Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
October 25, 2010
On tonight’s agenda are five pieces of legislation dealing with the issuance and sale of bonds on behalf of the City of North Canton. Three of the five proposed bond issues will increase North Canton indebtedness by $2.4 million. The remaining two proposed bond issues seek to convert existing debt, totaling $1.6 million, from short-term notes to long-term bonds.
The proposal to convert the $700,000 short-term note of indebtedness on the former Arrowhead Golf Course property to a long-term bond is the purpose of my remarks tonight. It is titled on tonight’s agenda as Ordinance No. 78-10.
The City of North Canton paid a total of $4.2 million for the Arrowhead property in 2003. Two million dollars was taken from the city’s reserves and $2.2 million was rolled into a short-term note. North Canton made annual payments of $300,000 on this note but found itself unable to make those payments without subsidies from the City’s General Fund. This practice forced the city to divert funds that could have been used for city services to make the annual note payments.
Per recommendations of the 2008 Performance Audit by the State (R2.11), the City reduced its annual payments on the Arrowhead note to $100,000 per year. The present balance on the note is $700,000 which is the amount of the proposed bond on the agenda tonight.
If passed tonight, the annual bond payments will further reduce the annual payments on the Arrowhead indebtedness. Recommendation 2.11of the Performance Audit cautions that, “by prolonging the debt, the City will incur additional interest and issuance cost, and the note will not be paid off until 2015 or 2016.” In discussions, some council members have also made this point regarding the increased interest expense if the debt is extended further into the future.
Doesn’t this sound like someone who is overextended on his credit cards and can’t make his credit card payment so he only makes the minimum payment each month?
Paralleling, what I believe to be, the ill-fated decision to purchase the Arrowhead Golf course property was a decision in 2005 to remove $1.5 million from the City’s General Fund and begin making $100,000 per year payments to the North Canton Community Improvement Corporation (CIC).
Of the original $1.5 million removed from the General Fund, $757,000 remains in an escrow account controlled by the City.
To date, $743,000, or about one half of the original $1.5 million has been given to two businesses with no requirement to repay those funds back to the North Canton CIC. City leaders promised in 2005 when the $1.5 million was removed from the City’s General Fund that the CIC would operate as a revolving loan fund.
Sadly, that has not been the case.
The North Canton CIC currently has a balance of approximately $190,000 and can ask for the balance of the $1.5 million at any time. As I noted earlier, $757,000, currently sits in an escrow account controlled by the City.
City leaders are waiting for the next opportunity to hand out the remaining nearly one million dollars with no obligations for repayment while the city struggles to pay its expenses.
Should North Canton pay its bills with money it has on hand or should the city borrow and increase its indebtedness?
At this time, North Canton has cash funds available to wipe out, entirely, the $700,000 note owed on the Arrowhead property. There is no need to issue and sell long-term bonds.
If this council and the Held Administration are truly serious about the fiscal plight of the City of North Canton, it would use those escrow funds and extinguish that indebtedness.
North Canton’s fiscal future continues to hang by a thread and North Canton increases debt while city leaders stockpile cash.
There is no logic in continuing to hand $100,000 per year to the CIC through the year 2017 while the city faces fiscal crisis. As it is, this council is borrowing $1.3 million to replace the very roof over our heads here at City Hall and at the Civic Center along with another $1.1 million for other infrastructure improvements in the city.
This $2.4 million in new debt is in addition to the more than $16.0 million of debt the city already has on its books. Whether the debt is enterprise debt or general obligation debt makes no difference.
Debt is debt and it all must be paid back.
The purchase of Arrowhead Golf Course property for $4.2 million in 2003 along with the removal of $1.5 million dollars from the City General Fund in 2005 constituted nearly one third of the $18.0 million dollars the city had in reserves in 2003. With spending decisions such as these, it does not take long to blow through $18.0 million. And that is what has happened before our very eyes.
Economic conditions are not good and economic prospects are not bright, locally or nationally. If this council and the administration are remotely interested in fiscal stewardship for the City of North Canton, it is time
it demonstrated its beliefs in actions instead of letting business and politics continue as usual.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
New Position of Assistant Law Director for Mayor’s Court Has No Functional Role Whatsoever
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
October 11, 2010
Two weeks ago this council passed Ordinance 73-10 establishing the position of Assistant Director of Law/Mayor’s Court Prosecutor. The legislation was passed on its second reading on an emergency.
I appealed to this council in remarks prior to each of the two readings to reconsider this course of action and urged this council to restructure the position of Law Director to a full-time position and get control of legal fees and services for the City which presently come at a very high cost. A sixteen-hour work week for the City Law Director in this day and age is inadequate.
Two weeks ago I noted that North Canton has expended $414,870.41 for outside legal services over the last five years. Adding in the $245,000 paid to the City’s law director for each of the last five years at $49,000 per year for a sixteen-hour work week results in the expenditure of nearly $660,000 ($659,870.41) for legal services in the last five years. This is an average of $132,000 per year.
North Canton is paying $62.50 per hour for the services of an attorney to fill the role of Law Director while the Stark County Prosecutor’s office pays $39.14 per hour to its most senior attorney. Nearly two dozen other attorneys at the prosecutor’s office earn less than $30.00 per hour.
My point tonight after further research on this issue is the fact that the newly passed legislation creates a position of Assistant Law Director to serve specifically as a prosecutor in mayor’s court when in fact there is no role for a prosecutor in mayor’s court.
Councilmembers should avail themselves of the time to sit in on a North Canton Mayor’s Court and see how the process works.
Mayor’s Court is an administrative action. People are cited to appear for violation of local ordinances and traffic laws. The city official charged with enforcement of local ordinances issues the citation. In the case of traffic offenses, it is the local police. In the case of zoning violations it is whoever is responsible for enforcement of local zoning laws, which in North Canton is the Superintendent of Permits.
Mayor’s Court does not unfold as a capital case as seen on TV. There are no prosecuting attorneys. There are no defense attorneys.
The individual simply appears before a magistrate and pleads guilty, no contest, or not guilty. If the individual pleads either guilty or no contest, the magistrate levies a fine and the individual pays the fine and court costs. If the individual is found guilty after pleading not guilty, the ruling can be appealed and heard in Canton Municipal court and proceeds as a trial de novo per ORC 1905.25, meaning a new trial in a new tribunal.
Further research has uncovered a contract between the City of Canton Law Department and the City of North Canton for the purpose of providing legal representation in Canton Municipal Court for $17,000 per year.
This annual contract expense with the Canton Prosecutor’s office raises North Canton’s legal costs per year to $149,000 per year.
The latest contract covers 2010 and 2011 and was approved by council in Ordinance No. 99-09 on November 23, 2009.
Among the list of services itemized in the contract with the Canton Law Department is Item a. – Acceptance for prosecution of transfers from Mayor’s Court.
Thus there is no role for a prosecutor in North Canton Mayor’s Court nor is there a role in Canton Municipal Court. What exactly is North Canton’s new Assistant Director of Law going to do?
Ordinance 73-10 narrowly defines the duties and compensation of the Assistant Director of Law as pertaining to Out of Court and In Court Work as a prosecutor in Mayor’s Court.
What work is there to do? Can this legislative act of North Canton City Council serve any purpose?
I would say nothing has been accomplished with the passage of Ordinance No. 73-10.
I also would say that North Canton should have been working harder long ago to maintain neighborhoods in the City and citing violations of its zoning laws.
You do not need a prosecutor in North Canton Mayor’s Court. Furthermore, the services of the City of Canton Prosecutor’s Office also preclude the need for a prosecutor for enforcement of local ordinances.
Lastly, I am compelled to ask why the City has been billed $1,548.90 by the law firm of Morrow & Meyer, LLC for prosecution of the Prater zoning violation when there are provisions in place to deal with enforcement of the zoning violation in both Mayor’s Court and then in the Canton Municipal Court.
The zoning violation could very easily have been handled administratively in North Canton Mayor’s Court and if forced in to Canton Municipal Court, handled per the contract in place with the City of Canton Prosecutor’s office.
As events have unfolded, the City of North Canton chose not to utilize the services of the Canton Prosecutor’s Office and paid a second time for legal services of a private law firm for which it need not have paid.
I believe this is a violation of public trust and is most certainly fiscally irresponsible.
I ask at this time that the law firm of Morrow & Meyer, LLC refund back to the taxpayers of North Canton the $1,548.90 it has received regarding the prosecution of the Prater zoning violation case as the Canton City Prosecutor’s Office was under contract to provide such legal services in Canton Municipal Court and would have done so without added cost to the taxpayers of North Canton.
I urge this council to also ask that those funds be returned. The city has been double-billed for legal services and taxpayers are due a refund.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
October 11, 2010
Two weeks ago this council passed Ordinance 73-10 establishing the position of Assistant Director of Law/Mayor’s Court Prosecutor. The legislation was passed on its second reading on an emergency.
I appealed to this council in remarks prior to each of the two readings to reconsider this course of action and urged this council to restructure the position of Law Director to a full-time position and get control of legal fees and services for the City which presently come at a very high cost. A sixteen-hour work week for the City Law Director in this day and age is inadequate.
Two weeks ago I noted that North Canton has expended $414,870.41 for outside legal services over the last five years. Adding in the $245,000 paid to the City’s law director for each of the last five years at $49,000 per year for a sixteen-hour work week results in the expenditure of nearly $660,000 ($659,870.41) for legal services in the last five years. This is an average of $132,000 per year.
North Canton is paying $62.50 per hour for the services of an attorney to fill the role of Law Director while the Stark County Prosecutor’s office pays $39.14 per hour to its most senior attorney. Nearly two dozen other attorneys at the prosecutor’s office earn less than $30.00 per hour.
My point tonight after further research on this issue is the fact that the newly passed legislation creates a position of Assistant Law Director to serve specifically as a prosecutor in mayor’s court when in fact there is no role for a prosecutor in mayor’s court.
Councilmembers should avail themselves of the time to sit in on a North Canton Mayor’s Court and see how the process works.
Mayor’s Court is an administrative action. People are cited to appear for violation of local ordinances and traffic laws. The city official charged with enforcement of local ordinances issues the citation. In the case of traffic offenses, it is the local police. In the case of zoning violations it is whoever is responsible for enforcement of local zoning laws, which in North Canton is the Superintendent of Permits.
Mayor’s Court does not unfold as a capital case as seen on TV. There are no prosecuting attorneys. There are no defense attorneys.
The individual simply appears before a magistrate and pleads guilty, no contest, or not guilty. If the individual pleads either guilty or no contest, the magistrate levies a fine and the individual pays the fine and court costs. If the individual is found guilty after pleading not guilty, the ruling can be appealed and heard in Canton Municipal court and proceeds as a trial de novo per ORC 1905.25, meaning a new trial in a new tribunal.
Further research has uncovered a contract between the City of Canton Law Department and the City of North Canton for the purpose of providing legal representation in Canton Municipal Court for $17,000 per year.
This annual contract expense with the Canton Prosecutor’s office raises North Canton’s legal costs per year to $149,000 per year.
The latest contract covers 2010 and 2011 and was approved by council in Ordinance No. 99-09 on November 23, 2009.
Among the list of services itemized in the contract with the Canton Law Department is Item a. – Acceptance for prosecution of transfers from Mayor’s Court.
Thus there is no role for a prosecutor in North Canton Mayor’s Court nor is there a role in Canton Municipal Court. What exactly is North Canton’s new Assistant Director of Law going to do?
Ordinance 73-10 narrowly defines the duties and compensation of the Assistant Director of Law as pertaining to Out of Court and In Court Work as a prosecutor in Mayor’s Court.
What work is there to do? Can this legislative act of North Canton City Council serve any purpose?
I would say nothing has been accomplished with the passage of Ordinance No. 73-10.
I also would say that North Canton should have been working harder long ago to maintain neighborhoods in the City and citing violations of its zoning laws.
You do not need a prosecutor in North Canton Mayor’s Court. Furthermore, the services of the City of Canton Prosecutor’s Office also preclude the need for a prosecutor for enforcement of local ordinances.
Lastly, I am compelled to ask why the City has been billed $1,548.90 by the law firm of Morrow & Meyer, LLC for prosecution of the Prater zoning violation when there are provisions in place to deal with enforcement of the zoning violation in both Mayor’s Court and then in the Canton Municipal Court.
The zoning violation could very easily have been handled administratively in North Canton Mayor’s Court and if forced in to Canton Municipal Court, handled per the contract in place with the City of Canton Prosecutor’s office.
As events have unfolded, the City of North Canton chose not to utilize the services of the Canton Prosecutor’s Office and paid a second time for legal services of a private law firm for which it need not have paid.
I believe this is a violation of public trust and is most certainly fiscally irresponsible.
I ask at this time that the law firm of Morrow & Meyer, LLC refund back to the taxpayers of North Canton the $1,548.90 it has received regarding the prosecution of the Prater zoning violation case as the Canton City Prosecutor’s Office was under contract to provide such legal services in Canton Municipal Court and would have done so without added cost to the taxpayers of North Canton.
I urge this council to also ask that those funds be returned. The city has been double-billed for legal services and taxpayers are due a refund.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, September 27, 2010
North Canton Legal Costs Skyrocket as Fiscal Crisis Grows
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 27, 2010
Two weeks ago, I made comparisons between the compensation rate paid to the North Canton Law Director and the rates paid by other governmental agencies in Stark County and asked why North Canton cannot do as well as those other Stark County governments.
North Canton is paying $62.50 per hour for the services of an attorney to fill the role of Law Director while the Stark County Prosecutor’s office pays $39.14 per hour to its most senior attorney. Nearly two dozen other attorneys at the prosecutor’s office earn less than $30.00 per hour.
The City of Canton, likewise, has three full-time Assistant Prosecutors on staff that are paid an hourly rate of $20.10 per hour.
Why can’t the citizens of North Canton be afforded legal services from its law director at equitable hourly rates?
Furthermore, North Canton needs a law director who is available to work more than the currently required sixteen hour work week and I believe the following clearly supports my argument.
One, the request in Ordinance No. 73-10, in its second reading tonight, to create the position of Assistant Director of Law shows that the current law director cannot do the job in a sixteen-hour work week.
Two, the current law director has already billed the taxpayers of North Canton for $4,128.84 for hours over and above his sixteen-hour week. Those charges for legal services are over and above the law director’s annual salary of $49,000. Again, an indication that the current law director cannot do the job in a sixteen hour work week.
Third, over the last five years, North Canton has paid out $414,870.41 for legal professional services. Adding in the $245,000 paid to the law director for each of the last five years at $49,000 per year results in City legal costs of nearly $660,000 ($659,870.41).
Over the last five years, North Canton has averaged spending nearly $132,000 per year ($131,974.08) for legal services. In the last eighteen months alone, North Canton has spent more than $275,000 ($275,141.85) for legal services.
North Canton needs a full-time law director at a fair salary, not an assistant law director as Ordinance No. 73-10 proposes.
The law director’s salary was more than doubled seven years ago and justified then by the elimination of the position of assistant director of law. Now the position is being resurrected.
In brief discussions in support of Ordinance No. 73-10 to create the position of assistant law director, Superintendent Tom Hampton stated that the city has about a dozen violators of zoning laws that habitually ignore letters from the city and that there are four or five cases ready to cite to mayor’s court.
Why has this effort been delayed?
Two weeks ago, I stated, “….one might wonder why the city failed to initiate such enforcement of its zonings laws beginning early in 2005 when Earle Wise took over as city administrator. Mr. Wise is an attorney and worked for many years as a Stark County Prosecutor before coming to North Canton.
Given that Mr. Wise is still on the city’s payroll at a salary of $70,000 per year, why can’t Attorney Wise assist Law Director Nilges in the prosecution of the zoning violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court?”
I am still awaiting a valid response to that question?
Prosecution of zoning violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court is likely to come at additional financial costs to the city if Ordinance No. 73-10 is enacted.
I say this for the following reasons: One, it is unlikely that fines will cover the assistant law director’s anticipated two hours on each case. Two, if a case is appealed to Canton Municipal Court, the fine is even less likely to cover the assistant law director’s time. And for everyone’s information, Ohio Revised Code 1905.25 states that, “An appeal from the mayor’s court to the municipal court or county court shall proceed as a trial de novo.” This means that the case starts fresh as if there had been no previous hearing before a judge requiring more time of the assistant law director. Three, if the zoning violator fails to pay the court ordered fine, do you jail the individual at added expense?
There are other expenses related to prosecution of these zoning violations that have not been explained. Ohio Revised Code 1905.26 allows for the payment of witness fees from the treasury of the municipal corporation. Is the city prepared for expenses such as these if they arise?
Does the city have clerical help who know how to send out court summons and subpoenas? Is this expense being factored into the total cost of prosecutions? People need to know all of the costs and not just be given a snapshot of the costs to prosecute violators in mayor’s court.
The bottom line is this. North Canton must maximize the resources available to it now and minimize the costs of prosecuting zoning violators. The city can do this by utilizing former city administrator Earle Wise who is already on the city’s payroll. The city also must restructure the position of city law director for a full-time position at a fiscally responsible salary for the citizens of North Canton.
North Canton must get control of the cost of government and this is a good place to start. If this council would proceed in that manner and get of control of its legal costs, to use the council president’s words from two weeks ago, that would be good stewardship and a good use of the public resources.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 27, 2010
Two weeks ago, I made comparisons between the compensation rate paid to the North Canton Law Director and the rates paid by other governmental agencies in Stark County and asked why North Canton cannot do as well as those other Stark County governments.
North Canton is paying $62.50 per hour for the services of an attorney to fill the role of Law Director while the Stark County Prosecutor’s office pays $39.14 per hour to its most senior attorney. Nearly two dozen other attorneys at the prosecutor’s office earn less than $30.00 per hour.
The City of Canton, likewise, has three full-time Assistant Prosecutors on staff that are paid an hourly rate of $20.10 per hour.
Why can’t the citizens of North Canton be afforded legal services from its law director at equitable hourly rates?
Furthermore, North Canton needs a law director who is available to work more than the currently required sixteen hour work week and I believe the following clearly supports my argument.
One, the request in Ordinance No. 73-10, in its second reading tonight, to create the position of Assistant Director of Law shows that the current law director cannot do the job in a sixteen-hour work week.
Two, the current law director has already billed the taxpayers of North Canton for $4,128.84 for hours over and above his sixteen-hour week. Those charges for legal services are over and above the law director’s annual salary of $49,000. Again, an indication that the current law director cannot do the job in a sixteen hour work week.
Third, over the last five years, North Canton has paid out $414,870.41 for legal professional services. Adding in the $245,000 paid to the law director for each of the last five years at $49,000 per year results in City legal costs of nearly $660,000 ($659,870.41).
Over the last five years, North Canton has averaged spending nearly $132,000 per year ($131,974.08) for legal services. In the last eighteen months alone, North Canton has spent more than $275,000 ($275,141.85) for legal services.
North Canton needs a full-time law director at a fair salary, not an assistant law director as Ordinance No. 73-10 proposes.
The law director’s salary was more than doubled seven years ago and justified then by the elimination of the position of assistant director of law. Now the position is being resurrected.
In brief discussions in support of Ordinance No. 73-10 to create the position of assistant law director, Superintendent Tom Hampton stated that the city has about a dozen violators of zoning laws that habitually ignore letters from the city and that there are four or five cases ready to cite to mayor’s court.
Why has this effort been delayed?
Two weeks ago, I stated, “….one might wonder why the city failed to initiate such enforcement of its zonings laws beginning early in 2005 when Earle Wise took over as city administrator. Mr. Wise is an attorney and worked for many years as a Stark County Prosecutor before coming to North Canton.
Given that Mr. Wise is still on the city’s payroll at a salary of $70,000 per year, why can’t Attorney Wise assist Law Director Nilges in the prosecution of the zoning violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court?”
I am still awaiting a valid response to that question?
Prosecution of zoning violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court is likely to come at additional financial costs to the city if Ordinance No. 73-10 is enacted.
I say this for the following reasons: One, it is unlikely that fines will cover the assistant law director’s anticipated two hours on each case. Two, if a case is appealed to Canton Municipal Court, the fine is even less likely to cover the assistant law director’s time. And for everyone’s information, Ohio Revised Code 1905.25 states that, “An appeal from the mayor’s court to the municipal court or county court shall proceed as a trial de novo.” This means that the case starts fresh as if there had been no previous hearing before a judge requiring more time of the assistant law director. Three, if the zoning violator fails to pay the court ordered fine, do you jail the individual at added expense?
There are other expenses related to prosecution of these zoning violations that have not been explained. Ohio Revised Code 1905.26 allows for the payment of witness fees from the treasury of the municipal corporation. Is the city prepared for expenses such as these if they arise?
Does the city have clerical help who know how to send out court summons and subpoenas? Is this expense being factored into the total cost of prosecutions? People need to know all of the costs and not just be given a snapshot of the costs to prosecute violators in mayor’s court.
The bottom line is this. North Canton must maximize the resources available to it now and minimize the costs of prosecuting zoning violators. The city can do this by utilizing former city administrator Earle Wise who is already on the city’s payroll. The city also must restructure the position of city law director for a full-time position at a fiscally responsible salary for the citizens of North Canton.
North Canton must get control of the cost of government and this is a good place to start. If this council would proceed in that manner and get of control of its legal costs, to use the council president’s words from two weeks ago, that would be good stewardship and a good use of the public resources.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, September 13, 2010
North Canton Law Director Paid Well For Part-time Service to City
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 2010
In last week’s Council of the Whole meeting, city officials remarked that zoning laws and building codes in the city have not been enforced for many years and that they now want to get serious with violators through prosecution of violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court.
In 2003, as a member of this council and Chairman of Ordinance, Rules, and Claims Committee, I begged fellow council members to put some teeth into enforcement of the city’s zoning laws without success. If you recall, I was running for the office of mayor that year and it was more expedient at that time to let politics prevail than do what was needed for the citizens of North Canton. Many of you who failed to act at that time still sit on this council. It is good to see that after seven years, you finally are on board to facilitate enforcement of zoning laws for the city.
My discussion on this legislation before you lies with who is responsible for implementation of that goal. On tonight’s agenda Ordinance No. 73-10 proposes to establish a rate of compensation and the position of Assistant Director of Law for prosecution of code violators in mayor’s court.
I believe this proposal for an Assistant Director of Law should first prompt an evaluation of what is expected of the City’s current Director of Law and the salary he is paid.
In 2003, under Ordinance 123-03, the salary for the Director of Law was increased from $16,100 to $49,000 per year. A Repository September 30, 2003, report titled, “Canton attorney appointed interim city law director,” noted that medical benefits of $7,000 were also paid prior to the salary increase.
In spite of the added cost of medical benefits, the increase in salary under that ordinance more than doubled the cost of the law director. On October 13, 2003, I voted against Ordinance No 123-03.
The current salary structure for law director does not now allow for medical benefits, but state law does mandate PERS. This adds nearly $9,000 a year to salary costs for the law director.
Ordinance No. 34-10 passed earlier this year spells out the duties and responsibilities for the position of Director of Law. The law director receives 3 weeks of paid vacation and is expected to work 16 hours per week.
A 16-hour week, at $49,000 per year results in an hourly rate of nearly $62.50 per hour ($49,000 / 784 hours worked per year). One way to better understand the present salary costs for the Law Director is to compute the equivalent annual salary if he were full time.
Using an hourly rate of $62.50 per hour and a full-time work schedule of 2,080 hours, the North Canton Director of Law receives an equivalent annual salary of $130,000. The cost of PERS adds an additional $23,725.
Why is North Canton paying exorbitant hourly rates when other governmental agencies here in Stark County are able to pay more reasonable hourly rates? The hourly rate for the most senior attorney working for the Stark County Prosecutor’s office is $39.14 per hour.
Why is North Canton’s Law Director receiving an hourly rate for legal services that is 60 per cent higher than the hourly rate received by the most senior attorney in the Stark County Prosecutor’s office?
Nearly 86 percent of the attorneys on staff at the Prosecutor’s office receive an hourly rate of $30.00 per hour or less.
Is North Canton getting the most bang for its buck for legal services?
The City of Canton, likewise, has three full-time Assistant Prosecutors on staff that receive an annual salary of $41,796 each for full-time legal services. That equates to just over $20.10 per hour.
North Canton needs a Director of Law that is full-time. The past and present arrangement of hiring an attorney whose focus is on maintaining and supporting a full-time private practice with all the attendant demands and expenses shortchanges the city that hires him/her part-time.
This is borne out in the myriad of added legal costs that North Canton has paid over and above the law director’s salary. Thousands of dollars in legal costs have been paid to the last three North Canton Law Directors for fees over and above their stated salary year after year. Legal fees in the tens of thousands of dollars and most recently legal fees in six figures have been paid to outside law firms while North Canton pays top dollar salary to a law director who is only expected to work 16 hours per week.
On a weekly basis, while in attendance at city council meetings, I am continually reminded of the fiscal crisis the city is facing yet I do not see corrective action to minimize costs and expenses.
Working as a full-time Law Director for the City of North Canton would be an attractive proposition.
A full-time attorney for the City would not need to look for clients, would not need to pay rent for office space, would not need to pay utility expenses, would not need to make payroll for support staff. These are all the expenses that make up the billing rate charged by an attorney in a private practice. This is what makes up the $156.00 per hour billing rate the law director now charges the City for hours in excess of the 16 hours he is required to work for the City.
I do hope the City moves ahead to prosecute violators of its zoning laws. I also hope City Council will revisit the compensation and job requirements of the position of Director of Law and not move ahead with passage tonight of Ordinance No. 73-10. Enforcement of city zoning laws is one of the most basic and simple of a city law director’s duties. That should be handled by the North Canton City Law Director.
Lastly, one might wonder why the city failed to initiate such enforcement of its zonings laws beginning early in 2005 when Earle Wise took over as city administrator. Mr. Wise is an attorney and worked for many years as a Stark County Prosecutor before coming to North Canton.
Given that Mr. Wise is still on the city’s payroll at a salary of $70,000 per year, why can’t Attorney Wise assist Law Director Nilges in the prosecution of the zoning violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court?
Remember, the city is facing budget deficits. Spend the public’s limited tax dollars wisely. Spend those dollars as if they were your last dollars, because those dollars may soon be our last dollars.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 2010
In last week’s Council of the Whole meeting, city officials remarked that zoning laws and building codes in the city have not been enforced for many years and that they now want to get serious with violators through prosecution of violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court.
In 2003, as a member of this council and Chairman of Ordinance, Rules, and Claims Committee, I begged fellow council members to put some teeth into enforcement of the city’s zoning laws without success. If you recall, I was running for the office of mayor that year and it was more expedient at that time to let politics prevail than do what was needed for the citizens of North Canton. Many of you who failed to act at that time still sit on this council. It is good to see that after seven years, you finally are on board to facilitate enforcement of zoning laws for the city.
My discussion on this legislation before you lies with who is responsible for implementation of that goal. On tonight’s agenda Ordinance No. 73-10 proposes to establish a rate of compensation and the position of Assistant Director of Law for prosecution of code violators in mayor’s court.
I believe this proposal for an Assistant Director of Law should first prompt an evaluation of what is expected of the City’s current Director of Law and the salary he is paid.
In 2003, under Ordinance 123-03, the salary for the Director of Law was increased from $16,100 to $49,000 per year. A Repository September 30, 2003, report titled, “Canton attorney appointed interim city law director,” noted that medical benefits of $7,000 were also paid prior to the salary increase.
In spite of the added cost of medical benefits, the increase in salary under that ordinance more than doubled the cost of the law director. On October 13, 2003, I voted against Ordinance No 123-03.
The current salary structure for law director does not now allow for medical benefits, but state law does mandate PERS. This adds nearly $9,000 a year to salary costs for the law director.
Ordinance No. 34-10 passed earlier this year spells out the duties and responsibilities for the position of Director of Law. The law director receives 3 weeks of paid vacation and is expected to work 16 hours per week.
A 16-hour week, at $49,000 per year results in an hourly rate of nearly $62.50 per hour ($49,000 / 784 hours worked per year). One way to better understand the present salary costs for the Law Director is to compute the equivalent annual salary if he were full time.
Using an hourly rate of $62.50 per hour and a full-time work schedule of 2,080 hours, the North Canton Director of Law receives an equivalent annual salary of $130,000. The cost of PERS adds an additional $23,725.
Why is North Canton paying exorbitant hourly rates when other governmental agencies here in Stark County are able to pay more reasonable hourly rates? The hourly rate for the most senior attorney working for the Stark County Prosecutor’s office is $39.14 per hour.
Why is North Canton’s Law Director receiving an hourly rate for legal services that is 60 per cent higher than the hourly rate received by the most senior attorney in the Stark County Prosecutor’s office?
Nearly 86 percent of the attorneys on staff at the Prosecutor’s office receive an hourly rate of $30.00 per hour or less.
Is North Canton getting the most bang for its buck for legal services?
The City of Canton, likewise, has three full-time Assistant Prosecutors on staff that receive an annual salary of $41,796 each for full-time legal services. That equates to just over $20.10 per hour.
North Canton needs a Director of Law that is full-time. The past and present arrangement of hiring an attorney whose focus is on maintaining and supporting a full-time private practice with all the attendant demands and expenses shortchanges the city that hires him/her part-time.
This is borne out in the myriad of added legal costs that North Canton has paid over and above the law director’s salary. Thousands of dollars in legal costs have been paid to the last three North Canton Law Directors for fees over and above their stated salary year after year. Legal fees in the tens of thousands of dollars and most recently legal fees in six figures have been paid to outside law firms while North Canton pays top dollar salary to a law director who is only expected to work 16 hours per week.
On a weekly basis, while in attendance at city council meetings, I am continually reminded of the fiscal crisis the city is facing yet I do not see corrective action to minimize costs and expenses.
Working as a full-time Law Director for the City of North Canton would be an attractive proposition.
A full-time attorney for the City would not need to look for clients, would not need to pay rent for office space, would not need to pay utility expenses, would not need to make payroll for support staff. These are all the expenses that make up the billing rate charged by an attorney in a private practice. This is what makes up the $156.00 per hour billing rate the law director now charges the City for hours in excess of the 16 hours he is required to work for the City.
I do hope the City moves ahead to prosecute violators of its zoning laws. I also hope City Council will revisit the compensation and job requirements of the position of Director of Law and not move ahead with passage tonight of Ordinance No. 73-10. Enforcement of city zoning laws is one of the most basic and simple of a city law director’s duties. That should be handled by the North Canton City Law Director.
Lastly, one might wonder why the city failed to initiate such enforcement of its zonings laws beginning early in 2005 when Earle Wise took over as city administrator. Mr. Wise is an attorney and worked for many years as a Stark County Prosecutor before coming to North Canton.
Given that Mr. Wise is still on the city’s payroll at a salary of $70,000 per year, why can’t Attorney Wise assist Law Director Nilges in the prosecution of the zoning violators in North Canton Mayor’s Court?
Remember, the city is facing budget deficits. Spend the public’s limited tax dollars wisely. Spend those dollars as if they were your last dollars, because those dollars may soon be our last dollars.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, August 23, 2010
North Canton Veterans Memorial Fails to Pass Muster
Prepared Comments Made to
North Canton City Council
August 23, 2010
The North Canton Hoover World War II Veterans Monument relocation plans have run amok, clear and simple. One only has to observe what is unfolding before our eyes to see that this project has turned into a debacle that only memorializes the destruction of a small park and the faulty planning of everyone who has had a hand in forcing the the placement of the memorial in that park.
At last Monday night's Council of the Whole meeting, three members of the Veterans Memorial committee, Jim Dansizen, Ken Dansizen, and Jim Repace came before council to ask for council's blessing for Phase II of the project. Board member Jim Repace dropped a bombshell on a fiscally strapped North Canton City Council and requested $65,000 of scare taxpayer funds to be put toward completion of the project. A citizen request to address council regarding remarks made by the Veterans Memorial committee members that night was denied.
Resolution No. 72-10 to be voted on tonight calls for North Canton City Council to authorize the Hoover World War II Veterans Monument committeeto work in conjunction with the Administration of the City of North Canton to begin Phase II of the Veterans Memorial in Bitzer Park.
The resolution is to be passed on an emergency. Emergency action by this legislative body is deemed necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and peace of the City of North Canton.
Unfortunately, I do not see any preservation taking place in Bitzer Park. I am not alone with that opinion. Online comments from last week's Repository story on August 17, 2010, titled, "N. Canton veterans memorial to be done by Nov." are unanimous regarding the poor placement of the Veterans Memorial in Bitzer Park.
One commenter, jpbarr, states: "...I have not found one person yet that understands why the memorial structure was placed where it is situated & and at that angle in relation to the street. Everyone I've talked to is dismayed at its position...now the committee is expecting the city to make it blend in. In my eyes, very poor planning. It is nothing but a brick wall coming from the south...anything but a good angle. It blocks the view into the park."
Commenter Whitten agrees with the previous posting and adds: "The positioning of the structure is horrible. It blocks the whole view of the park...Not attractive at all. I could not believe this was not more thought out or designed better. What an eyesore. I don'tsee any way possible to get this monstrous wall to 'blend in now.'"
Commenter Interloper also agrees stating, "I also agree with the poor placement and overall designs of the memorial....You only see a huge pile of bricks, in what used to be a cute little park....The designers and committee members should all have their heads examined. the idea of a memorial for these men is a wonderful thing, leave it to North Canton to screw it up...."
The North Canton Hoover World War II Veterans Monument committee has not only failed in the implementation of its plan for the memorial but the committee has also not kept their word.
A January 6, 2010, Repository story titled, "North Canton may get veterans memorial at Bitzer Park," states that the W.H. "Boss" Hoover statue will be relocated. plans submitted to the city show that the memorial wall was to be located where the "Boss" Hoover statue now stands.
That is not where the Memorial wall has been placed.
At the very outset of the public discussions I stated that placing that large of a memorial in Bitzer Park was like putting twenty pounds of potatoes in a ten-pound sack.
In the same Repository story, Jim Repace states that "...he also hopes the project will help correct drainage problems in Bitzer Park and that [he] is confident that fundraising will be finished quickly enough to have work completed by Memorial Day." We all know that has not panned out.
Apparently the confidence of Mr. Repace has evaporated regarding the group's efforts to raise funds and they now come to the city requesting financial assistance to the tune of $65,000. If anyone thinks the completion of Phase I of the memorial wall is going to spur financial contributions from the public, the comments I read to you from the Repository story would tell you absolutely NOT!
As we all know by now, the memorial wall has not been placed where we were all told it would be placed. The decision to abandon the plan presented to council should have been re-presented to council for further study.
The decision to change plans for the location of the memorial wall was a fateful decision that destroys not only a cute little park but also undermines the very goal we all hoped to achieve, a fitting memorial to honor our veterans.
In the same Repository story, local architect Ken Dansizen states, "...the design uses existing features in the park and no trees will be removed...."
But in reality two large trees were removed contrary to promises made publicly to this body. Furthermore, limbs continue to be trimmed to further accommodate the project.
In City Council minutes of January 11, 2010, Jim Repace is quoted as saying, "...there's some concern if we do the first part of this project what happens--will the city be on the hook if we can't finish the project; absolutely not. We will be able to get enough funds for this project. There's no doubt in my mind we'll be able to get enough funds. The city will not be on the hook."
Apparently, those statements are not true like so many other statements made by members of the committee.
Further investment of monies, public or private, cannot salvage this debacle. The North Canton Veterans Memorial fails to pass muster and deserves a dishonorable discharge.
I urge this council to halt any further construction on the Veterans Memorial in Bitzer Park and not pass Resolution 72-10.
This country's veterans deserve a more fitting location for a memorial.
The memorial is intended to stand long after we are gone from this earth. Please do not memorialize a structure that clearly is poorly placed in a small park that only serves to elicit derision every time it is seen when it should be a source of pride for North Canton and its residents.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
North Canton City Council
August 23, 2010
The North Canton Hoover World War II Veterans Monument relocation plans have run amok, clear and simple. One only has to observe what is unfolding before our eyes to see that this project has turned into a debacle that only memorializes the destruction of a small park and the faulty planning of everyone who has had a hand in forcing the the placement of the memorial in that park.
At last Monday night's Council of the Whole meeting, three members of the Veterans Memorial committee, Jim Dansizen, Ken Dansizen, and Jim Repace came before council to ask for council's blessing for Phase II of the project. Board member Jim Repace dropped a bombshell on a fiscally strapped North Canton City Council and requested $65,000 of scare taxpayer funds to be put toward completion of the project. A citizen request to address council regarding remarks made by the Veterans Memorial committee members that night was denied.
Resolution No. 72-10 to be voted on tonight calls for North Canton City Council to authorize the Hoover World War II Veterans Monument committeeto work in conjunction with the Administration of the City of North Canton to begin Phase II of the Veterans Memorial in Bitzer Park.
The resolution is to be passed on an emergency. Emergency action by this legislative body is deemed necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and peace of the City of North Canton.
Unfortunately, I do not see any preservation taking place in Bitzer Park. I am not alone with that opinion. Online comments from last week's Repository story on August 17, 2010, titled, "N. Canton veterans memorial to be done by Nov." are unanimous regarding the poor placement of the Veterans Memorial in Bitzer Park.
One commenter, jpbarr, states: "...I have not found one person yet that understands why the memorial structure was placed where it is situated & and at that angle in relation to the street. Everyone I've talked to is dismayed at its position...now the committee is expecting the city to make it blend in. In my eyes, very poor planning. It is nothing but a brick wall coming from the south...anything but a good angle. It blocks the view into the park."
Commenter Whitten agrees with the previous posting and adds: "The positioning of the structure is horrible. It blocks the whole view of the park...Not attractive at all. I could not believe this was not more thought out or designed better. What an eyesore. I don'tsee any way possible to get this monstrous wall to 'blend in now.'"
Commenter Interloper also agrees stating, "I also agree with the poor placement and overall designs of the memorial....You only see a huge pile of bricks, in what used to be a cute little park....The designers and committee members should all have their heads examined. the idea of a memorial for these men is a wonderful thing, leave it to North Canton to screw it up...."
The North Canton Hoover World War II Veterans Monument committee has not only failed in the implementation of its plan for the memorial but the committee has also not kept their word.
A January 6, 2010, Repository story titled, "North Canton may get veterans memorial at Bitzer Park," states that the W.H. "Boss" Hoover statue will be relocated. plans submitted to the city show that the memorial wall was to be located where the "Boss" Hoover statue now stands.
That is not where the Memorial wall has been placed.
At the very outset of the public discussions I stated that placing that large of a memorial in Bitzer Park was like putting twenty pounds of potatoes in a ten-pound sack.
In the same Repository story, Jim Repace states that "...he also hopes the project will help correct drainage problems in Bitzer Park and that [he] is confident that fundraising will be finished quickly enough to have work completed by Memorial Day." We all know that has not panned out.
Apparently the confidence of Mr. Repace has evaporated regarding the group's efforts to raise funds and they now come to the city requesting financial assistance to the tune of $65,000. If anyone thinks the completion of Phase I of the memorial wall is going to spur financial contributions from the public, the comments I read to you from the Repository story would tell you absolutely NOT!
As we all know by now, the memorial wall has not been placed where we were all told it would be placed. The decision to abandon the plan presented to council should have been re-presented to council for further study.
The decision to change plans for the location of the memorial wall was a fateful decision that destroys not only a cute little park but also undermines the very goal we all hoped to achieve, a fitting memorial to honor our veterans.
In the same Repository story, local architect Ken Dansizen states, "...the design uses existing features in the park and no trees will be removed...."
But in reality two large trees were removed contrary to promises made publicly to this body. Furthermore, limbs continue to be trimmed to further accommodate the project.
In City Council minutes of January 11, 2010, Jim Repace is quoted as saying, "...there's some concern if we do the first part of this project what happens--will the city be on the hook if we can't finish the project; absolutely not. We will be able to get enough funds for this project. There's no doubt in my mind we'll be able to get enough funds. The city will not be on the hook."
Apparently, those statements are not true like so many other statements made by members of the committee.
Further investment of monies, public or private, cannot salvage this debacle. The North Canton Veterans Memorial fails to pass muster and deserves a dishonorable discharge.
I urge this council to halt any further construction on the Veterans Memorial in Bitzer Park and not pass Resolution 72-10.
This country's veterans deserve a more fitting location for a memorial.
The memorial is intended to stand long after we are gone from this earth. Please do not memorialize a structure that clearly is poorly placed in a small park that only serves to elicit derision every time it is seen when it should be a source of pride for North Canton and its residents.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
$15,000 Audit of State Auditor’s Performance Audit Was an Utter Waste of Public Funds
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
July 12, 2010
On February 11, 2008, Item 13 on the North Canton City Council agenda was Ordinance No. 10-08. The legislation, presented by the Finance & Property committee for passage on an emergency, was introduced as “authorizing the Mayor of the City of North Canton to enter into a professional services agreement by and between the City of North Canton and the Auditor of State for completion of a Performance Audit of the various City of North Canton departments, in an amount not to exceed $64,500.”
On January 6, 2009, Auditor of State, Mary Taylor, presented her findings in a 123 page report. The cover letter to the Performance Audit is addressed “To the Residents, Mayor, and City Council of the City of North Canton.” In it Taylor states, “The audit provided an independent assessment of select City services and administrative processes, and identified opportunities to optimize operational and service levels. The recommendations in the audit are intended to assist the City in its efforts to prepare for its projected financial condition.”
The Performance Audit is comprehensive in its scope and contains 40 recommendations to help city leaders identify cost savings and opportunities to optimize efficiency and deal with forecasted deficits.
The recommendations are broken down into three major areas. The area of Administration and City Management has 22 recommendations for improved cost savings and efficiencies. The area of Safety Services has nine recommendations as does the area dealing with the City’s Service Departments.
Apparently this “Paint by the Numbers” guide that details specific opportunities to optimize operational and service levels and identify cost savings and opportunities was not of as much help for Mayor David Held as one might expect.
In little more than four months from the January 6, 2009, release of the Performance Audit by the Auditor of State, City e-mails indicate that then City Administrator Earl Wise was advised by Bruner-Cox, on May 14, 2009, that Mayor Held had asked the firm of Bruner-Cox, LLP, “to assist The City of North Canton in regards to the January 6, 2009 Performance Audit….”
Mayor Held, I do not understand and I hope you can explain. Why would anyone need assistance understanding the recommendations made to the City in the Performance Audit?
On July 13, 2009, Mayor Held signed a letter of engagement with Bruner-Cox, LLP. The engagement letter states that their services are “for the purpose of assisting in the proposed review, implementation, and evaluation of the recommendations in the [Performance Audit].”
Why does the City of North Canton, whose Mayor has a master’s degree and a City Administrator who is a licensed attorney need assistance in reviewing, implementing and evaluating recommendations in the Performance Audit?
The engagement letter states that the services that Bruner-Cox are to perform for the City do not constitute an audit made in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, commonly referred to as GAAP.
The engagement letter states that fees for the services will range from $12,000 to $15,000.
On October 14, 2009, City Administrator Earle Wise signed a purchase order authorizing the expenditure of $15,000 for the Performance Audit Review by Bruner-Cox.
On January 9, 2010, Bruner-Cox provided a draft of what I call an “Audit” of the “Audit.” The draft is labeled “Review of the North Canton City Performance Audit Project.”
Despite my repeated written records requests to City Administrator Wise for copies of the Bruner-Cox draft report, Administrator Wise has never complied.
At this time, I have no idea if Bruner-Cox has ever complied with the terms of its engagement letter with the City of North Canton with the submission of a final report. It has been six months since the draft report was provided to the City.
What did Mayor Held get for his expenditure of $15,000 of taxpayer funds? Seemingly nothing of any value!
The review of the North Canton City Performance Audit by Bruner-Cox in my opinion is an utter waste of $15,000 in public funds.
The review consists of 32 pages which simply restate the recommendations made in the Performance Audit along with brief interviews with City employees.
Mayor Held, if you wanted to know the current status of operations in the City, why did you not talk to your City Administrator or your department heads?
As a former City Administrator yourself, I would suspect that you were quite personally familiar with City operations and City departments. With six years’ experience in the City of North Canton, two years as City Administrator and nearly four years as Mayor, I do not understand why you felt you needed added guidance into the administration and operation of the City of North Canton.
Mayor, if you are wondering why city council is formulating plans to limit your authority on future expenditures, I do not believe you need to look any further than this expenditure of $15,000.
This expenditure was an “utter waste” at a time when this city can ill afford it. There is no plausible explanation for this waste of taxpayer funds.
How could you possibly think this would have been of any benefit to the City of North Canton?
Why has this expenditure by Mayor Held not been discussed publicly by city council?
Where is the accountability and transparency in government that is so desperately needed here in North Canton?
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
July 12, 2010
On February 11, 2008, Item 13 on the North Canton City Council agenda was Ordinance No. 10-08. The legislation, presented by the Finance & Property committee for passage on an emergency, was introduced as “authorizing the Mayor of the City of North Canton to enter into a professional services agreement by and between the City of North Canton and the Auditor of State for completion of a Performance Audit of the various City of North Canton departments, in an amount not to exceed $64,500.”
On January 6, 2009, Auditor of State, Mary Taylor, presented her findings in a 123 page report. The cover letter to the Performance Audit is addressed “To the Residents, Mayor, and City Council of the City of North Canton.” In it Taylor states, “The audit provided an independent assessment of select City services and administrative processes, and identified opportunities to optimize operational and service levels. The recommendations in the audit are intended to assist the City in its efforts to prepare for its projected financial condition.”
The Performance Audit is comprehensive in its scope and contains 40 recommendations to help city leaders identify cost savings and opportunities to optimize efficiency and deal with forecasted deficits.
The recommendations are broken down into three major areas. The area of Administration and City Management has 22 recommendations for improved cost savings and efficiencies. The area of Safety Services has nine recommendations as does the area dealing with the City’s Service Departments.
Apparently this “Paint by the Numbers” guide that details specific opportunities to optimize operational and service levels and identify cost savings and opportunities was not of as much help for Mayor David Held as one might expect.
In little more than four months from the January 6, 2009, release of the Performance Audit by the Auditor of State, City e-mails indicate that then City Administrator Earl Wise was advised by Bruner-Cox, on May 14, 2009, that Mayor Held had asked the firm of Bruner-Cox, LLP, “to assist The City of North Canton in regards to the January 6, 2009 Performance Audit….”
Mayor Held, I do not understand and I hope you can explain. Why would anyone need assistance understanding the recommendations made to the City in the Performance Audit?
On July 13, 2009, Mayor Held signed a letter of engagement with Bruner-Cox, LLP. The engagement letter states that their services are “for the purpose of assisting in the proposed review, implementation, and evaluation of the recommendations in the [Performance Audit].”
Why does the City of North Canton, whose Mayor has a master’s degree and a City Administrator who is a licensed attorney need assistance in reviewing, implementing and evaluating recommendations in the Performance Audit?
The engagement letter states that the services that Bruner-Cox are to perform for the City do not constitute an audit made in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, commonly referred to as GAAP.
The engagement letter states that fees for the services will range from $12,000 to $15,000.
On October 14, 2009, City Administrator Earle Wise signed a purchase order authorizing the expenditure of $15,000 for the Performance Audit Review by Bruner-Cox.
On January 9, 2010, Bruner-Cox provided a draft of what I call an “Audit” of the “Audit.” The draft is labeled “Review of the North Canton City Performance Audit Project.”
Despite my repeated written records requests to City Administrator Wise for copies of the Bruner-Cox draft report, Administrator Wise has never complied.
At this time, I have no idea if Bruner-Cox has ever complied with the terms of its engagement letter with the City of North Canton with the submission of a final report. It has been six months since the draft report was provided to the City.
What did Mayor Held get for his expenditure of $15,000 of taxpayer funds? Seemingly nothing of any value!
The review of the North Canton City Performance Audit by Bruner-Cox in my opinion is an utter waste of $15,000 in public funds.
The review consists of 32 pages which simply restate the recommendations made in the Performance Audit along with brief interviews with City employees.
Mayor Held, if you wanted to know the current status of operations in the City, why did you not talk to your City Administrator or your department heads?
As a former City Administrator yourself, I would suspect that you were quite personally familiar with City operations and City departments. With six years’ experience in the City of North Canton, two years as City Administrator and nearly four years as Mayor, I do not understand why you felt you needed added guidance into the administration and operation of the City of North Canton.
Mayor, if you are wondering why city council is formulating plans to limit your authority on future expenditures, I do not believe you need to look any further than this expenditure of $15,000.
This expenditure was an “utter waste” at a time when this city can ill afford it. There is no plausible explanation for this waste of taxpayer funds.
How could you possibly think this would have been of any benefit to the City of North Canton?
Why has this expenditure by Mayor Held not been discussed publicly by city council?
Where is the accountability and transparency in government that is so desperately needed here in North Canton?
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, June 28, 2010
$100,000+ Annual Cost of Christmas Bonuses Burdens North Canton’s Budget
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
June 28, 2010
“In January 2008, the City of North Canton requested a performance audit to assess its Administration and City management; safety services; street operations; and civic center. The City also requested the audit include the development of a five-year financial forecast. The administration and City Council requested the performance audit to help identify cost savings and opportunities to optimize efficiency.”
These words come from the first paragraph of the cover letter of the performance audit completed by Mary Taylor, Auditor of State for Ohio, dated January 6, 2009.
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.”
The audit finding further states that “The City’s collective bargaining agreement for Patrolmen, Fire and Paramedic, and Clerical and Service employees are comparable to peer cities in some areas, but more [emphasis added] generous than peers or recommended practices in other areas.”
The audit listed seven areas where North Canton’s agreements exceed those of peers or recommended practices. These areas were 1) Maximum number of sick-leave days accrued and sick-leave payout; 2) Vacation leave; 3) Sunday overtime; 4) Personal leave with pay; 5) Personal time with holiday; 6) Uniform allowance and stipends; and 7) Holiday counts as overtime.
Unfortunately, the performance audit failed to identify another contract benefit that by all probability exceeds peers or recommended practices. This is the annual practice of providing Christmas bonuses to city employees. ” I refer to it as a Christmas Bonus as it comes just before the Christmas holiday season.
These annual payments are titled “Longevity Pay” in labor contracts with seven unions representing city workers as well in a city ordinance for 17 city employees who are classified as exempt.
Language describing “LONGEVITY PAY” for contract and exempt city workers states: “All employees shall receive longevity pay at the pay rate of seventy dollars ($70.00) per year of full-time employment with the employer. Annual longevity payments shall be made during the first half of the month of December to all employees who have completed at least five (5) years of continuous service and who are employed by the employer on November 30th of the year in which the longevity payment is made.”
Five of the union contracts as well as the language for exempt employees further expand the number of city employees who are eligible for the payments with added language stating, “Any employee hired prior to August 1, 2003, shall begin to receive longevity after completion of three (3) years at the above rate.”
How much, one might ask, do these annual Christmas bonuses cost the citizens of North Canton?
According to figures supplied to me earlier this year by Finance Director Alex Zumbar, “Longevity Payments” to all city employees are clearly a significant cost for the city. The annual cost to the city to provide “Longevity Payments” to city employees each December just before Christmas for the past seven years is:
2003 -- $ 81,360; 2004 -- $ 99,190; 2005 -- $106,400; 2006 -- $106,120; 2007 -- $100,730; 2008 -- $99,400; and 2009 -- $102,340.
For as long as I have been involved in North Canton city government, I had no idea city employees received such benefits.
My question to any city official who can answer this is why have these costs not been openly discussed on the floor of council? Surely, an elected body can report to its citizens how tax dollars are spent and the purpose of the expenditures!
Taxpayers should not be kept in the dark about the business of government and deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent and if those tax dollars are being spent prudently and wisely.
Painting a broad brush on anything and everything related to personnel and cloaking those discussions in executive sessions behind closed doors does not provide accountability to taxpayers. Everyone in government talks a good game about transparency in government but no one works to make it happen.
I say this because the number of Executive Sessions held by the North Canton City Council has multiplied exponentially in the last few years and I think this practice is being abused. When I was on council in the early part of this decade, I do not believe I attended more than a handful of executive sessions in a whole year. Over the last year or two, city council has an executive session every week.
As for the performance audit for which the taxpayers expended over $64,000, city leaders do not appear eager to follow through on areas where significant savings can result.
This December, the estimated cost to provide a Christmas Bonus, or should I say “Longevity Pay” to city
employees is a staggering $102,550.
For Mayor Held, I would like to ask why have you elected to cut manpower and services over the last five years rather than seek elimination of labor benefits that exceed peers or industry standards and further inflate labor costs?
In my entire forty-year working career all I ever saw handed out at Christmas was the choice of a ham or a turkey.
Unfortunately, in North Canton, City officials are turkeys for continuing such a practice. And taxpayers are left not with ham for Christmas but with a lump of coal and growing deficits.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
June 28, 2010
“In January 2008, the City of North Canton requested a performance audit to assess its Administration and City management; safety services; street operations; and civic center. The City also requested the audit include the development of a five-year financial forecast. The administration and City Council requested the performance audit to help identify cost savings and opportunities to optimize efficiency.”
These words come from the first paragraph of the cover letter of the performance audit completed by Mary Taylor, Auditor of State for Ohio, dated January 6, 2009.
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.”
The audit finding further states that “The City’s collective bargaining agreement for Patrolmen, Fire and Paramedic, and Clerical and Service employees are comparable to peer cities in some areas, but more [emphasis added] generous than peers or recommended practices in other areas.”
The audit listed seven areas where North Canton’s agreements exceed those of peers or recommended practices. These areas were 1) Maximum number of sick-leave days accrued and sick-leave payout; 2) Vacation leave; 3) Sunday overtime; 4) Personal leave with pay; 5) Personal time with holiday; 6) Uniform allowance and stipends; and 7) Holiday counts as overtime.
Unfortunately, the performance audit failed to identify another contract benefit that by all probability exceeds peers or recommended practices. This is the annual practice of providing Christmas bonuses to city employees. ” I refer to it as a Christmas Bonus as it comes just before the Christmas holiday season.
These annual payments are titled “Longevity Pay” in labor contracts with seven unions representing city workers as well in a city ordinance for 17 city employees who are classified as exempt.
Language describing “LONGEVITY PAY” for contract and exempt city workers states: “All employees shall receive longevity pay at the pay rate of seventy dollars ($70.00) per year of full-time employment with the employer. Annual longevity payments shall be made during the first half of the month of December to all employees who have completed at least five (5) years of continuous service and who are employed by the employer on November 30th of the year in which the longevity payment is made.”
Five of the union contracts as well as the language for exempt employees further expand the number of city employees who are eligible for the payments with added language stating, “Any employee hired prior to August 1, 2003, shall begin to receive longevity after completion of three (3) years at the above rate.”
How much, one might ask, do these annual Christmas bonuses cost the citizens of North Canton?
According to figures supplied to me earlier this year by Finance Director Alex Zumbar, “Longevity Payments” to all city employees are clearly a significant cost for the city. The annual cost to the city to provide “Longevity Payments” to city employees each December just before Christmas for the past seven years is:
2003 -- $ 81,360; 2004 -- $ 99,190; 2005 -- $106,400; 2006 -- $106,120; 2007 -- $100,730; 2008 -- $99,400; and 2009 -- $102,340.
For as long as I have been involved in North Canton city government, I had no idea city employees received such benefits.
My question to any city official who can answer this is why have these costs not been openly discussed on the floor of council? Surely, an elected body can report to its citizens how tax dollars are spent and the purpose of the expenditures!
Taxpayers should not be kept in the dark about the business of government and deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent and if those tax dollars are being spent prudently and wisely.
Painting a broad brush on anything and everything related to personnel and cloaking those discussions in executive sessions behind closed doors does not provide accountability to taxpayers. Everyone in government talks a good game about transparency in government but no one works to make it happen.
I say this because the number of Executive Sessions held by the North Canton City Council has multiplied exponentially in the last few years and I think this practice is being abused. When I was on council in the early part of this decade, I do not believe I attended more than a handful of executive sessions in a whole year. Over the last year or two, city council has an executive session every week.
As for the performance audit for which the taxpayers expended over $64,000, city leaders do not appear eager to follow through on areas where significant savings can result.
This December, the estimated cost to provide a Christmas Bonus, or should I say “Longevity Pay” to city
employees is a staggering $102,550.
For Mayor Held, I would like to ask why have you elected to cut manpower and services over the last five years rather than seek elimination of labor benefits that exceed peers or industry standards and further inflate labor costs?
In my entire forty-year working career all I ever saw handed out at Christmas was the choice of a ham or a turkey.
Unfortunately, in North Canton, City officials are turkeys for continuing such a practice. And taxpayers are left not with ham for Christmas but with a lump of coal and growing deficits.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, May 10, 2010
Aqua Water Agreement Exposes North Canton to Risks and Is Unfair to Citizens
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
May 10, 2010
Two weeks ago, I remarked to this council that if the water production costs detailed in the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study were accurate then practically all the water being sold by North Canton is being sold at a loss.
The Chairman of Water, Sewer & Rubbish responded that water sold in the city at $4.60 per thousand gallons did not cover all the costs of water production. The Arcadis water study shows that in 2008 water consumption inside the city amounted to nearly 57 % of the city’s annual water sales.
Is it a fiscally prudent policy to sell more than half the city’s water below production costs? Shouldn’t all water customers be paying their fair share to ensure the water fund is financially sound?
Per the Arcadis study, in 2009 the city sold water to Aqua Ohio at a net effective sales rate of $1.52 per thousand gallons while at the same time, the total cost to collect and treat the water and pump the water into the distribution system was $2.20 per thousand gallons yielding a net loss of $0.68 per thousand gallons or more than $124, 000.
A look at table 2 of the water study presents a graphic picture of the outcome of the city’s current water agreement with Aqua. In 2008, with nearly identical quantities of water sold to Aqua and to outside residential and business water customers, Aqua paid $280,388 as opposed to the $3,242,067 paid by outside residential and business water customers.
Why was Aqua allowed to pay nearly $3.0 million dollars less than other water users for nearly the same quantity of water in 2008? What were the revenue shortfalls in the other four years that the present agreement has been in force? No one in the city has offered those figures for review. This is not a pretty picture for the North Canton water fund.
Under the renegotiated water agreement that is to be voted on tonight, Ordinance No. 33-10, water rates charged to Aqua will be increased to $3.60 per thousand gallons.
This raises the following question: If water rates of $4.60 per thousand gallons to city residents, admittedly, do not cover the cost of water production, why would you want to enter into an agreement to sell water at a lower water rate of $3.60 to Aqua?
Water sales to Aqua Ohio accounted for slightly over 21 % of the city’s annual water sales in 2008. If city water sales amounting to 57 % of total water sales are sold, at $4.60, admittedly below costs, and 21 % of water sales to Aqua are sold at $3.60 per thousand gallons, couldn’t one conclude that the city is selling as much as 78 % of its water at a loss?
What are the city’s water production costs?
According to the Arcadis study, total water production costs per thousand gallons vary widely from year to year for North Canton. The study shows that the city’s actual total water production costs per thousand gallons in 2006 was $9.38; in 2007 $10.45; in 2008 $5.55. The study shows budgeted water production costs for 2009 were $7.28 and projects water production costs for 2010 at $5.74.
What are the city’s water production costs for water sold to Aqua? Should there be any difference in water production costs between water sold to Aqua and water sold to any other water customer of North Canton?
All of the water is processed at North Canton’s water treatment plant. The water is all treated the same.
The Arcadis water study, dated January 2010, notes that water production costs to Aqua are $2.20 per thousand gallons. A subsequent e-mail from Bob McNutt to council, dated April 21, 2010, titled Aqua Agreement Review, now states that water production costs for Aqua are $1.15 per thousand gallons.
As the water production cost figures seem to change for political reasons to justify the planned political agenda to ratify the new agreement tonight, I again ask for an independent auditing agency, preferably, the state auditor, to audit the entire water fund to give city officials and the public reliable data from which decisions can be made with confidence on how best to set water rates and water policy for the North Canton water system.
As for the renegotiated agreement that is about to be hastily voted on tonight, I believe the 3 % rate cap and ten-year term in the renegotiated agreement present great risks for problems for the city in the future.
The renegotiated agreement with a rate cap of 3% only benefits Aqua. Further, any rate cap, especially with a ten-year term presents great risks for the city. Economic forces are already in play in the United States and globally that could bring about inflationary pressure within the term of the agreement and burden the city.
What is highly illogical about the new rate cap is that your very own consultant, Arcadis, has recommended a higher rate cap of 4 % and the present agreement with Aqua has a rate cap of 5 %. Why are you subjecting the city to such a low rate cap?
At the very least, why can you not continue with the same rate cap of 5 % as is in the present agreement?
A rate cap of 3 % for Aqua will not even keep pace with the historical rate of inflation which is 3.2 %.
Lastly, I would like to say how disheartening it is to see elected officials show more concern for Aqua than the very citizens they are sworn to represent. I am talking about the residents of the Sanctuary who are served by Aqua for their water.
In recent weeks, Aqua has announced rate increases of 20 percent for its water customers which will include North Canton residents in the Sanctuary.
The renegotiated water agreement limits rate increases to Aqua to a cap of 3 % yet Sanctuary water customers have no such protection on rate increases from Aqua.
Aqua Ohio is Ohio’s largest investor-owned water utility. Their parent company, Aqua America, Inc., is the nation’s largest U. S. based publicly traded water company.
I would ask that before ratifying the renegotiated water agreement that equal protection from rate increases as afforded to Aqua be included in the water agreement for Sanctuary residents.
If that cannot be done, then I would urge you to not proceed with passage of the water agreement as the water agreement exposes North Canton to risks and is unfair to citizens.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
May 10, 2010
Two weeks ago, I remarked to this council that if the water production costs detailed in the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study were accurate then practically all the water being sold by North Canton is being sold at a loss.
The Chairman of Water, Sewer & Rubbish responded that water sold in the city at $4.60 per thousand gallons did not cover all the costs of water production. The Arcadis water study shows that in 2008 water consumption inside the city amounted to nearly 57 % of the city’s annual water sales.
Is it a fiscally prudent policy to sell more than half the city’s water below production costs? Shouldn’t all water customers be paying their fair share to ensure the water fund is financially sound?
Per the Arcadis study, in 2009 the city sold water to Aqua Ohio at a net effective sales rate of $1.52 per thousand gallons while at the same time, the total cost to collect and treat the water and pump the water into the distribution system was $2.20 per thousand gallons yielding a net loss of $0.68 per thousand gallons or more than $124, 000.
A look at table 2 of the water study presents a graphic picture of the outcome of the city’s current water agreement with Aqua. In 2008, with nearly identical quantities of water sold to Aqua and to outside residential and business water customers, Aqua paid $280,388 as opposed to the $3,242,067 paid by outside residential and business water customers.
Why was Aqua allowed to pay nearly $3.0 million dollars less than other water users for nearly the same quantity of water in 2008? What were the revenue shortfalls in the other four years that the present agreement has been in force? No one in the city has offered those figures for review. This is not a pretty picture for the North Canton water fund.
Under the renegotiated water agreement that is to be voted on tonight, Ordinance No. 33-10, water rates charged to Aqua will be increased to $3.60 per thousand gallons.
This raises the following question: If water rates of $4.60 per thousand gallons to city residents, admittedly, do not cover the cost of water production, why would you want to enter into an agreement to sell water at a lower water rate of $3.60 to Aqua?
Water sales to Aqua Ohio accounted for slightly over 21 % of the city’s annual water sales in 2008. If city water sales amounting to 57 % of total water sales are sold, at $4.60, admittedly below costs, and 21 % of water sales to Aqua are sold at $3.60 per thousand gallons, couldn’t one conclude that the city is selling as much as 78 % of its water at a loss?
What are the city’s water production costs?
According to the Arcadis study, total water production costs per thousand gallons vary widely from year to year for North Canton. The study shows that the city’s actual total water production costs per thousand gallons in 2006 was $9.38; in 2007 $10.45; in 2008 $5.55. The study shows budgeted water production costs for 2009 were $7.28 and projects water production costs for 2010 at $5.74.
What are the city’s water production costs for water sold to Aqua? Should there be any difference in water production costs between water sold to Aqua and water sold to any other water customer of North Canton?
All of the water is processed at North Canton’s water treatment plant. The water is all treated the same.
The Arcadis water study, dated January 2010, notes that water production costs to Aqua are $2.20 per thousand gallons. A subsequent e-mail from Bob McNutt to council, dated April 21, 2010, titled Aqua Agreement Review, now states that water production costs for Aqua are $1.15 per thousand gallons.
As the water production cost figures seem to change for political reasons to justify the planned political agenda to ratify the new agreement tonight, I again ask for an independent auditing agency, preferably, the state auditor, to audit the entire water fund to give city officials and the public reliable data from which decisions can be made with confidence on how best to set water rates and water policy for the North Canton water system.
As for the renegotiated agreement that is about to be hastily voted on tonight, I believe the 3 % rate cap and ten-year term in the renegotiated agreement present great risks for problems for the city in the future.
The renegotiated agreement with a rate cap of 3% only benefits Aqua. Further, any rate cap, especially with a ten-year term presents great risks for the city. Economic forces are already in play in the United States and globally that could bring about inflationary pressure within the term of the agreement and burden the city.
What is highly illogical about the new rate cap is that your very own consultant, Arcadis, has recommended a higher rate cap of 4 % and the present agreement with Aqua has a rate cap of 5 %. Why are you subjecting the city to such a low rate cap?
At the very least, why can you not continue with the same rate cap of 5 % as is in the present agreement?
A rate cap of 3 % for Aqua will not even keep pace with the historical rate of inflation which is 3.2 %.
Lastly, I would like to say how disheartening it is to see elected officials show more concern for Aqua than the very citizens they are sworn to represent. I am talking about the residents of the Sanctuary who are served by Aqua for their water.
In recent weeks, Aqua has announced rate increases of 20 percent for its water customers which will include North Canton residents in the Sanctuary.
The renegotiated water agreement limits rate increases to Aqua to a cap of 3 % yet Sanctuary water customers have no such protection on rate increases from Aqua.
Aqua Ohio is Ohio’s largest investor-owned water utility. Their parent company, Aqua America, Inc., is the nation’s largest U. S. based publicly traded water company.
I would ask that before ratifying the renegotiated water agreement that equal protection from rate increases as afforded to Aqua be included in the water agreement for Sanctuary residents.
If that cannot be done, then I would urge you to not proceed with passage of the water agreement as the water agreement exposes North Canton to risks and is unfair to citizens.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, April 26, 2010
North Canton Should Rethink City’s Water Policy and Restructure Water Rates
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
April 26, 2010
North Canton’s current water rate structure has become outmoded and is counterproductive in serving the needs of its customer base and in generating needed revenue to pay down the indebtedness of the water fund. I say this because there are some puzzling questions that arise as one studies the city’s water rate structure.
First, why do water rates increase as consumption levels increase for all water users except Aqua Ohio? Wouldn’t this tend to discourage water consumption by these water users who are paying higher water rates than Aqua? If anyone is unfamiliar with the city’s water rates, I should refresh your memory. Residential users, inside the city, pay $4.60 and outside $8.66 per thousand gallons for the first 15,000 gallons of water. Water usage above 15,000 up to 30,000 gallons rises to $5.27 inside and $9.28 outside.
Why does the city discourage higher levels of consumption for residential users who are already paying considerably more than any rate you ever expect to charge Aqua Ohio or any other bulk user? If your goal is to sell more water and bring in more revenue, the current rate structure is counter-productive and limits revenue for the water fund.
Inside and outside residential and business water rates need to be restructured to facilitate greater revenue to the water fund.
Before the city expanded its raw water capacity and its processing production, I surmised that the rate structure was designed to discourage water consumption and stretch limited water resources. The present water agreement with Aqua Ohio seems to indicate that raw water capacity and processing capacity are now of no concern to the city. If that is entirely true, water rates need to reflect that change in policy.
What is the goal of the city’s water policy? Do we want to encourage consumption or discourage consumption? Are you trying to ration limited resources? Water rates affect people’s behavior and thus consumption.
In regards to the Aqua Ohio water agreement, I must ask why the city wants to exhaust the newly added capacity of our water system? To promise two-thirds of the city’s newly added capacity in one gulp could find the city over-committed on water sales when it least expects it and long before the indebtedness of the water treatment plant is paid down?
My second concern regarding the city’s water rate structure is the bulk rate charged to Aqua Ohio of $1.52 per thousand gallons. This water rate defies logic when looking at water rates for all other businesses.
Prior to water sales outside the city, a bulk water rate applied only to bulk sales in the city. The bulk water rate charged to a high-volume business in the city supported jobs in the city from which the city received added income to the general fund in the way of income taxes. Selling water outside the city at a hugely discounted rate in bulk returns nothing to the city’s general fund. There is no added benefit for the city.
The city is not supporting jobs by selling water in bulk to Aqua Ohio. Why is the city interested in such an arrangement?
Clearly, bulk water rates outside the city should be looked at and priced much differently than bulk water rates inside the city.
At last weeks Council of the Whole meeting, the latest draft of the new water agreement with Aqua Ohio limited annual rate increases for Aqua to 3 percent per year for the ten-year term of the agreement. That proposed commitment to Aqua is just as fiscally imprudent as promising all remaining rate payers that same promise.
If you cannot make that same commitment to your constituents who vote for you and the citizens who are responsible for the indebtedness of the bonds on the water treatment plant, why would you make a commitment to Aqua Ohio, a public utility whose only interests are its water customers and its stockholders?
Whose well-being and interests are you putting first?
I would urge this council to table any further action on the Aqua Ohio water agreement until a complete assessment of the city’s water rates is completed and new rates are implemented.
Further, I would like to encourage the city to look closely at the city’s water production costs on page two of the Arcadis Water Study. The city’s water production costs are all over the board, ranging from a low of $5.55 per thousand gallons to $10.45 per thousand gallons. Wide fluctuations in water production costs as detailed by Arcadis are not reality. If these figures are true, practically all water being sold by North Canton is being sold at a loss.
It is common knowledge that water funds must be kept separate from all other fund accounts as water is an enterprise fund. In order to have accurate information on water production costs, only actual expenses directly related to water production should be allocated to water costs.
Rumors abound from several sources that the current administration is using creative budgeting and bookkeeping to charge the water fund a percentage employees payroll expenses to the city’s water fund. I fear something is going on as water production costs in the water study vary wildly and are clearly excessive.
Drinking city water out of a city water fountain does not warrant charging that employee’s expenses to the water fund. I have heard these reports from several reliable sources. If these reports are true it is very unfortunate. Fiscal crisis is apparently leading to desperate actions on the part of the administration.
Creative accounting is simply going to lead to confusion and disaster and put the water fund in the same fiscal crisis that we now are facing with the city’s general fund.
I would urge that an independent auditing agency, preferably, the state auditor audit the entire water fund to give city officials and the public reliable data from which future decisions can be made with confidence on how best to set water rates and water policy.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
April 26, 2010
North Canton’s current water rate structure has become outmoded and is counterproductive in serving the needs of its customer base and in generating needed revenue to pay down the indebtedness of the water fund. I say this because there are some puzzling questions that arise as one studies the city’s water rate structure.
First, why do water rates increase as consumption levels increase for all water users except Aqua Ohio? Wouldn’t this tend to discourage water consumption by these water users who are paying higher water rates than Aqua? If anyone is unfamiliar with the city’s water rates, I should refresh your memory. Residential users, inside the city, pay $4.60 and outside $8.66 per thousand gallons for the first 15,000 gallons of water. Water usage above 15,000 up to 30,000 gallons rises to $5.27 inside and $9.28 outside.
Why does the city discourage higher levels of consumption for residential users who are already paying considerably more than any rate you ever expect to charge Aqua Ohio or any other bulk user? If your goal is to sell more water and bring in more revenue, the current rate structure is counter-productive and limits revenue for the water fund.
Inside and outside residential and business water rates need to be restructured to facilitate greater revenue to the water fund.
Before the city expanded its raw water capacity and its processing production, I surmised that the rate structure was designed to discourage water consumption and stretch limited water resources. The present water agreement with Aqua Ohio seems to indicate that raw water capacity and processing capacity are now of no concern to the city. If that is entirely true, water rates need to reflect that change in policy.
What is the goal of the city’s water policy? Do we want to encourage consumption or discourage consumption? Are you trying to ration limited resources? Water rates affect people’s behavior and thus consumption.
In regards to the Aqua Ohio water agreement, I must ask why the city wants to exhaust the newly added capacity of our water system? To promise two-thirds of the city’s newly added capacity in one gulp could find the city over-committed on water sales when it least expects it and long before the indebtedness of the water treatment plant is paid down?
My second concern regarding the city’s water rate structure is the bulk rate charged to Aqua Ohio of $1.52 per thousand gallons. This water rate defies logic when looking at water rates for all other businesses.
Prior to water sales outside the city, a bulk water rate applied only to bulk sales in the city. The bulk water rate charged to a high-volume business in the city supported jobs in the city from which the city received added income to the general fund in the way of income taxes. Selling water outside the city at a hugely discounted rate in bulk returns nothing to the city’s general fund. There is no added benefit for the city.
The city is not supporting jobs by selling water in bulk to Aqua Ohio. Why is the city interested in such an arrangement?
Clearly, bulk water rates outside the city should be looked at and priced much differently than bulk water rates inside the city.
At last weeks Council of the Whole meeting, the latest draft of the new water agreement with Aqua Ohio limited annual rate increases for Aqua to 3 percent per year for the ten-year term of the agreement. That proposed commitment to Aqua is just as fiscally imprudent as promising all remaining rate payers that same promise.
If you cannot make that same commitment to your constituents who vote for you and the citizens who are responsible for the indebtedness of the bonds on the water treatment plant, why would you make a commitment to Aqua Ohio, a public utility whose only interests are its water customers and its stockholders?
Whose well-being and interests are you putting first?
I would urge this council to table any further action on the Aqua Ohio water agreement until a complete assessment of the city’s water rates is completed and new rates are implemented.
Further, I would like to encourage the city to look closely at the city’s water production costs on page two of the Arcadis Water Study. The city’s water production costs are all over the board, ranging from a low of $5.55 per thousand gallons to $10.45 per thousand gallons. Wide fluctuations in water production costs as detailed by Arcadis are not reality. If these figures are true, practically all water being sold by North Canton is being sold at a loss.
It is common knowledge that water funds must be kept separate from all other fund accounts as water is an enterprise fund. In order to have accurate information on water production costs, only actual expenses directly related to water production should be allocated to water costs.
Rumors abound from several sources that the current administration is using creative budgeting and bookkeeping to charge the water fund a percentage employees payroll expenses to the city’s water fund. I fear something is going on as water production costs in the water study vary wildly and are clearly excessive.
Drinking city water out of a city water fountain does not warrant charging that employee’s expenses to the water fund. I have heard these reports from several reliable sources. If these reports are true it is very unfortunate. Fiscal crisis is apparently leading to desperate actions on the part of the administration.
Creative accounting is simply going to lead to confusion and disaster and put the water fund in the same fiscal crisis that we now are facing with the city’s general fund.
I would urge that an independent auditing agency, preferably, the state auditor audit the entire water fund to give city officials and the public reliable data from which future decisions can be made with confidence on how best to set water rates and water policy.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, April 12, 2010
Economy Provides North Canton Opportunity to Undo Inequities of Aqua Ohio Water Agreement
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
April 12, 2010
The City of North Canton has negotiated many agreements in the course of conducting the public’s business but, unfortunately, many of those agreements have resulted in financial loss for the taxpayers of North Canton. Some of these agreements that have lead to financial loss are the agreement to lease Arrowhead Golf course to Kevin Larizza and the option agreement to purchase twenty plus acres of swamp land on the east side of town from the Crowder family.
The Cooperative Economic Development Agreement (CEDA) agreement for the Sanctuary is another negotiated agreement that has resulted in financial loss for the City of North Canton. In that agreement, no one in the city bothered to negotiate any concessions on behalf of the City. There were three signers to the agreement, Plain Township, City of North Canton, and McKinley Development Company. In the CEDA, Plain received assurances that North Canton would not pursue further annexations for a period of three years. McKinley Development received a less cumbersome annexation process.
But what did North Canton negotiate for itself in its 2003 CEDA agreement? Nothing!
North Canton could have negotiated the water distribution rights to the Sanctuary if city
leaders had negotiated a CEDA that benefited all parties to the agreement but the city did not do so.
The present water agreement with Aqua Ohio allowing Aqua to serve the Sanctuary is another agreement that has cost the city dearly. Rushed through city council in 2005 on an emergency, the water agreement has led to the sale of water at below cost for five years, resulting in millions of dollars in revenue losses.
Luckily, for the City of North Canton, the unforeseen downturn in the economy has a silver lining for North Canton. The build out of the Sanctuary of nearly 206 homes as well as other planned development has not happened and is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
Aqua does not want to be committed to a required minimum purchase of 500,000 gallons per day which increases to 600,000 gallons per day beginning May 1, 2010. Paying for water, even when North Canton has discounted the water price at less than North Canton’s production costs, is an expense to Aqua when it does not take delivery of the water. Aqua does not want to continue in this fashion.
North Canton may not be accountable to its citizens for financial losses resulting from water sales but Aqua Ohio is accountable to its shareholders for operational expenses and the bottom line.
Any renegotiated water agreement with Aqua needs to be handled with due diligence and a study lest this city find itself again on the losing end of another agreement.
Aqua Ohio is Ohio’s largest investor owned water utility. Their parent company, Aqua America, Inc., is the nation’s largest U. S. based publicly traded water company. Neither company is responsible for the millions in debt owed by North Canton’s water fund. The rate payers and citizens of North Canton are responsible for these bonds on the water treatment plant.
The citizens of North Canton should not be enriching public corporations as has been the case with the current water agreement with Aqua Ohio.
Regarding the draft of the new water agreement, I have the following remarks:
One: Water rates charged to Aqua should be handled as any other BULK WATER user and subject to rate increases as any other water customer the city serves. Restricting rate increases to Aqua will add inequities to the city’s water rate structure as other water user’s rates are increased at a higher rate over time and create greater problems in the future.
Two: The water rate charged to Aqua should take effect as soon as the contract is ratified. Given that the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study has documented that the city is selling water to Aqua below the city’s production cost, it is not financially prudent to agree not to raise Aqua water rates in the first year of the new water agreement.
Three: The ten-year term for the new agreement is not prudent and exposes the city to a great deal of uncertainty and financial risks. There is no benefit to the city for a long term agreement. A two or three year term would be much better and allow the city to weather an unforeseen financial downturn arising from water sales.
Four: Reserving 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd) for possible sale to Aqua is an unfair provision in the agreement. In effect, Aqua is asking that North Canton provide the basis for Aqua’s future growth of water sales at the expense of the citizens of North Canton.
Five: Monthly billing, late payments, and penalties for late payments should be brought in line with North Canton’s policies that are presently in effect for all water users.
I ask city leaders to look closely at all aspects of any agreement and understand the agreement you ratify. North Canton must negotiate agreements in the future with a keener mind. The city cannot weather too many more financial boondoggles and giveaways.
You must negotiate agreements like it is your money. The city does not have the funds to pour down the drain as has been the case in the past.
North Canton must do better.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
April 12, 2010
The City of North Canton has negotiated many agreements in the course of conducting the public’s business but, unfortunately, many of those agreements have resulted in financial loss for the taxpayers of North Canton. Some of these agreements that have lead to financial loss are the agreement to lease Arrowhead Golf course to Kevin Larizza and the option agreement to purchase twenty plus acres of swamp land on the east side of town from the Crowder family.
The Cooperative Economic Development Agreement (CEDA) agreement for the Sanctuary is another negotiated agreement that has resulted in financial loss for the City of North Canton. In that agreement, no one in the city bothered to negotiate any concessions on behalf of the City. There were three signers to the agreement, Plain Township, City of North Canton, and McKinley Development Company. In the CEDA, Plain received assurances that North Canton would not pursue further annexations for a period of three years. McKinley Development received a less cumbersome annexation process.
But what did North Canton negotiate for itself in its 2003 CEDA agreement? Nothing!
North Canton could have negotiated the water distribution rights to the Sanctuary if city
leaders had negotiated a CEDA that benefited all parties to the agreement but the city did not do so.
The present water agreement with Aqua Ohio allowing Aqua to serve the Sanctuary is another agreement that has cost the city dearly. Rushed through city council in 2005 on an emergency, the water agreement has led to the sale of water at below cost for five years, resulting in millions of dollars in revenue losses.
Luckily, for the City of North Canton, the unforeseen downturn in the economy has a silver lining for North Canton. The build out of the Sanctuary of nearly 206 homes as well as other planned development has not happened and is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
Aqua does not want to be committed to a required minimum purchase of 500,000 gallons per day which increases to 600,000 gallons per day beginning May 1, 2010. Paying for water, even when North Canton has discounted the water price at less than North Canton’s production costs, is an expense to Aqua when it does not take delivery of the water. Aqua does not want to continue in this fashion.
North Canton may not be accountable to its citizens for financial losses resulting from water sales but Aqua Ohio is accountable to its shareholders for operational expenses and the bottom line.
Any renegotiated water agreement with Aqua needs to be handled with due diligence and a study lest this city find itself again on the losing end of another agreement.
Aqua Ohio is Ohio’s largest investor owned water utility. Their parent company, Aqua America, Inc., is the nation’s largest U. S. based publicly traded water company. Neither company is responsible for the millions in debt owed by North Canton’s water fund. The rate payers and citizens of North Canton are responsible for these bonds on the water treatment plant.
The citizens of North Canton should not be enriching public corporations as has been the case with the current water agreement with Aqua Ohio.
Regarding the draft of the new water agreement, I have the following remarks:
One: Water rates charged to Aqua should be handled as any other BULK WATER user and subject to rate increases as any other water customer the city serves. Restricting rate increases to Aqua will add inequities to the city’s water rate structure as other water user’s rates are increased at a higher rate over time and create greater problems in the future.
Two: The water rate charged to Aqua should take effect as soon as the contract is ratified. Given that the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study has documented that the city is selling water to Aqua below the city’s production cost, it is not financially prudent to agree not to raise Aqua water rates in the first year of the new water agreement.
Three: The ten-year term for the new agreement is not prudent and exposes the city to a great deal of uncertainty and financial risks. There is no benefit to the city for a long term agreement. A two or three year term would be much better and allow the city to weather an unforeseen financial downturn arising from water sales.
Four: Reserving 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd) for possible sale to Aqua is an unfair provision in the agreement. In effect, Aqua is asking that North Canton provide the basis for Aqua’s future growth of water sales at the expense of the citizens of North Canton.
Five: Monthly billing, late payments, and penalties for late payments should be brought in line with North Canton’s policies that are presently in effect for all water users.
I ask city leaders to look closely at all aspects of any agreement and understand the agreement you ratify. North Canton must negotiate agreements in the future with a keener mind. The city cannot weather too many more financial boondoggles and giveaways.
You must negotiate agreements like it is your money. The city does not have the funds to pour down the drain as has been the case in the past.
North Canton must do better.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, March 22, 2010
North Canton Water Study Highlights Failures of City’s Water Agreement with Aqua Ohio
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
March 22, 2010
On July 10, 2006, I presented concerns in public to city council regarding a water agreement with Aqua Ohio that had been ratified in legislation by North Canton City Council. The ratification of the agreement had been approved unanimously by city council on an emergency on February 28, 2005, as Ordinance No. 49-05.
Four current members of this council, Jon Snyder, Jeff Peters, Marcia Kiesling, and Doug Foltz, were members of that council in 2005 when the Aqua Water agreement was ratified. For reference, I have a copy of my 2006 comments for you today.
In that presentation I stated, “The Aqua Ohio water agreement, to put it mildly, is grossly unfair to the City of North Canton….”
The recent Water Utility Rate Study completed by Arcadis, dated January, 2010, comes to the very same conclusion that I came to nearly four years ago. Unfortunately, no one in city government took me seriously when I presented my concerns in the summer of 2006.
For you present members of council who voted to ratify the water agreement with Aqua Ohio, I think it is fair to ask why you didn’t ask for a water study before ratifying the water agreement?
In those remarks of nearly four years ago, I noted that former City Administrator Michael Miller negotiated the Aqua water agreement without input from the City’s water superintendent and did not ask the City’s finance director for her thoughts on the agreement. Was Mr. Miller qualified to negotiate an agreement such as this?
The Arcadis Study would indicate that Former Administrator Miller was not qualified to negotiate the agreement.
How much did it cost the North Canton to have Arcadis tell you the very same thing I told you nearly four years ago? Finance Director Alex Zumbar has advised me that the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study cost $18,500.
My study of the Aqua Water Agreement and public presentation of my concerns came at no cost to the City of North Canton.
My 2006 presentation was lengthy as I took great pains to detail the overwhelming shortcomings of the agreement. A few of the concerns I presented were:
Under the Aqua Ohio Water Agreement:
1) Water rate increases for Aqua Ohio were limited to a maximum of five percent yet future water rate increases for residential customers were as high as 7.1 percent.
2) Aqua was allowed until the thirtieth day of the month to pay their monthly bill and was subject to a late penalty of one percent (1%) per month if payment was late. At the same time, North Canton’s policy for residents regarding payment of water bills required payment by the fifteenth of the month and a five percent penalty for late payments.
3) There was a stipulation in the agreement stating, “If during the agreement, additional facilities are necessary for sale of water hereunder, such facilities will be constructed by the city.”
I never heard anyone ever ask what possible expenditures and at what cost to the City these expenditures would entail. I would like to know what additional expenditures the city has been required to spend in order to facilitate water sales to Aqua Ohio? Does anyone even know? Has this been tracked and how does this stack up against the pittance the city has received in water revenue from Aqua Ohio?
4) Aqua Ohio could tap North Canton water lines and extend water lines to service areas outside the city. There is nothing more devastating than a clause such as this for ending the growth and expansion of the North Canton water distribution water system.
The shortcomings of the water agreement with Aqua Ohio cover every aspect of the agreement. Four years I stated, “The Aqua Ohio water agreement is so patently unfair as to be nearly criminal.” The Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study validates my remarks in “spades.”
The very sad part of this situation is that this agreement has continued in effect for five years at great cost to the City and without any concern of Mayor David Held or City Administrator Earl Wise.
The losses to the North Canton water fund are quantified on page 2 of the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study. In table 2, water sales in 2008 to residential and business customers total 22.3 percent of the total water sales for the year and resulted in revenue of $3,247,067. Water sales in the same time period (2008) to Aqua Ohio total 21.2 percent of total water sales for the year and resulted in revenue of $280, 388.
Nearly identical volume of water sales and yet the resulting revenue to the City is nearly $3.0 million less from sales to Aqua Ohio. These are not my figures but your very own consultant’s figures.
On page 6 of the Arcadis Study, the report cites the fact that the City of North Canton has sold water to Aqua Ohio in 2009 at a net effective sales rate of $1.52 per thousand gallons while at the same time, the total cost to collect and treat the water and pump the water into the distribution system was $2.20 per thousand gallons. The report concludes, “This would yield a net loss of $0.68 per thousand gallons.”
Is this an oversight? Is this ineptness? Who is in command of the city?
Mayor Held, I did attend your State of the City presentation. Why did I not see any commentary from you on the conclusions of the Arcadis Study presented in your State of the City speech?
Four years ago I noted, “The Aqua Ohio water agreement appears to totally ignore the City of North Canton’s production costs and how they are allocated.” The 2010 Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study remarks are similar.
Why did city leaders not look more closely into all of the concerns I presented in 2006?
Basing water rates on known water production costs for North Canton water users while at the same time ignoring those production costs when setting water rates for Aqua Ohio is unfair and financially perilous.
In addition, water users in North Canton have been subsidizing the profits of the nation’s largest U. S. based publicly-traded water company for the last five years.
In my 2006 presentation, I calculated that the City of North Canton was losing $7,254.57 per day in revenue as a result of the artificially low price of water sold to Aqua Ohio. In a year’s time, that equates to more than $2.6 million dollars in uncollected revenue under the Aqua water agreement.
Why is the bulk water rate charged to all other bulk water users not good enough for Aqua Ohio?
I believe it is safe to say that the City of North Canton has lost between $2.6 million per year (my projection in 2006), and $3.0 million per year, (using figures from the Arcadis 2010 Study) since the Aqua Ohio agreement has been in effect.
Factoring in the five years that have elapsed since the contract was ratified results in a loss to the North Canton water fund of between $13.0 and $15.0 million.
Again I ask, why has this agreement not been challenged before now?
Where are our investigative journalists who truly report on the actions of our elected officials instead of parroting their propaganda?
The Arcadis Study states on page 6: “…the City may realize benefits by renegotiating agreements with Outside City Users, with specific emphasis on the Bulk Water Sales agreement with AQUA.”
The Arcadis Study continues “…the City is selling its water capacity at a rate of $1.65 per thousand gallons to AQUA while the current rate schedule for Outside City Business Accounts sells at a rate of $9.72 per 1,000 gallons.” An $8.07 per thousand gallon discount over other Outside City Business Accounts is unfair to those users and undermines the fairness and integrity of the rate structure set by the city for all waters customers of the city.
The argument in the past has been that the reduced water rate to Aqua brings in added revenue. Generating added revenue by selling a product below cost just to say we are bringing in added revenue to the city is not only illogical, it is also financially unsound.
The Aqua Ohio Water Agreement is a total failure. I urge this council to void this Aqua Ohio water agreement in its entirety without further delay and adhere to bulk water rates that apply equally to all.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
March 22, 2010
On July 10, 2006, I presented concerns in public to city council regarding a water agreement with Aqua Ohio that had been ratified in legislation by North Canton City Council. The ratification of the agreement had been approved unanimously by city council on an emergency on February 28, 2005, as Ordinance No. 49-05.
Four current members of this council, Jon Snyder, Jeff Peters, Marcia Kiesling, and Doug Foltz, were members of that council in 2005 when the Aqua Water agreement was ratified. For reference, I have a copy of my 2006 comments for you today.
In that presentation I stated, “The Aqua Ohio water agreement, to put it mildly, is grossly unfair to the City of North Canton….”
The recent Water Utility Rate Study completed by Arcadis, dated January, 2010, comes to the very same conclusion that I came to nearly four years ago. Unfortunately, no one in city government took me seriously when I presented my concerns in the summer of 2006.
For you present members of council who voted to ratify the water agreement with Aqua Ohio, I think it is fair to ask why you didn’t ask for a water study before ratifying the water agreement?
In those remarks of nearly four years ago, I noted that former City Administrator Michael Miller negotiated the Aqua water agreement without input from the City’s water superintendent and did not ask the City’s finance director for her thoughts on the agreement. Was Mr. Miller qualified to negotiate an agreement such as this?
The Arcadis Study would indicate that Former Administrator Miller was not qualified to negotiate the agreement.
How much did it cost the North Canton to have Arcadis tell you the very same thing I told you nearly four years ago? Finance Director Alex Zumbar has advised me that the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study cost $18,500.
My study of the Aqua Water Agreement and public presentation of my concerns came at no cost to the City of North Canton.
My 2006 presentation was lengthy as I took great pains to detail the overwhelming shortcomings of the agreement. A few of the concerns I presented were:
Under the Aqua Ohio Water Agreement:
1) Water rate increases for Aqua Ohio were limited to a maximum of five percent yet future water rate increases for residential customers were as high as 7.1 percent.
2) Aqua was allowed until the thirtieth day of the month to pay their monthly bill and was subject to a late penalty of one percent (1%) per month if payment was late. At the same time, North Canton’s policy for residents regarding payment of water bills required payment by the fifteenth of the month and a five percent penalty for late payments.
3) There was a stipulation in the agreement stating, “If during the agreement, additional facilities are necessary for sale of water hereunder, such facilities will be constructed by the city.”
I never heard anyone ever ask what possible expenditures and at what cost to the City these expenditures would entail. I would like to know what additional expenditures the city has been required to spend in order to facilitate water sales to Aqua Ohio? Does anyone even know? Has this been tracked and how does this stack up against the pittance the city has received in water revenue from Aqua Ohio?
4) Aqua Ohio could tap North Canton water lines and extend water lines to service areas outside the city. There is nothing more devastating than a clause such as this for ending the growth and expansion of the North Canton water distribution water system.
The shortcomings of the water agreement with Aqua Ohio cover every aspect of the agreement. Four years I stated, “The Aqua Ohio water agreement is so patently unfair as to be nearly criminal.” The Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study validates my remarks in “spades.”
The very sad part of this situation is that this agreement has continued in effect for five years at great cost to the City and without any concern of Mayor David Held or City Administrator Earl Wise.
The losses to the North Canton water fund are quantified on page 2 of the Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study. In table 2, water sales in 2008 to residential and business customers total 22.3 percent of the total water sales for the year and resulted in revenue of $3,247,067. Water sales in the same time period (2008) to Aqua Ohio total 21.2 percent of total water sales for the year and resulted in revenue of $280, 388.
Nearly identical volume of water sales and yet the resulting revenue to the City is nearly $3.0 million less from sales to Aqua Ohio. These are not my figures but your very own consultant’s figures.
On page 6 of the Arcadis Study, the report cites the fact that the City of North Canton has sold water to Aqua Ohio in 2009 at a net effective sales rate of $1.52 per thousand gallons while at the same time, the total cost to collect and treat the water and pump the water into the distribution system was $2.20 per thousand gallons. The report concludes, “This would yield a net loss of $0.68 per thousand gallons.”
Is this an oversight? Is this ineptness? Who is in command of the city?
Mayor Held, I did attend your State of the City presentation. Why did I not see any commentary from you on the conclusions of the Arcadis Study presented in your State of the City speech?
Four years ago I noted, “The Aqua Ohio water agreement appears to totally ignore the City of North Canton’s production costs and how they are allocated.” The 2010 Arcadis Water Utility Rate Study remarks are similar.
Why did city leaders not look more closely into all of the concerns I presented in 2006?
Basing water rates on known water production costs for North Canton water users while at the same time ignoring those production costs when setting water rates for Aqua Ohio is unfair and financially perilous.
In addition, water users in North Canton have been subsidizing the profits of the nation’s largest U. S. based publicly-traded water company for the last five years.
In my 2006 presentation, I calculated that the City of North Canton was losing $7,254.57 per day in revenue as a result of the artificially low price of water sold to Aqua Ohio. In a year’s time, that equates to more than $2.6 million dollars in uncollected revenue under the Aqua water agreement.
Why is the bulk water rate charged to all other bulk water users not good enough for Aqua Ohio?
I believe it is safe to say that the City of North Canton has lost between $2.6 million per year (my projection in 2006), and $3.0 million per year, (using figures from the Arcadis 2010 Study) since the Aqua Ohio agreement has been in effect.
Factoring in the five years that have elapsed since the contract was ratified results in a loss to the North Canton water fund of between $13.0 and $15.0 million.
Again I ask, why has this agreement not been challenged before now?
Where are our investigative journalists who truly report on the actions of our elected officials instead of parroting their propaganda?
The Arcadis Study states on page 6: “…the City may realize benefits by renegotiating agreements with Outside City Users, with specific emphasis on the Bulk Water Sales agreement with AQUA.”
The Arcadis Study continues “…the City is selling its water capacity at a rate of $1.65 per thousand gallons to AQUA while the current rate schedule for Outside City Business Accounts sells at a rate of $9.72 per 1,000 gallons.” An $8.07 per thousand gallon discount over other Outside City Business Accounts is unfair to those users and undermines the fairness and integrity of the rate structure set by the city for all waters customers of the city.
The argument in the past has been that the reduced water rate to Aqua brings in added revenue. Generating added revenue by selling a product below cost just to say we are bringing in added revenue to the city is not only illogical, it is also financially unsound.
The Aqua Ohio Water Agreement is a total failure. I urge this council to void this Aqua Ohio water agreement in its entirety without further delay and adhere to bulk water rates that apply equally to all.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident, City of North Canton
Monday, February 08, 2010
North Canton Variance Request Mired in Politics & Mistakes
Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
February 8, 2010
Democracy in America gives citizens a voice in how they wish to be governed. The American electoral process allows for citizens to choose who will govern them. There are governmental processes that allow citizens a voice in the process of government. We all enjoy and revere the democratic form of government and the protections it affords each and every one of us. Democracy at all levels of our government is what we have all come to expect. Nothing less is acceptable.
At a recent meeting of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals citizens were not afforded the opportunity to speak. In addition, actions by a city council member raise questions in my mind as to whether the process of government is being misused to benefit the few at the expense of the public at large.
On January 26, 2010, there was a meeting of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals. The meeting was scheduled to hear an application from McKinley Development Leasing Company, Ltd. for a variance from existing zoning law requiring a minimum lot width of 150 feet for a commercial lot in Washington Square to allow for the construction of a Sonic drive-through restaurant.
As is the course for public decisions made by government bodies, public comments, favoring and opposing the proposal are allowed before a vote is taken.
The North Canton Board of Zoning Appeals did not allow any public comment before the board voted on the application for a variance.
Beth Borda, the spokesperson for McKinley Development spoke on behalf of the variance. She was given ample time to present her reasons why the zoning board should approve the variance. Before Ms. Borda had time to return to her seat, Chris Feller made a motion, seconded by Sam Bacon, to vote on the variance request.
Before I could raise my hand and ask when citizen comment would be allowed on the merits of the variance, voting by the zoning board was complete. The board approved the requested variance 3-1.
There were several individuals who attended the meeting who had hoped to speak regarding the requested variance. There were no other items on the agenda.
The Vice Chairman of the zoning board, Brian Mihalcin, chaired the meeting in place of Chairman William Cline, who was absent. Only after the vote had been taken and the zoning board was about to adjourn were citizens allowed to speak to the merits of the requested variance.
What happened to our democratic process in this instance? Was there nobody present who knew how to conduct a proper meeting?
Who has oversight of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals?
Are board members given any kind of training on how they are to function in their roles when they are appointed to serve on these boards?
Does the conduct of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals raise any concerns for any members of city council? I certainly hope so!
As I raised my hand in utter amazement at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to question what was happening before me, Councilmember Snyder who also was in attendance leaped to his feet and shouted from the audience, “You cannot revote.”
This was not very impressive public conduct for a sitting councilmember. It also raises questions in my mind as whether or not Mr. Snyder had used his influence on the deliberative process of the Zoning Board.
Councilmember Snyder’s conduct on this variance request is further heightened by the existence of a letter that he wrote nearly two weeks before the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals were to meet to discuss the variance.
The letter, dated January 14, 2010, from Council Vice President Jon Snyder to Council President Daryl Revoldt, states “McKinley Development cannot get relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals; hence the recommendation to amend Zoning Ordinance No. 50-03, specifically Section 1137.04 LOT AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.”
The North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals was not scheduled to meet to discuss the requested variance until January 26, 2010. How is it that on January 14, 2010, Mr. Snyder could unequivocally state in writing “McKinley Development cannot get relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals.”
That letter from Mr. Snyder is blatantly false and upon that falsehood, Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Revoldt, Chair of the Ordinance, Rules & Claims Committee, to begin the legislative process to change the city’s zoning code.
I am stunned that the legislative process can be initiated based on false and misleading information.
Subsequent to the favorable vote by the zoning board on January 26th, City Council, at its’ February 1st meeting, under the Ordinance, Rules & Claims Committee, withdrew a request made to the Planning Commission on January 19th to rewrite the zoning requirements regarding Lot and Density Requirements under Section 1134.07 of the city’s zoning code.
I ask that the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of January 26, 2010, be transcribed verbatim to determine without a doubt in what manner the meeting was conducted. It was a very short meeting and would not entail a great deal of effort or expense.
Furthermore, I ask that a study be conducted by the city law director to determine the extent of the manipulation and undue influence that was exerted that resulted in the variance approval.
It is one thing to assist a constituent in navigating the process of government. It is a horse of a different color to lobby aggressively and abuse the process of government that citizens depend on.
I hope this council will care enough to learn what went wrong in the course of this application for a variance and how the process was manipulated and how council itself was drawn into playing along. You should learn the facts from beginning to end and not brush these abuses of the process of government aside.
We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. I just hope those are not idle words etched in stone at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident
City of North Canton
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
February 8, 2010
Democracy in America gives citizens a voice in how they wish to be governed. The American electoral process allows for citizens to choose who will govern them. There are governmental processes that allow citizens a voice in the process of government. We all enjoy and revere the democratic form of government and the protections it affords each and every one of us. Democracy at all levels of our government is what we have all come to expect. Nothing less is acceptable.
At a recent meeting of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals citizens were not afforded the opportunity to speak. In addition, actions by a city council member raise questions in my mind as to whether the process of government is being misused to benefit the few at the expense of the public at large.
On January 26, 2010, there was a meeting of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals. The meeting was scheduled to hear an application from McKinley Development Leasing Company, Ltd. for a variance from existing zoning law requiring a minimum lot width of 150 feet for a commercial lot in Washington Square to allow for the construction of a Sonic drive-through restaurant.
As is the course for public decisions made by government bodies, public comments, favoring and opposing the proposal are allowed before a vote is taken.
The North Canton Board of Zoning Appeals did not allow any public comment before the board voted on the application for a variance.
Beth Borda, the spokesperson for McKinley Development spoke on behalf of the variance. She was given ample time to present her reasons why the zoning board should approve the variance. Before Ms. Borda had time to return to her seat, Chris Feller made a motion, seconded by Sam Bacon, to vote on the variance request.
Before I could raise my hand and ask when citizen comment would be allowed on the merits of the variance, voting by the zoning board was complete. The board approved the requested variance 3-1.
There were several individuals who attended the meeting who had hoped to speak regarding the requested variance. There were no other items on the agenda.
The Vice Chairman of the zoning board, Brian Mihalcin, chaired the meeting in place of Chairman William Cline, who was absent. Only after the vote had been taken and the zoning board was about to adjourn were citizens allowed to speak to the merits of the requested variance.
What happened to our democratic process in this instance? Was there nobody present who knew how to conduct a proper meeting?
Who has oversight of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals?
Are board members given any kind of training on how they are to function in their roles when they are appointed to serve on these boards?
Does the conduct of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals raise any concerns for any members of city council? I certainly hope so!
As I raised my hand in utter amazement at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to question what was happening before me, Councilmember Snyder who also was in attendance leaped to his feet and shouted from the audience, “You cannot revote.”
This was not very impressive public conduct for a sitting councilmember. It also raises questions in my mind as whether or not Mr. Snyder had used his influence on the deliberative process of the Zoning Board.
Councilmember Snyder’s conduct on this variance request is further heightened by the existence of a letter that he wrote nearly two weeks before the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals were to meet to discuss the variance.
The letter, dated January 14, 2010, from Council Vice President Jon Snyder to Council President Daryl Revoldt, states “McKinley Development cannot get relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals; hence the recommendation to amend Zoning Ordinance No. 50-03, specifically Section 1137.04 LOT AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.”
The North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals was not scheduled to meet to discuss the requested variance until January 26, 2010. How is it that on January 14, 2010, Mr. Snyder could unequivocally state in writing “McKinley Development cannot get relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals.”
That letter from Mr. Snyder is blatantly false and upon that falsehood, Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Revoldt, Chair of the Ordinance, Rules & Claims Committee, to begin the legislative process to change the city’s zoning code.
I am stunned that the legislative process can be initiated based on false and misleading information.
Subsequent to the favorable vote by the zoning board on January 26th, City Council, at its’ February 1st meeting, under the Ordinance, Rules & Claims Committee, withdrew a request made to the Planning Commission on January 19th to rewrite the zoning requirements regarding Lot and Density Requirements under Section 1134.07 of the city’s zoning code.
I ask that the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of January 26, 2010, be transcribed verbatim to determine without a doubt in what manner the meeting was conducted. It was a very short meeting and would not entail a great deal of effort or expense.
Furthermore, I ask that a study be conducted by the city law director to determine the extent of the manipulation and undue influence that was exerted that resulted in the variance approval.
It is one thing to assist a constituent in navigating the process of government. It is a horse of a different color to lobby aggressively and abuse the process of government that citizens depend on.
I hope this council will care enough to learn what went wrong in the course of this application for a variance and how the process was manipulated and how council itself was drawn into playing along. You should learn the facts from beginning to end and not brush these abuses of the process of government aside.
We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. I just hope those are not idle words etched in stone at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident
City of North Canton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
