve this matter and assure that a similar situation does not reoccur.”
I would like to know if this council is prepared to finally speak up publicly on what will obviously be a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer funds to comply with the Health Department’s “Public Health Order.”
Is this council prepared to speak to the failure of leadership by Mayor Held on this matter?
What line items on the budget will go unfunded to find the dollars needed to accomplish the remediation of the dump site?
Among the reasons the Stark County Health Department cites for its decision to issue a “Public Health Order” against the City are:
1) Street sweepings are defined as solid waste in O. R. C. and O. A. C.
2) North Canton City personnel attended training regarding street sweepings,
and should have been aware that sweepings needed to be disposed of in a
licensed solid waste facility.
3) The City of North Canton had previously been ordered to clean up street
sweepings that were open dumped in the late 1990s.
4) The waste is in the proximity of one of North Canton’s municipal water
supply wells.
The repeated failure by city officials to comply with state laws regarding the disposal of city wastes and the concomitant financial costs that the taxpayers of North Canton are forced to bear are an embarrassment to the community and distressful to residents. Furthermore, it raises deep concern about the caliber of leadership in North Canton.
Given that the Health Department’s “Public Health Order” against the City is nearly a month old, and the fact that citizens deserve to know the financial impact that the remediation will entail, and in the interest of transparency and accountability I ask that the full details regarding this issue be made available to the public without further delay.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
December 12, 2011
For the second time in the last ten years, the City of North Canton finds itself facing a governmental order to clean up a dump site where, for years, the city was open dumping solid waste in violation of state law. North Canton taxpayers will certainly be getting a lump of coal in their stocking this Christmas as the cleanup will require the expenditure of city funds and needlessly place added stress on the city’s budget.
In 2002, North Canton was mandated to clean up its own Dressler well field as a result of dumping practices that dated back to the 1980s. That cleanup cost taxpayers approximately $500,000.
Mayor Held, you were the City Administrator at that time and as administrator you oversaw the cleanup for the city. One would think that after overseeing the expenditure of approximately one half million dollars of public funds to abate illegal dumping practices that that experience would make an indelible impression and that thereafter you would make an extra effort to ensure the proper disposal of city waste material.
Apparently, no lessons were learned as open dumping of solid waste continued during and after the cleanup of the Dressler well field site. This appears to be the case as in a December 10, 2009, Repository report titled, “Cleaning up a mess in North Canton” it is stated “…City administrators say the two dump sites has been used for more than five years, while one former employee indicates the site has been used since the 1990s.”
The discovery of the illegal dumping of street sweepings began with a complaint from the Ohio EPA to the Stark County Health Department on October 6,2009. The original complaint cited two dump sites, one on a farm on South Arlington and a second site north of Portage Avenue on Freedom Avenue known as the Mathie property.
I have been told by city officials that the dump site on South Arlington has been cleaned up and that it was done in-house with city employees and city equipment. Mysteriously, no one in the city can provide to me information as to when and at what cost?
I would like to see documentation as to the man hours expended, the equipment used, and the cost to dispose of the solid waste at a licensed disposal facility.
I would also like to know why City Council has not asked for any accounting of the cost of cleanup of the South Arlington site.
The Mathie dump site is adjacent to North Canton’s water treatment plant as well as to a city well field. It also lies within the Zimber Ditch flood zone.
Two years have passed since state and county regulatory agencies have weighed in on the violations of state law regarding the illegal disposal of solid waste by the City. The Mathie property dump site was also identified as a wetland.
Fortunately for North Canton, the property was deemed not to be a “regulated” wetland as dumping apparently began before creation of the Clean Water Act in 1972. This ruling by the Army Corp of Engineers spares North Canton the cost of wetlands mitigation.
Consequently, North Canton will only be required to remove the street sweepings that were open dumped on the Mathie property. This is detailed in a November 16, 2011, “Public Health Order” from the Stark County Health Commissioner William Franks to City Administrator Michael Grimes requiring the City of North Canton to remove solid waste that was dumped in violation of state law.
The cost of the cleanup is on everyone’s mind but as of last Friday, Administrator Grimes would not provide any estimate to me of the cost.
In a November 25, 2009, interview published in the Stark County Political Report (SCPR) titled, “Clean Up of Street Sweeper Backfill Could Cost $100,000 Plus How Much in EPA Fines?” Mayor Held tells the Report that “…the cost of remediating could be $100,000….”
Mayor Held, I would like to know if your estimate of the cost of a cleanup that you gave to the SCPR two years ago is accurate.
A November 23, 2009, Repository report titled, “North Canton council won’t discuss dumping probe” stated, “City officials said they didn’t know that dumping street sweepings at the site would be a violation.”
Mayor Held, having formerly overseen the cleanup of a previous dump site here in North Canton as City Administrator as well as having held the position of Director of the Joint Solid Waste District for Stark, Tuscarawas and Wayne Counties since July of 2004, I am flabbergasted as to your professed ignorance regarding the disposal of solid waste.
In the November 23, 2009, minutes of City Council, former Council President Daryl Revoldt states, “…in addition to funding remediation, this council may consider other appropriate actions it deems necessary to satisfactorily resolve this matter and assure that a similar situation does not reoccur.”
I would like to know if this council is prepared to finally speak up publicly on what will obviously be a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer funds to comply with the Health Department’s “Public Health Order.”
Is this council prepared to speak to the failure of leadership by Mayor Held on this matter?
What line items on the budget will go unfunded to find the dollars needed to accomplish the remediation of the dump site?
Among the reasons the Stark County Health Department cites for its decision to issue a “Public Health Order” against the City are:
1) Street sweepings are defined as solid waste in O. R. C. and O. A. C.
2) North Canton City personnel attended training regarding street sweepings,
and should have been aware that sweepings needed to be disposed of in a
licensed solid waste facility.
3) The City of North Canton had previously been ordered to clean up street
sweepings that were open dumped in the late 1990s.
4) The waste is in the proximity of one of North Canton’s municipal water
supply wells.
The repeated failure by city officials to comply with state laws regarding the disposal of city wastes and the concomitant financial costs that the taxpayers of North Canton are forced to bear are an embarrassment to the community and distressful to residents. Furthermore, it raises deep concern about the caliber of leadership in North Canton.
Given that the Health Department’s “Public Health Order” against the City is nearly a month old, and the fact that citizens deserve to know the financial impact that the remediation will entail, and in the interest of transparency and accountability I ask that the full details regarding this issue be made available to the public without further delay.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Monday, November 28, 2011
North Canton Mayor’s Appointment of Permits Superintendent Is a Plan of Deception
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
November 28, 2011
Since mid-November I have followed Mayor Held’s quest to staff an assistant administrator position at City Hall and I am concerned that City Council is either complacent in letting the Mayor staff that position or is blind to the Mayor’s plan of deception to accomplish that end.
Two months ago, on September 19, this council failed to act on the Mayor’s request for an assistant administrator, and yet without a doubt, Mayor Held is working his way to getting that request fulfilled with what I believe to be a plan of deception.
Mayor Held, your statements in the press over the last two months are contradictory and call into question the course of events transpiring behind the walls of City Hall.
In a Repository report on September 19, 2011, titled “North Canton considers assistant administrator post” you stated you will keep Eric Bowles tasked with the added duties of permits and inspection, saying “With Bowles doing double-duty, the city has saved money by not paying a salary for the permits and inspections job.”
Two months later, the Repository in a November 14, 2011, report titled, “North Canton hires permits superintendent” you state that the city has hired a new superintendent of permits after spending several months with the development director doubling up on duties.
In that report Mayor, you say, “Eric Bowles … once again will be able to focus on bringing new business to the city now that Bill Bartos has been named superintendent of permits. You, Mayor, are quoted as saying, “We can’t go with one person managing both departments.”
A week later at the Council of the Whole meeting of November 21, under questioning by Councilmember Foltz, Mayor Held stated that Eric Bowles would continue in Permits and Development with the new title of Director of Permits & Development.
Which is it Mayor Held? Either Mr. Bowles can handle both the Department of Development and the Department of Permits & Inspection or he cannot?
If Eric Bowles is going to continue to head up both departments, what was the reason for the appointment of Bill Bartos to be Permits Superintendent two weeks ago?
Clearly, Mayor Held, the appointment of Bill Bartos to the position of Superintendent of Permits has been nothing but a ruse. It is obvious to me that you have intended from the beginning to hire an assistant administrator so that you will have a replacement for City Administrator Grimes when Mr. Grimes steps down early next year. I might add that you have acknowledged to me in speculation that Mr. Grimes would serve as City Administrator for only 12 to 18 months from the time of his appointment in March 2011.
Last week, more than one week after Bill Bartos began his new job as Superintendent of the Permits & Inspection Department, I learned in a phone conversation that the newly appointed permits superintendent had never met some of his staff. Given that newspaper accounts had reported that Mr. Bartos had been on the job over a week as the Superintendent of Permits, one would expect that Mr. Bartos would be fully engaged and involved with all the staff in his department.
Is Mr. Bartos actually working and heading up the permits Department or is he employed elsewhere?
The fact of the matter is that Development Director Bowles revealed to me that the newly appointed permits superintendent was not working in the permits department but in fact has been assisting City Administrator Grimes at City Hall.
Mayor Held, I would like to know the purpose in announcing the appointment of Bill Bartos to be the new head of the Permits & Inspection Department when you apparently never actually intended for Mr. Bartos to fill that position. I would also like to know if you find this kind of deception serves the citizenry of North Canton.
From City Council, I would like to know if you are privy to these orchestrations by Mayor Held and if you are a partner in this less than forthright plan?
Doesn’t North Canton have in place a search process written into the city’s personnel procedures that outlines the proper way in which high-level leadership positions are to be filled in the city?
It seems to be public knowledge that the city’s new permits superintendent was hired on the recommendation of a neighbor of Mayor Held. I would not call this an acceptable hiring process for North Canton’s next City Administrator.
Mayor Held, there is no manner of transparency and accountability in cronyism and that is what your recent closed-door appointment of a permits superintendent can be called.
Cronyism should not be the accepted method to finding qualified individuals to fill high-level leadership positions in the City of North Canton.
On tonight’s agenda is proposed legislation, titled Ordinance 103-11, to establish the classifications and rates of compensation for the positions of Director of Administrative Services and Director of Permits and Development.
I might interject here that the Director of Administrative Services was a position that was created for a former City Administrator in the present administration who was removed from office and then allowed to collect a salary for the remaining six months of 2010 before his employment with the City ended due to budget cuts.
North Canton’s financial situation has continued to deteriorate and there is certainly no room to fund newly created job classifications. With salary and benefits, the requested new job classification of Director of Administrative Services will increase personnel costs for North Canton taxpayers by nearly $92,000.00.
For the record, I would like to add that the press has published incorrect information regarding the salary of the recently filled position of Permits Superintendent. The salary for that position is $67,582.32 per year. This is considerably more than the $60,000 reported to the public by the press.
I would ask that this council not ratify Ordinance 103-11. To do so would reward Mayor Held for his efforts to bypass commonsense personnel policies in the recruitment, screening, and hiring of high-level city employees. Passage would also reward Mayor Held for trampling any notion of transparency and accountability in North Canton City government and make this council a partner in the Mayor’s plan of deception.
I ask that this council not let North Canton’s reputation be discredited by the statements and actions of the Held Administration that are intended to mislead the citizens of North Canton. Checks and balances in North Canton City Government are certainly needed to stop the plans of deception now being perpetrated on us!
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
November 28, 2011
Since mid-November I have followed Mayor Held’s quest to staff an assistant administrator position at City Hall and I am concerned that City Council is either complacent in letting the Mayor staff that position or is blind to the Mayor’s plan of deception to accomplish that end.
Two months ago, on September 19, this council failed to act on the Mayor’s request for an assistant administrator, and yet without a doubt, Mayor Held is working his way to getting that request fulfilled with what I believe to be a plan of deception.
Mayor Held, your statements in the press over the last two months are contradictory and call into question the course of events transpiring behind the walls of City Hall.
In a Repository report on September 19, 2011, titled “North Canton considers assistant administrator post” you stated you will keep Eric Bowles tasked with the added duties of permits and inspection, saying “With Bowles doing double-duty, the city has saved money by not paying a salary for the permits and inspections job.”
Two months later, the Repository in a November 14, 2011, report titled, “North Canton hires permits superintendent” you state that the city has hired a new superintendent of permits after spending several months with the development director doubling up on duties.
In that report Mayor, you say, “Eric Bowles … once again will be able to focus on bringing new business to the city now that Bill Bartos has been named superintendent of permits. You, Mayor, are quoted as saying, “We can’t go with one person managing both departments.”
A week later at the Council of the Whole meeting of November 21, under questioning by Councilmember Foltz, Mayor Held stated that Eric Bowles would continue in Permits and Development with the new title of Director of Permits & Development.
Which is it Mayor Held? Either Mr. Bowles can handle both the Department of Development and the Department of Permits & Inspection or he cannot?
If Eric Bowles is going to continue to head up both departments, what was the reason for the appointment of Bill Bartos to be Permits Superintendent two weeks ago?
Clearly, Mayor Held, the appointment of Bill Bartos to the position of Superintendent of Permits has been nothing but a ruse. It is obvious to me that you have intended from the beginning to hire an assistant administrator so that you will have a replacement for City Administrator Grimes when Mr. Grimes steps down early next year. I might add that you have acknowledged to me in speculation that Mr. Grimes would serve as City Administrator for only 12 to 18 months from the time of his appointment in March 2011.
Last week, more than one week after Bill Bartos began his new job as Superintendent of the Permits & Inspection Department, I learned in a phone conversation that the newly appointed permits superintendent had never met some of his staff. Given that newspaper accounts had reported that Mr. Bartos had been on the job over a week as the Superintendent of Permits, one would expect that Mr. Bartos would be fully engaged and involved with all the staff in his department.
Is Mr. Bartos actually working and heading up the permits Department or is he employed elsewhere?
The fact of the matter is that Development Director Bowles revealed to me that the newly appointed permits superintendent was not working in the permits department but in fact has been assisting City Administrator Grimes at City Hall.
Mayor Held, I would like to know the purpose in announcing the appointment of Bill Bartos to be the new head of the Permits & Inspection Department when you apparently never actually intended for Mr. Bartos to fill that position. I would also like to know if you find this kind of deception serves the citizenry of North Canton.
From City Council, I would like to know if you are privy to these orchestrations by Mayor Held and if you are a partner in this less than forthright plan?
Doesn’t North Canton have in place a search process written into the city’s personnel procedures that outlines the proper way in which high-level leadership positions are to be filled in the city?
It seems to be public knowledge that the city’s new permits superintendent was hired on the recommendation of a neighbor of Mayor Held. I would not call this an acceptable hiring process for North Canton’s next City Administrator.
Mayor Held, there is no manner of transparency and accountability in cronyism and that is what your recent closed-door appointment of a permits superintendent can be called.
Cronyism should not be the accepted method to finding qualified individuals to fill high-level leadership positions in the City of North Canton.
On tonight’s agenda is proposed legislation, titled Ordinance 103-11, to establish the classifications and rates of compensation for the positions of Director of Administrative Services and Director of Permits and Development.
I might interject here that the Director of Administrative Services was a position that was created for a former City Administrator in the present administration who was removed from office and then allowed to collect a salary for the remaining six months of 2010 before his employment with the City ended due to budget cuts.
North Canton’s financial situation has continued to deteriorate and there is certainly no room to fund newly created job classifications. With salary and benefits, the requested new job classification of Director of Administrative Services will increase personnel costs for North Canton taxpayers by nearly $92,000.00.
For the record, I would like to add that the press has published incorrect information regarding the salary of the recently filled position of Permits Superintendent. The salary for that position is $67,582.32 per year. This is considerably more than the $60,000 reported to the public by the press.
I would ask that this council not ratify Ordinance 103-11. To do so would reward Mayor Held for his efforts to bypass commonsense personnel policies in the recruitment, screening, and hiring of high-level city employees. Passage would also reward Mayor Held for trampling any notion of transparency and accountability in North Canton City government and make this council a partner in the Mayor’s plan of deception.
I ask that this council not let North Canton’s reputation be discredited by the statements and actions of the Held Administration that are intended to mislead the citizens of North Canton. Checks and balances in North Canton City Government are certainly needed to stop the plans of deception now being perpetrated on us!
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
Monday, September 26, 2011
North Canton’s Health Insurance Benefits to Part-time Elected Officials Are Overly Generous
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 26, 2011
It is no secret that the City of North Canton is struggling financially to maintain city services with reduced revenues. What I suspect is not widely known by residents is what compensation is provided to part-time North Canton elected officials while they serve in office.
North Canton’s Mayor receives a salary of $15,000 annually, the President of Council $5,700, and Councilmembers $4,800. North Canton’s part-time elected officials also are allowed full family health insurance benefits. The premiums and administration costs total $14,952.48 and with the employee’s payment of an 8.1 % co-pay, the cost to taxpayers for these health benefits come to $13,916.88 annually per official.
Part-time elected officials can choose to have individual health insurance coverage and the premiums and administrative costs total $5,777.76 and with the employee copay, the cost to taxpayers for these health benefits come to $5,380.08 annually.
It is my understanding one council member continues to keep his health insurance with his employer and one council member has chosen individual health insurance coverage. The remaining six part-time elected officials have chosen full family health insurance benefits provided by the city.
The annual difference in costs between family benefits versus individual benefits is $8,536.80 per part-time elected official and when multiplied times eight, full family health insurance coverage, if chosen, to seven part-time city council members and a part-time mayor amounts to added costs to taxpayers of $68,294.40 annually.
In 2002 when North Canton was contemplating a pay increase for elected officials, I researched salary and benefits of elected officials in nearby municipalities. At that time, four of the five municipalities contacted did not provide health insurance benefits to part-time elected officials. Those municipalities were Alliance, Canal Fulton, Louisville, and Massillon. Besides North Canton, only the City of Canton provided health insurance coverage for part-time officials. This has not changed.
When compared to the paid health insurance benefits provided by other area municipalities, North Canton’s health insurance benefits to part-time elected officials are overly generous.
I would urge this council to quickly pass legislation limiting health insurance to individual coverage and end family health insurance benefits to part-time elected officials.
This legislation would have to be enacted before the end of the present term of this council and would become effective with the incoming new council on December 1, 2011. If this council fails to act to restrict health insurance before the end of this council term, the city will lose out on a savings of nearly $140,000 over the next two years as Ohio law will not allow changes to compensation of elected officials in the term in which they are serving.
In the private sector, health insurance coverage is generally only available to individuals who work full-time. Is it fair and right that part-time elected officials in North Canton receive health insurance coverage beyond what their constituents struggle to provide for themselves in the private sector?
Is it fair and right that part-time elected officials not lead by example when the City asks its employees for concessions in union contracts?
Savings above and beyond those stated above could be realized if council members were allowed individual health insurance benefits from the city only if they had no health benefits through their spouse or their full-time employment. I suspect that some council members currently have secondary coverage or more through their spouse or their full-time employment.
In a February 12, 2008, Repository article titled, “N. Canton workers not receptive to wage freeze,” former Council President Daryl Revoldt remarks, “We are wrestling with a series of deficit issues for 2009, [Hoover once provided] ample and nearly predictable revenue, [but that has ended].”
The same article reported that council’s plan to deal with budget issues at that time were a wage freeze for city employees. My question to this council is why not lead by example and reduce the overly generous benefits it receives as part-time elected officials and show city employees that it will share in the pain that it is asking city employees to suffer?
The acknowledgment of the fiscal constraints facing North Canton by former Council President Revoldt occurred two and one half years ago and yet no one at city hall has focused on obvious savings that could be realized that were right before your eyes.
The last paragraph of the article reports, “Council also voted to spend $64,500 for a performance audit by the Ohio Auditor’s office. The move is supposed to help the city find ways to be more financially efficient.”
On January 6, 2009, the completed Performance Report was released to city officials. Recommendation 2.15 of the Performance Audit states: “The City should attempt to renegotiate provisions within its employee bargaining agreements that exceed peers or industry standards. These provisions are costly to the City, and successful renegotiations could result in significant savings.”
Shouldn’t this recommendation also apply to part-time elected officials?
I spoke to one councilmember regarding my planned remarks on this subject and he remarked that interest in serving on city council would decline if those particular benefits were curtailed.
To that I offer two examples in rebuttal. The first example is the North Canton Board of Education. Board of Education members receive a stipend of $125 per meeting they attend. There are NO other benefits. Has anyone ever seen a lack of candidates running for a seat on the Board of Education in North Canton? There is no personal gain to be had in serving and that has not diminished interest in serving on that board.
The second example is the part-time city council members of Hudson, Ohio. Hudson City Council members serve with a total compensation of $10.00 per month and NO other benefits. The Mayor of the City of Hudson receives $275.00 per month and NO other benefits.
This is true “Public Service” and after all, isn’t that what this is all about?
In summary, health insurance benefits for part-time city officials are not paid by an overwhelming majority of area communities. North Canton is struggling financially and fiscal prospects continue to be dim.
These savings can come without paying for another audit or a study at taxpayer expense. If each of you is serving for the right reasons and places the well-being of the community above your own self-interests, I ask that you implement these actions without delay to bring savings to the city you have sworn to serve.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 26, 2011
It is no secret that the City of North Canton is struggling financially to maintain city services with reduced revenues. What I suspect is not widely known by residents is what compensation is provided to part-time North Canton elected officials while they serve in office.
North Canton’s Mayor receives a salary of $15,000 annually, the President of Council $5,700, and Councilmembers $4,800. North Canton’s part-time elected officials also are allowed full family health insurance benefits. The premiums and administration costs total $14,952.48 and with the employee’s payment of an 8.1 % co-pay, the cost to taxpayers for these health benefits come to $13,916.88 annually per official.
Part-time elected officials can choose to have individual health insurance coverage and the premiums and administrative costs total $5,777.76 and with the employee copay, the cost to taxpayers for these health benefits come to $5,380.08 annually.
It is my understanding one council member continues to keep his health insurance with his employer and one council member has chosen individual health insurance coverage. The remaining six part-time elected officials have chosen full family health insurance benefits provided by the city.
The annual difference in costs between family benefits versus individual benefits is $8,536.80 per part-time elected official and when multiplied times eight, full family health insurance coverage, if chosen, to seven part-time city council members and a part-time mayor amounts to added costs to taxpayers of $68,294.40 annually.
In 2002 when North Canton was contemplating a pay increase for elected officials, I researched salary and benefits of elected officials in nearby municipalities. At that time, four of the five municipalities contacted did not provide health insurance benefits to part-time elected officials. Those municipalities were Alliance, Canal Fulton, Louisville, and Massillon. Besides North Canton, only the City of Canton provided health insurance coverage for part-time officials. This has not changed.
When compared to the paid health insurance benefits provided by other area municipalities, North Canton’s health insurance benefits to part-time elected officials are overly generous.
I would urge this council to quickly pass legislation limiting health insurance to individual coverage and end family health insurance benefits to part-time elected officials.
This legislation would have to be enacted before the end of the present term of this council and would become effective with the incoming new council on December 1, 2011. If this council fails to act to restrict health insurance before the end of this council term, the city will lose out on a savings of nearly $140,000 over the next two years as Ohio law will not allow changes to compensation of elected officials in the term in which they are serving.
In the private sector, health insurance coverage is generally only available to individuals who work full-time. Is it fair and right that part-time elected officials in North Canton receive health insurance coverage beyond what their constituents struggle to provide for themselves in the private sector?
Is it fair and right that part-time elected officials not lead by example when the City asks its employees for concessions in union contracts?
Savings above and beyond those stated above could be realized if council members were allowed individual health insurance benefits from the city only if they had no health benefits through their spouse or their full-time employment. I suspect that some council members currently have secondary coverage or more through their spouse or their full-time employment.
In a February 12, 2008, Repository article titled, “N. Canton workers not receptive to wage freeze,” former Council President Daryl Revoldt remarks, “We are wrestling with a series of deficit issues for 2009, [Hoover once provided] ample and nearly predictable revenue, [but that has ended].”
The same article reported that council’s plan to deal with budget issues at that time were a wage freeze for city employees. My question to this council is why not lead by example and reduce the overly generous benefits it receives as part-time elected officials and show city employees that it will share in the pain that it is asking city employees to suffer?
The acknowledgment of the fiscal constraints facing North Canton by former Council President Revoldt occurred two and one half years ago and yet no one at city hall has focused on obvious savings that could be realized that were right before your eyes.
The last paragraph of the article reports, “Council also voted to spend $64,500 for a performance audit by the Ohio Auditor’s office. The move is supposed to help the city find ways to be more financially efficient.”
On January 6, 2009, the completed Performance Report was released to city officials. Recommendation 2.15 of the Performance Audit states: “The City should attempt to renegotiate provisions within its employee bargaining agreements that exceed peers or industry standards. These provisions are costly to the City, and successful renegotiations could result in significant savings.”
Shouldn’t this recommendation also apply to part-time elected officials?
I spoke to one councilmember regarding my planned remarks on this subject and he remarked that interest in serving on city council would decline if those particular benefits were curtailed.
To that I offer two examples in rebuttal. The first example is the North Canton Board of Education. Board of Education members receive a stipend of $125 per meeting they attend. There are NO other benefits. Has anyone ever seen a lack of candidates running for a seat on the Board of Education in North Canton? There is no personal gain to be had in serving and that has not diminished interest in serving on that board.
The second example is the part-time city council members of Hudson, Ohio. Hudson City Council members serve with a total compensation of $10.00 per month and NO other benefits. The Mayor of the City of Hudson receives $275.00 per month and NO other benefits.
This is true “Public Service” and after all, isn’t that what this is all about?
In summary, health insurance benefits for part-time city officials are not paid by an overwhelming majority of area communities. North Canton is struggling financially and fiscal prospects continue to be dim.
These savings can come without paying for another audit or a study at taxpayer expense. If each of you is serving for the right reasons and places the well-being of the community above your own self-interests, I ask that you implement these actions without delay to bring savings to the city you have sworn to serve.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Monday, September 12, 2011
Arrowhead Golf Course Purchase & Ownership Continue to Be a Fiscal Disaster for North Canton
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 12, 2011
The purchase of Arrowhead Golf Course in 2003 for $4.2 million and the subsequent eight years of ownership of the property continue to be a fiscal disaster for the City of North Canton.
North Canton City officials do not want the public to know the current status of the property and have taken extraordinary measures to cover up the current fiscal crisis with the Arrowhead property, now known as The Fairways.
Three weeks ago, before the close of a Council of the Whole meeting on August 22, Law Director Hans Nilges asked that councilmembers review a memo he had sent privately to council members.
I have inquired for several weeks as to the contents of the memo only to be told that the Law Director has stated the communication is protected by attorney-client privilege. Since becoming the City’s Law Director, Mr. Nilges has used this claim of privilege rather frequently to block access to public records requests.
The memo was clearly designed to circumvent Ohio’s Open Records Laws. I have not seen the memo but after an 11-day wait for the City to comply with my recent records requests and confirmation from sources, I have learned, substantively, the contents of the memo: North Canton is ending the current lease of The Fairways with R & S Golf Properties, Inc., the operators and current Lessee of the former Arrowhead Golf Course.
In a July 13, 2011, letter from the City to R & S Golf Properties, Inc., Law Director Nilges states, “pursuant to Article XII, Section 12.1.1 of the Lease, the City is exercising its right to terminate the Lease, effective, December 31, 2011.”
Revelations in a June 3, 2011, letter from the City to the Lessee indicate that property taxes for The Fairways have not been completely paid by the Lessee as required for the three-year term of the lease and that there are concerns as to whether the required $80,000 per year capital-improvement obligation of the Lessee has been met during the lease.
A records search has also uncovered an appraisal of the golf course dated August 26, 2011. The appraisal of commercial property of this scope is not done overnight, so I can only presume that along with the termination of the lease in mid-July, someone ordered an immediate appraisal of The Fairways that cost taxpayers $3,800.
The 2011appraisal of The Fairways concludes that the property is valued at $1.9 million. This is less than half the original purchase price. Yes, the down economy has had an impact on this current valuation but it does not explain away the entire 55% loss in valuation. The $2.3 million loss off the purchase price for Arrowhead can only be attributed to gross overpayment for the golf course.
Eight years ago, after council voted to proceed with the purchase, I undertook efforts to allow the citizens of North Canton to vote on the expenditure of their tax dollars for the purchase of Arrowhead. I was halfway to getting the signatures for a referendum when the editorial board of the Repository decided to undermine the constitutionally protected right to referendum a legislative action by running an editorial urging residents not to sign the petition.
Do you think the editorial board at the Repository would like to share in the financial burden that they urged on the citizens of North Canton when they intervened to urge citizens not to sign the referendum? Not likely.
Over the last few weeks, there have been rumors that a prospective buyer was in the wings to purchase the golf course. At last week’s Council of the Whole, Councilmember Mark Cerreta stated that the golf course was not being sold. If that is the case, why was there a rush to order an appraisal of the golf course property?
The financial impact of the golf course on North Canton finances cannot be unloaded with a quick sale as the City has made a poor decision regarding the golf course property. In recent months City Council, for a fee of $14,417, chose to convert a $700,000 short-term note on the property to long-term debt, obligating the City to pay bond interest of nearly $200,000 whether the property is sold or not.
Page 10 of the Preliminary Official Statement (POS) for the bond dated March 2, 2011, states, “The Series 2011B Bonds are not subject to optional redemption prior to their stated maturity [December 2020].”
What is truly sad regarding the bond financing is the fact that there were funds available to pay off the Arrowhead notes in the CIC escrow fund that could have been used.
If the city is anxious to unload the golf course, why did this council issue long-term bonds on the property?
I would like to know, in total, how much city money has been spent on Arrowhead? I have made requests to city officials for a list of expenses incurred while owning the golf course but apparently no one knows or seems to even care.
I would not be surprised to learn that over and above the $2.3 million devaluation of Arrowhead, the City has incurred an additional $1.0 million in expenses over the eight years it has owned the property for debt service not covered by lease revenue, annual note issuance fees, appraisal and environmental fees, a 2005 storm study, and the list goes on.
In my hands, I hold a copy of the PGA MAGAZINE provided to me in 2003 by a highly respected and long-time owner and operator of golf courses in Ohio and Florida. It contains Part 1of a two-part report entitled “Wake-Up Call.”
The twelve-page report details the problems facing the world of golf and course owners. Golf play was on the decline and the report details that fact. One paragraph from the report states:
Core and avid golfers playing fewer rounds translates to a loss of revenue across the board – green fees; lesson and caddie fees; golf-car revenue; ball, equipment and merchandise sales; food and beverage; hotel rooms at golf destinations, etc. The estimated annual loss to the golf industry is about $2.77 billion per year. Yes, billion.
I read excerpts of this twelve-page report into the record 8 years ago to no avail. What has been particularly disappointing is to hear city officials continuing to defend the Arrowhead purchase.
The chickens have come home to roost and you are now getting your Wake-up Call. It is sad that your decisions have come at such great expense to the taxpayers of North Canton.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 12, 2011
The purchase of Arrowhead Golf Course in 2003 for $4.2 million and the subsequent eight years of ownership of the property continue to be a fiscal disaster for the City of North Canton.
North Canton City officials do not want the public to know the current status of the property and have taken extraordinary measures to cover up the current fiscal crisis with the Arrowhead property, now known as The Fairways.
Three weeks ago, before the close of a Council of the Whole meeting on August 22, Law Director Hans Nilges asked that councilmembers review a memo he had sent privately to council members.
I have inquired for several weeks as to the contents of the memo only to be told that the Law Director has stated the communication is protected by attorney-client privilege. Since becoming the City’s Law Director, Mr. Nilges has used this claim of privilege rather frequently to block access to public records requests.
The memo was clearly designed to circumvent Ohio’s Open Records Laws. I have not seen the memo but after an 11-day wait for the City to comply with my recent records requests and confirmation from sources, I have learned, substantively, the contents of the memo: North Canton is ending the current lease of The Fairways with R & S Golf Properties, Inc., the operators and current Lessee of the former Arrowhead Golf Course.
In a July 13, 2011, letter from the City to R & S Golf Properties, Inc., Law Director Nilges states, “pursuant to Article XII, Section 12.1.1 of the Lease, the City is exercising its right to terminate the Lease, effective, December 31, 2011.”
Revelations in a June 3, 2011, letter from the City to the Lessee indicate that property taxes for The Fairways have not been completely paid by the Lessee as required for the three-year term of the lease and that there are concerns as to whether the required $80,000 per year capital-improvement obligation of the Lessee has been met during the lease.
A records search has also uncovered an appraisal of the golf course dated August 26, 2011. The appraisal of commercial property of this scope is not done overnight, so I can only presume that along with the termination of the lease in mid-July, someone ordered an immediate appraisal of The Fairways that cost taxpayers $3,800.
The 2011appraisal of The Fairways concludes that the property is valued at $1.9 million. This is less than half the original purchase price. Yes, the down economy has had an impact on this current valuation but it does not explain away the entire 55% loss in valuation. The $2.3 million loss off the purchase price for Arrowhead can only be attributed to gross overpayment for the golf course.
Eight years ago, after council voted to proceed with the purchase, I undertook efforts to allow the citizens of North Canton to vote on the expenditure of their tax dollars for the purchase of Arrowhead. I was halfway to getting the signatures for a referendum when the editorial board of the Repository decided to undermine the constitutionally protected right to referendum a legislative action by running an editorial urging residents not to sign the petition.
Do you think the editorial board at the Repository would like to share in the financial burden that they urged on the citizens of North Canton when they intervened to urge citizens not to sign the referendum? Not likely.
Over the last few weeks, there have been rumors that a prospective buyer was in the wings to purchase the golf course. At last week’s Council of the Whole, Councilmember Mark Cerreta stated that the golf course was not being sold. If that is the case, why was there a rush to order an appraisal of the golf course property?
The financial impact of the golf course on North Canton finances cannot be unloaded with a quick sale as the City has made a poor decision regarding the golf course property. In recent months City Council, for a fee of $14,417, chose to convert a $700,000 short-term note on the property to long-term debt, obligating the City to pay bond interest of nearly $200,000 whether the property is sold or not.
Page 10 of the Preliminary Official Statement (POS) for the bond dated March 2, 2011, states, “The Series 2011B Bonds are not subject to optional redemption prior to their stated maturity [December 2020].”
What is truly sad regarding the bond financing is the fact that there were funds available to pay off the Arrowhead notes in the CIC escrow fund that could have been used.
If the city is anxious to unload the golf course, why did this council issue long-term bonds on the property?
I would like to know, in total, how much city money has been spent on Arrowhead? I have made requests to city officials for a list of expenses incurred while owning the golf course but apparently no one knows or seems to even care.
I would not be surprised to learn that over and above the $2.3 million devaluation of Arrowhead, the City has incurred an additional $1.0 million in expenses over the eight years it has owned the property for debt service not covered by lease revenue, annual note issuance fees, appraisal and environmental fees, a 2005 storm study, and the list goes on.
In my hands, I hold a copy of the PGA MAGAZINE provided to me in 2003 by a highly respected and long-time owner and operator of golf courses in Ohio and Florida. It contains Part 1of a two-part report entitled “Wake-Up Call.”
The twelve-page report details the problems facing the world of golf and course owners. Golf play was on the decline and the report details that fact. One paragraph from the report states:
Core and avid golfers playing fewer rounds translates to a loss of revenue across the board – green fees; lesson and caddie fees; golf-car revenue; ball, equipment and merchandise sales; food and beverage; hotel rooms at golf destinations, etc. The estimated annual loss to the golf industry is about $2.77 billion per year. Yes, billion.
I read excerpts of this twelve-page report into the record 8 years ago to no avail. What has been particularly disappointing is to hear city officials continuing to defend the Arrowhead purchase.
The chickens have come home to roost and you are now getting your Wake-up Call. It is sad that your decisions have come at such great expense to the taxpayers of North Canton.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
City of North Canton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
