Description
of Video:
June
1, 2016, – North Canton Ward 2 & 3 Joint Informational Meeting:
The video covers about one hour and
twenty minutes of the North Canton Ward 2 & 3 Joint Informational meeting which
lasted about two hours and forty-five minutes.
Through an oversight on the part of
this videographer, the memory on my camera was not cleared prior to filming
this meeting and as a result, I was not able to capture the entire meeting. My
apologies to viewers who were hoping to see the entire meeting on this site.
Let me say that all is not lost for
anyone wanting to view the entire proceedings of tonight’s ward meeting. Martin
Olson, author of the Stark County
Political Report (SCPR), was in attendance at the meeting and he was able
to film the entire meeting.
Mr. Olson has alerted me that he
found the Joint Ward 2 and Ward 3 Informational meeting so intriguing that
intends to create a series of reports on the meeting. I encourage viewers of
this post to read the SCPR daily for expanded coverage of North Canton Ward 2
& 3 Joint Informational meeting beyond what I will provide in this video
description.
The agenda for the ward meeting
listed in the special first-class letter sent to all residents in the second
and third wards at taxpayer expense was to discuss the following:
·
Overview of the City
·
Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs)
·
Dogwood Pool
Approximately 80 residents were in
attendance at the meeting.
Ward 2 Councilman and City Council
President Jeff Peters conducted the meeting. Ward 3 Councilwoman Stephanie
Werren introduced herself explaining that she was ill and said little if
anything else that I observed.
Other City officials in attendance
were Mayor David Held, Councilwoman at-Large Marcia Kiesling, Ward 4 Councilman
Dominic Fonte, Law Director Tim Fox, and Director of Permits and Inspection
Eric Bowles.
I should add that I was not present
for the entire meeting as Mr. Peters took an opportunity to exile me from the
meeting to thwart me from asking questions that City officials preferred not to
answer.
Thus my description of the meeting
will be confined to what I observed by either my actual presence at the meeting
or what my camera recorded after Mr. Peters ejected me from the meeting. I
believe Mr. Peters abused his position of authority and did so to prevent me
from asking hard-hitting questions.
I should add that this has become
common practice by Mr. Peters. In recent months, Council President Peters has
also ejected Larry Tripp, a Ward 2 resident, and Glenn Saylor, a Ward 3
resident, from meetings of Council.
Within the first minute of the meeting
(0:50 seconds into the video), Mr. Peters singles me out to announce that
literature handed out as residents came into the Dogwood Shelter was
information provided by me, Chuck Osborne, and that he could not vouch for the
information.
5:00 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters explains that this was an informal meeting and that if anybody had any
questions, concerns or comments they should speak up…whether it is an opposing
view or not…that they wanted to hear what residents had to say.
Mr. Peters, in my view, was quite
disingenuous when he encouraged anybody to present questions, concerns or
comments, and most especially, when he said they should speak up…whether it was
an opposing view or not.
A good part of the meeting was
political propaganda and self-serving rhetoric from City officials.
6:50 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters describes the Dogwood Shelter and the Dogwood Pool as “Crown Jewels” in
his ward. I thought this statement was awkward given that the very purpose of
the meeting was to find out why the Dogwood Pool had not opened on time. “Crown
Jewel” does not come to mind for me after the expenditure of $800,000 in
taxpayer funds on a pool that residents are unable to enjoy.
8:00 minutes into the video, while Mr.
Peters is extolling the merits of the street improvements that the City has
made over the last two years, a resident in the audience interrupts Mr. Peters
regarding a pothole on Meadowlane Drive between South Main and Pacifica Avenue.
Mr. Peters assures the resident the pothole will be taken care of promptly.
10:30 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters brings up Mayor Held to speak to a resident’s question about the slow
progress at the Hoover District. After remarking about the slow progress, Mayor
Held continues with political self-serving rhetoric unrelated to what I believe
most residents had come to hear – that is, the situation with the delay in
opening the Dogwood Pool and the proposed legislation before City Council
regarding the expansion of the City’s Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) and its
impact on the North Canton City School District
During this portion of the meeting, Mayor
Held keeps referring to the City’s low income tax rate and how it makes the
City more competitive in attracting new business. And each time, Mayor Held
makes implications that it is the business owner that is burdened with paying
the income taxes for its employees and this is untrue.
16:35 minutes into the video, I commented
at this point to Mayor Held that income taxes are paid by the employees on
their income and that it is not the employer who carries that burden as Mayor
Held seemingly was indicating in his remarks.
Beginning with the upcoming question
by Mr. Tripp, North Canton City officials really begin to come under pressure.
18:55 minutes into the video, City
resident Larry Tripp directs questions to Mr. Peters and for the first time in
the meeting the Dogwood Pool is discussed. Mr. Tripp asks what has been expended
on the Dogwood Pool at this point. Mr. Peters states that $850,000 has been
spent on the Dogwood Pool at the present time and that the Pool is an economic
driver for the City and that the expenditure on the pool was a sound decision.
Mr. Tripp asks Peters when the pool
will be open and that question is handed off to Mayor Held to answer.
19:40 minutes into the video, Mayor
Held gives a non-response response that goes on for nearly two minutes.
21:20 minutes into the video, Mr.
Tripp states, “You didn’t answer my question!”
Mayor Held responds, “We can’t
answer that right now!”
21:50 minutes into the video, Mayor
Held states that the City’s Electrical Inspector did not approve the permit. Prior
to the meeting I had already learned that no permits had ever been pulled by
the contractor.
For an explanation on the required
process, the Contractor must pull a permit for any kind of construction in a
City or Township. The permit puts the City or County on notice that work is
being performed and that periodic inspections, either by a plumbing inspector,
an electrical inspector, or a building inspector will be required.
22:25 minutes into the video, a
woman asks, “Why did you sell us pool passes?”
At this point in the meeting,
questioning from residents became rather intense. One gentleman questioned the
arrangement with the North Canton YMCA. This same individual, at 22:40 minutes,
described the condition of the pool last year as the filthiest he has seen the
pool in fifteen years.
25:40 minutes into the video, the
same individual above asks “Why after closing the pool early last year, that
construction did not start until March of this year.
Mr. Peters replies, “We weren’t
happy with that either and I don’t have an answer as well….”
27:40
minutes into the video, I ask Mayor Held whether permits for the pool construction
work were pulled. At this point, Mayor Held talks around my question.
28:00
minutes into the video, I repeat my question to Mayor Held, “Did the contractor
ever pull permits for the construction?”
Mayor
Held at this point acknowledges the contractor never pulled permits for the
construction.
This was quite a revelation to get
Mayor Held to admit. I do thank the Mayor for his honesty but that is as far as
I can go with my praises.
The upgrade to North Canton’s
Dogwood Pool is a full-blown disaster. And many individuals in the City share
the blame for this.
28:35 minutes into the video, Larry
Tripp follows up with Mayor Held with additional questions and observations on
the failure of the City with regard to the City’s Dogwood Pool.
29:55 minutes into the video, I
attempt to pose another question to Mayor Held and the Mayor declines to call
on me.
I had hoped to ask the Mayor, “Why
does the City expect residents to pull permits for a wide range of projects on
their homes but you did not expect this contractor to pull a permit for the
work on the pool?”
31:30 minutes into the video, a
question was raised as to why the YMCA was brought in to run the City’s pool? Mayor
Held initially starts to answer the question.
32:00 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters takes over from Mayor Held to answer why the YMCA took over operation of
the City’s municipal pool. In his remarks, Mr. Peters acknowledges problems
stating, “There were a lot of hiccups last year.”
The unhappiness expressed with the
operation of the Dogwood Pool last year comes as a total surprise to me. All representations
made to City Council at the end of last year’s swimming season were quite
positive in all aspects regarding the operation of the pool by the YMCA.
And to now hear Council President
Jeff Peters’ admission that “there were a lot of hiccups last year” is quite
surprising.
42:40 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters says there are issues with the YMCA’s operation of the Dogwood Pool and
offers to arrange a meeting with YMCA officials to address specific complaints
that were presented during the evening.
Last year, City Council praised
their decision to allow the YMCA to manage the pool. From the comments made by
residents at tonight’s ward meeting, City officials have misrepresented how
well the arrangement with the YMCA has worked out for residents.
43:10 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters gets back to answering an earlier question from Larry Tripp. Mr. Peters
attempts to explain what he means when he earlier described the Dogwood Pool as
an “economic driver” for North Canton. Mr. Tripp then interrupts Peters and Mr.
Peters simply cautions Mr. Tripp for the interruption.
There were no threats to toss Mr.
Tripp from the meeting for the interruption or theatrics to escalate Mr. Tripp’s
remarks into something other than two individuals sharing ideas. Sadly, as will
be seen later in the meeting, I was not treated in the same manner as will be
seen in the video.
48:40 minutes into the video, City
resident Ronald Jesky is given the floor and begins by stating he was there to
talk about tax abatements and prefaces his remarks by stating “…you are
probably not going to like me much…” to which Mr. Peters replies “…I will like
you no matter what.”
Mr. Jesky first remarks that Ward 4
Councilman Dominic Fonte has told him that he, Fonte, intends to abstain on the
legislative vote to expand the City’s CRA program due to a conflict of interest
with his employment as a real estate agent.
Following up with the premise that
other members of City Council could have a conflict of interest, Mr. Jesky’s
first question was, “How many of you officials have accepted money from either
the ‘Lemmon Company’ or the ‘DeHoff Company’ or your spouses in reference to
your elections?”
Marcia Kiesling is the first to
answer the question acknowledging that she had accepted campaign donations from
either Bill Lemmon or Bob DeHoff, or both many years ago.
To which Mr. Jesky replies that Mrs.
Kiesling has a conflict of interest and thus should abstain from voting on the
CRA legislation just as Dominic Fonte.
Mr. Peters then acknowledges that he
too received campaign donations from either Bill Lemmon or Bob DeHoff, or both
in his first campaign for City Council.
A North Canton Concerned Citizen
member has alerted me that she has campaign finance records that show Ward 3
Councilwoman Stephanie Werren received campaign donations from either Bill
Lemmon or Bob DeHoff, or both.
Further, Mrs. Werren’s husband
received campaign donations from Bill Lemmon or Bob DeHoff, or both, in his
recent campaign for Canton municipal Court Judge.
Why didn’t Mrs. Werren acknowledge
that she and her husband have both received campaign donations from Bill Lemmon
or Bob DeHoff, or both,as did Kiesling and Peters?
I would like viewers to note here
that Mr. Jesky and Mr. Tripp were given great latitude and time by Mr. Peters
to make comments and ask numerous questions. I say this to highlight the
disparity in which Mr. Peters treated me at this meeting. This comment will
become more relevant as one views the video.
Mr. Jesky does an excellent job
stating his opposition to the CRA legislation, which is now before City Council
for a vote.
As Mr. Jesky continues his remarks
for several minutes, he makes the following comments or questions:
-
Mr. Lemmon and Mr. DeHoff are making a lot of money with
these tax abatements.
-
North Canton taxpayers should be allowed to vote on the
proposed CRA tax-abatement program.
-
WHY should he be required to pay the taxes of his neighbors
who will be purchasing homes priced between $200,000 and $300,000?
-
People of affluent incomes who will purchase these homes can
afford them.
Mr. Peters
replies in agreement with Mr. Jesky.
-
WHY are you so against the retirees of North Canton and WHY
are you helping multi-millionaires?
The entire audience breaks into a
round of applause as Mr. Jesky concludes his
comments
and questions, at 50:50 minutes into the video. Mr. Jesky does speak again
later in the meeting.
Mr. Peters then attempts to answer the
commentary and questions posed by Mr. Jesky.
-
Mr. Peters quickly dismisses concerns that members of
Council have a conflict of interest if they have accepted campaign donations
from either/or Mr. Lemmon or Mr. DeHoff.
-
Mr. Peters (incorrectly) explains the legislative and referendum
process for the CRA tax abatement legislation.
51:50 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters brings up my name by stating that after City Council has given the
legislation three readings, Mr. Osborne, or one of these guys, will circulate a
referendum petition and if enough signatures are gathered, the issue will go to
the ballot and the public will vote on the issue.
Mr. Peters states that the planned
referendum is based on what he has heard from me at Council meetings.
Mr. Peters is apparently playing the
role of a playwright and writing his own version of the past and his
predictions for the future.
I HAVE NOT related any such remarks
to Mr. Peters at a Council meeting or privately. In fact, I seldom talk to Mr.
Peters.
Mr. Peters is very hostile and overbearing
with me.
He abuses his position of authority
with me at every opportunity.
52:40 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters again brings up my name regarding information that I had handed out at
the beginning of the meeting.
53:28 minutes into the video, Mr.
Jesky says it (regarding CRA tax abatements) does not make sense to tax low
income individuals such as himself and not tax individuals with quarter million
dollar incomes. The program penalizes him and every retiree in the room.
Mr. Peters attempts to rebut Mr.
Jesky’s remarks stating that he, Peters, is looking not five years down the
line but that he is looking thirty-years down the line.
Personally, I think Mr. Peters’
argument that he is looking thirty-years down the line is absolutely ludicrous
and certainly is not realistic.
53:55 minutes into the video, Mr.
Jesky has heard enough from Mr. Peters.
Mr. Jesky hollers out “Bullshit” in
response to the explanations given by Mr. Peters in defense of the proposed CRA
tax-abatement legislation.
54:35 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters explains that the purpose of the CRA is to “nurture fledgling business [and]…attract
new business….”
When expansion of the City’s CRA began
in City Council in March, Council stated that the objective of the CRA was to
encourage owners of the City’s older housing stock to improve their properties.
Director of Permits and Inspection Eric Bowles informed City Council that the
average age of homes in North Canton was 73 years.
According to Council President
Peters, that purpose has apparently changed.
55:30 minutes into the video, Mr.
Peters again brings up my name. I should add here that my handouts reflect recorded
abatements already approved for exemption of taxes. City Council is proposing
to expand the boundaries of the CRA using the same terms as are currently in
effect in other parts of the City. Only now, the boundaries of the CRA are
being expanded to include substantially, the entire City.
55:40 minutes into the video, Mr.
Jesky again is right on target when he speaks out stating, “If you can afford
to buy that house, you can afford to pay the taxes.”
Mr. Jesky is referring to the seven
lots on Summit Avenue (across from his house) where Bob DeHoff has developed
seven lots after purchasing a portion of a former Hoover family property and
dividing the property into seven building lots. The property has already been
cleared and underground utilities installed. The lots are ready for
construction.
DeHoff Realty will be able to offer
a $350,000 home to a buyer that is 100% free of property taxes (excepting the
value of the land) for fifteen years. The CRA tax abatement insures a sure sale
of the lot and a home for DeHoff Realty, as well as any other lot in the City
that Lemmon, DeHoff, or any other developer would surely snap up.
I suspect that City officials have
no idea how many potential building lots throughout the City that could be
snapped up with this wind-fall incentive if the CRA tax-abatement legislation
is passed.
And in each circumstance, North
Canton City Schools are the biggest losers as nearly seventy percent of the
property taxes go to the North Canton City Schools.
55:50 minutes into the video, Mayor
David Held takes over for Mr. Peters in an attempt to explain the CRA tax
abatement legislation. Clearly, residents were in opposition and the political
spin and double-speak were not changing their minds on the subject.
56:40 minutes into the video, I
myself was growing weary of the dog-and-pony show and I attempted to pose a
question to Mayor Held. Mr. Peters wasted no time in refusing to accept my
question and in short order asked me to leave the meeting.
It is disheartening that I was not
given the same accommodations to speak as other residents at the meeting.
Throughout the meeting, it was clear
to me that City officials, especially Mayor Held, and Council President Peters
were attempting to talk all around the topics that residents wanted to hear
discussed. Both Held and Peters did their best to say a lot of nothing
pertinent to the key topics noted on the announcement mailed to residents.
The one question I was able to ask
earlier in the meeting (28:00 minutes into the video) resulted in the admission
by Mayor David Held that the contractor for the Dogwood Pool never pulled any permits.
This was a very damaging revelation
which, I believe, is the root cause of why the Dogwood Pool has now failed to
pass required state inspections for the issuance of a permit to open.
The pulling of construction permits,
(for construction, plumbing, and/or electrical), requires periodic inspections that
must be accomplished during construction.
It is impossible to inspect the
quality of work and insure that work has complied with building codes once evidence
has been sealed up behind walls or under cement.
I will end my description of the
video at this point and encourage viewers to watch the nearly twenty minutes remaining
without further description of the video from me.
I apologize that my video ends about
one hour and twenty minutes before the informational meeting is concluded. The video continues to run until 1:19:13
minutes.
I would urge anyone interested in
viewing the entire meeting to follow a second video recorded by Martin Olson,
author of the Stark County Political Report (SCPR). Mr. Olson was present and
recorded the entire meeting.
The SCPR can be found with a Google
search.
On Friday, June 3, 2016, Mr. Olson posted the
first of a series of Blogs on the meeting. His first Post has video clips from
the meeting along with his analysis of the actions of North Canton City officials
that were in attendance.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
