North Canton Residents and Anyone Having Interests in the Business of North Canton City Government:
Pasted below is a link to a video of the North Canton City Council meetings held on Monday, August 22, 2016.
Description
of Video:
August
22, 2016, – North Canton Special City Council Meeting lasting one hour and 16
minutes followed by a Special Committee of the Whole Meeting lasting one hour
and 10 minutes.
Significant
moments in the meeting are marked with a star as shown here: *
The video begins with Council
members returning to the chamber after an Executive Session that had begun
thirty minutes earlier at 6:30 p.m. President Peters notes for the record that
Councilmembers Fonte and Werren joined the Executive Session in progress.
Councilmember Werren immediately
responds that she was present for the Executive Session. Councilmember Foltz
then speaks up to say that he arrived late for the Executive Session.
I do not know what to make of
Council President Peter’s confusion as to who was and who was not in attendance
at the Executive Session.
Executive Sessions of City Council
are not open to the public and, thus, no video recording is available.
The agenda for the Executive Session
states Council would move into Executive Session with the Director of Law to
discuss the employment of a public employee.
President Peters then makes a motion
to adjourn from Executive Session, stating that no action was taken by Council
in the closed session.
1:00 minute, the Special Council
meeting is called to order. Councilmember
Mark Cerreta is asked to give the Opening Prayer. This is followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
2:10
the Council Clerk is asked to call the roll. This followed by a motion by
President Peters to excuse Councilmember Kiesling who is absent.
This
is Councilmember Kiesling’s fifth meeting absence this year. Mrs. Kiesling has
also failed to attend meetings of Council on February 8, 2016, March 7, 2016,
May 2, 2016, and May 16, 2016.
The
Agenda for the August 22, 2016, Special Council meeting can be found using the
following link:
2:40
Mayor David Held is given the floor to introduce the City’s newest appointee to
the Planning Commission, Jamie McCleaster.
Mr.
McCleaster is filling the position on the Planning Commission vacated by Gary
Fry. Mr. Fry filled one of the five seats on the City’s Planning Commission for
six-months.
It
has been rumored over the last week that Mr. Fry will be appointed to fill the
position of Director of Permits and Inspection unexpectedly vacated by Mr. Eric
Bowles.
Mayor
Held acknowledges in his remarks preceding his introduction of Mr. McCleaster
that Mr. Fry did resign his seat on the Planning Commission to apply for the
soon to be vacancy left by the retiring Eric Bowles.
Mr.
Bowles’ planned retirement was not publicly known and the opening to fill the
position was never advertised.
7:15
President Peters announces that tonight’s meeting was being streamed on the Internet.
Mr. Peters states that “everything has been tested out and that everything is
going to sound as if you are in this room.”
Apparently,
testing of the streaming video did not find all the “bugs” in the system as the
audio is nothing but noise. Not a single word can be heard or understood.
9:15
President Peters welcomes the North Canton Elks Club as they present a check to
the City and the police department for the purchase of traffic safety vests for
police officers.
City
Police Chief Stephan Wilder and Mayor Held accepted the donation on behalf of
the City.
12:25 Mr. Peters calls for Recognition of Visitors. This is
also referred to as “Public Speaks.”
Generally, President Peters lays out strict rules to be
followed during public speaks, but apparently he dispensed with his weekly
recitation of rules for speakers before Council.
The presence of Martin Olson, author of the Stark County
Political Report (SCPR) who also was filming at tonight’s meeting might have
had an influence on the conduct of Mr. Peters.
*There were eight
speakers who presented remarks to City Council:
12:30 City resident Melanie J. Roll is
the first speaker to address Council.
Mrs. Roll presented 178 signatures
asking Mayor David Held to take immediate action to:
1)
Rescind two tax abatements given in violation of City
Ordinance 107-09 as pointed out by former Mayor Daryl Revoldt in his June 6,
2016, remarks to Council which can be seen at the 18:00 minute mark at the
following link.
2)
Recover taxes illegally abated totaling $886,937 for North
Ridge Apartments and $30,660 for a new residence built on Harmon Street.
Mrs. Roll also inquired if the
proposed CRA legislation on the agenda for
the
night was intended to add “new construction” to long ago superseded legislation
passed in 2000 and 2004.
I will add at this point that the
City’s Law Director has created a most tangled piece of legislation with the proposed
CRA legislation to be presented to City Council.
How and why would anyone attempt to
revive legislation passed more than twelve and fourteen years ago and which
have been superseded multiple times over the years?
17:00 City resident Rod Covey is the
second speaker to address Council.
Mr. Covey tells Council that he has
polled twenty-five residents in Auburn Knolls where he lives regarding the two
tax abatements that have been given for new construction and that they are
extremely unhappy with the idea of abatements for new construction.
Mr. Covey, also a signatory on the
petition presented by the first speaker, Mrs. Roll, asked that the abatements in
question be rescinded.
20:00 City resident and former
member of City Council Chuck Osborne is the third speaker to address Council.
Mr. Osborne spoke against proposed
legislation to include “new construction” in the CRA legislation that was on
the agenda for discussion by Council at the following Committee of the Whole
meeting.
I believe the new CRA legislation is
an attempt to correct mistakes by the City in approving the two tax abatements
that have outraged residents in June, and further, to assist the City in
defending itself from a lawsuit which I have threatened to file.
I would add here that I was both a
circulator and a signatory on one of the petitions presented by the first
speaker, Mrs. Roll.
25:20 City resident Kathy Schnabel
is the fourth speaker to address Council. Mrs. Schnabel:
-
Was critical of the two CRA tax abatements that were given
for new construction in violation of City ordinances.
-
Asked who on Council had received campaign contributions
from DeHoff and that those on Council who had should recuse themselves.
-
Stated that the tax abatements only benefit DeHoff.
-
Stated she and her neighbors will not support a school levy
if Council allows tax abatements for new construction.
26:50 City resident Miriam Baughman
is the fifth speaker to address Council. Mrs. Baughman:
-
Informs Council that she was one of the circulators of the
petitions presented by Mrs. Roll, noting that residents she talked to were
disbelieving of the tax abatements that were the subject of the petition.
-
Calls attention to shortcomings in the proposed CRA
ordinance that was on Council’s agenda for discussion at the following
Committee of the Whole meeting.
-
Alerts Council that the City’s Zoning Code requires that
amendments to the zoning code must first be reviewed by the City’s Planning
Commission. Mrs. Baughman points out that Ordinance 49-2016 was never reviewed
by the Commission and thus, should not be up for a reading before Council.
I pointed out this code requirement early
last year when Council passed Ordinance No. 16-2015 on April 27, 2015, removing
Section 1171.11, titled Appeal to Council, of the City’s Zoning Code.
Tonight, during the roll vote for
the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 49-2016, Councilmember Foltz halts (this
moment will be highlighted in the video description) voting on Ordinance No.
49-2016 acknowledging the importance of Mrs. Baughman’s remarks on procedure
and the LAW.
32:00 City resident Ron Jeskey is
the sixth speaker to address Council. Mr. Jeskey speaks very emphatically
against the CRA tax abatements as he has on numerous occasions since April.
As
with the earlier speakers, Mr. Jeskey’s remarks are well worth hearing.
At the conclusion of Mr. Jeskey’s
remarks to Council, it is well worth listening to Council’s reaction to the
remarks made by residents.
*36:00 minutes into the video, Council
President Peters states: “…everybody is confused…we are repealing the most
recent CRA ordinances and falling back on CRA ordinances passed in years 2000
and 2004…there is no new CRA area.”
Mr. Peters is not only less than honest
in his remarks, but Mr. Peters is misrepresenting the actions of Council, and
citizens in attendance at the meeting saw right through the deception and
misrepresentation of the proposed legislative action.
Council is now attempting to include
“new construction” to the current Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) already in
place that presently is not included.
Mr. Peters is attempting a sleight
of hand by telling residents there is no change in CRA boundaries when it is
the addition of “new construction” in the proposed ordinance that residents
oppose.
Mr. Peters’ sleight of hand is that
he refuses to acknowledge and explain the proposed addition of “new
construction” to the CRA ordinance.
The idea to include “new construction”
in the City’s CRA program was never a part of the program from its inception.
The most obvious reason is that it diverts tax revenue from the City’s schools.
Earlier this year, Council attempted
to expand the City’s CRA city-wide, thinking that “new construction” was
already allowed.
Upon opposition from the North
Canton City schools, total opposition from City residents, and finally, and upon
remarks from former Mayor Daryl Revoldt that the City violated existing CRA ordinances
when it granted a tax abatement on a 40-unit apartment complex on North Main
Street, Council scuttled further discussion of the CRA legislation.
*38:45 Mayor Held begins his remarks
regarding the CRA tax abatement given for North Ridge apartments with the
question “…why would anyone approve a tax abatement for an apartment complex?”
Mr. Held refers to it as a 39-unit
apartment complex. Mr. Held does not have his facts straight as North Ridge is
a 40-unit apartment complex. It is described as such on the Stark County
Auditor’s website.
At 40:35 minutes, Mr. Held totally
distances himself from the controversy surrounding the tax abatement for North
Ridge apartments, approved by his appointed Director of Permits and Inspection,
Eric Bowles by stating, “… that is something personally, that I would never
support…”
Mr. Held asks “…how could this
happen…” but never answers his own question.
Fact-checking
Mayor Held’s added remarks:
-
Most property taxes go to the schools. - Agreed
-
North Ridge received ten-year tax abatement – Incorrect.
The term of the abatement was for twelve-years.
-
Schools would give up $800,000 over the full term of the
abatement. – Incorrect.
With an annual appreciation of the value of the property of
one percent, forgone taxes would total $816,532. North Canton City schools
would lose out on approximately $563,407 of revenue.
A higher annual appreciation of the value of North Ridge
apartments could push the total amount of forgone taxes much higher over the
twelve-year period of the abatement.
-
When an abatement of property taxes is contemplated that
will result in a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the City’s
schools, permission from the School District is required. - Correct.
Mayor Held states that in this case, that did not happen.
Mr. Held asks, “…why didn’t that happen…I want to find out,
Council wants to find out, … How this tax abatement came to be given if it
never came before Council and it never came before the School Board?”
-
Mayor Held states he wants to make sure there is no
appearance of impropriety.
At this point, Mr. Held puts everything in the lap of his
Economic Development Director, Eric Bowles (who also held the title of Director
of Permits and Inspection).
Mr. Held then brings up the name of former North Canton
Mayor Daryl Revoldt, who as I have noted before, has alleged that the North
Ridge abatement violated the ordinance that was passed while Mr. Revoldt was President
of Council and that Mayor Held signed as Mayor (Ordinance No. 107-09, on
December 15, 2009).
At 43:20 Mr. Held states that in
spite of the decision by his appointee, Eric Bowles, who approved the
abatement, “… [that he] personally would never support [the North Ridge
abatement] and that his hunch is that Councilmembers wouldn’t be so excited
about supporting something like that, because why would we give away tax money
to bring in apartment complexes?”
At 44:20 minutes, Mayor Held in
reference to the North Ridge tax abatements exclaims, “…People are upset,
because I’m upset, we have members of Council who are upset, very upset…We want
to know why it didn’t go before this Council, we want to know why it didn’t go
before the School Board, so it is very upsetting….”
Mayor Held continues with his
commentary on the abatements stating, “… How can somebody do this, why would we
even do something like this?”
At 45:05 minutes, Mr. Held calls the
abatement to North Ridge “STUPID!” adding that this is his opinion on the
matter.
The property tax abatements for North
Ridge apartments became known publicly in April of this year as Council was in
the midst of discussing the possible expansion of the borders of the CRA. Upon
hearing of the abatement, I submitted a letter to Mayor David Held asking that
the Mayor dismiss his Director of Permits and Inspection, Mr. Eric Bowles.
I insert a copy of that letter here.
Mayor Held then states that North
Canton Law Director Tom Fox is reviewing the matter and that he (Fox) has
retained outside Legal Counsel to further review the abatement approved for the
North Ridge apartments – to clarify the process, to find out how it was done
and why it was done - and that we (City officials) are going to get on top of
it.
I might add here that one of the
reasons in switching from a part-time to a full-time Law Director in 2012 was
to reduce the financial costs of outside legal services.
The City continues to utilize outside
attorneys quite frequently and I wonder if the City has realized any savings.
After Mayor Held publicly placed the
blame for the North Ridge tax abatement debacle squarely on the back of his appointee,
Eric Bowles, at 45:40 Mayor Held now states that Mr. Bowles has done a great
job serving the City, then adds that “Friday was his last day because he
retired.”
Why has Mr. Bowles unexpectedly and
suddenly been spirited out of the City at this time?
46:05 Mayor Held makes the statement,
“…it defies common sense to give a tax abatement on an apartment complex, that
is what Council members are asking, and that’s what I am asking.”
48:50 Mayor Held concluded his
comments on the property tax abatement. Clearly, the Mayor is trying to
distance himself from all of this and was very defensive, as he should be.
49:30 City resident Linda Hoagland
is the seventh speaker to address Council.
Mrs. Hoagland makes the point that
the CRA legislation on the agenda for the following Committee of the Whole
meeting will allow “new construction” in existing CRA areas, an important piece
of information omitted by Council President Peters in his public remarks.
President Peters repeated earlier in
the meeting that the proposed legislation does not change the existing CRA
borders.
This is the
sleight of hand that Mr. Peters was attempting in his public
remarks
at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Peters was only telling half the
truth of the CRA legislation. Council was not changing the current borders of
the current CRA areas, that is understood.
A quick scan of the proposed CRA
legislation revealed what City officials refused to acknowledge the entire
night.
That Council was attempting to add “new
construction” to existing CRA areas.
There are, I believe, two reasons for
the proposed CRA legislation as the City has found itself in a “pickle” as one
would say.
First:
Former Mayor Daryl Revoldt has
addressed City Council regarding the North Ridge property tax abatement and
alleges that the abatement violates Ordinance No. 107-09. This is one of the
ordinances that is now proposed to be repealed.
Council’s effort to push through a new
CRA ordinance is, in my judgment, an admission that the allegations made by
former Mayor Daryl Revoldt hold merit.
Second:
The City of North Canton has been served
with a taxpayer demand letter asking that the property tax abatement be
terminated and previously abated tax dollars recouped.
The demands of a taxpayer demand
letter, if not complied with, would prompt a lawsuit against the City of North
Canton.
Inserted below is a copy of the
taxpayer demand letter submitted by me at a June 27, 2016, City Council
meeting.
Mrs. Hoagland completed her remarks
by reminding Council that the property tax abatement for North Ridge apartments
not only harms North Canton City Schools but also harms the levies here in the
City such as for the EMS, the Streets, and Police and Fire.
50:55 City resident Larry Tripp is the eighth and
last speaker to address Council.
Mr. Tripp follows up on a suggestion
he had made to Council at a previous meeting suggesting the use of tax
incentives instead of giving property tax abatements.
From this point forward, I will
simply note significant moments in the meeting that should be watched.
52:55 Council begins the legislation
portion of the meeting.
54:30 Ordinance No. 49-16 is read.
Chairman of Ordinance, Rules and Claims, Stephanie Werren cannot be understood
by me, both in the Council Chamber and on videotape.
*Councilmember Foltz speaks up at
this point and urges Council to delay the vote to amend the zoning code until
the amendment is brought before the City’s Planning Commission as required by
Section 1181 of the City’s Zoning Code.
Surprisingly, Law Director Tim Fox
concurs with the need for review by the Planning Commission.
Unfortunately, the Law Director
should have spoken up on this before Ordinance 49-16 received its first reading
before Council.
And before Senior Citizen Miriam
Baughman was forced to point out Council’s violation of its own ordinances (the
City’s Zoning Code).
57:40 Council reports begin.
1:09:10 Mayor Held addresses
question regarding the still unfinished front lawn of the Hoover District.
1:11:00 Mayor Held then repeats his previous
remarks regarding the CRA property tax abatements.
Mayor Held revealed publicly that he
hopes to appoint Gary Fry as his replacement for Eric Bowles.
1:16:10 the Special Council meeting
is concluded and the Special Council of the Whole meeting is called to order.
The
Agenda for the August 22, 2016, Special Committee of the Whole meeting that
followed the Special Council meeting can be found using this second link:
First on the agenda for the Special
Committee of the Whole meeting is the proposed changes to the City’s CRA.
Mrs. Kiesling, Chairman of Community
and Economic Development Committee, is absent.
*1:17:15 President Peters turns over
the meeting to Law Director Tim Fox in her absence. I do not think Mrs.
Kiesling, or anyone else for that matter, could explain the convoluted piece of
legislation that has been crafted by Mr. Fox.
The legislation seeks to repeal
ordinances passed in 2009 and in 2010 and revive ordinances passed in 2000 and
2004 while at the same time inserting language that will now allow property tax
abatements for “new construction” when the 2000 and 2004 ordinances only
allowed property tax abatements for rehabilitation of existing structures.
Law Director Fox deceptively describes
the proposed CRA legislation just as President Peters did earlier in the
evening.
At 1:17:40 minutes, Mr. Fox totally
sidesteps the true intent of the proposed legislation stating, “…what this
ordinance is intended to do is not expand the current CRA area…I am not going
to get into much detail…”
As an officer of the court, Mr. Fox
apparently preferred to limit his remarks on the proposed CRA legislation and
not risk obvious misrepresentation of the legislation which would jeopardize
his law license.
1:35:20 Law Director Fox uses the Latin
term, “ipso facto” to explain why tax abatements already approved cannot be
recovered. I am wondering if he means to say the Latin term, “ex post facto?”
*1:40:15 Law Director Fox goes to
great lengths to say that only the Housing Officer can approve property tax
abatements – and that Council has no authority, the Mayor has no authority –
the Law Director has no authority to override the Housing Officer.
I think this is pure hogwash.
Who appoints the individual who holds
the title of Housing Officer?
The Mayor!
Who gives the Housing Officer the
authority for the position he holds?
City Council!
To stand up there and proclaim that
neither the Mayor nor City Council can override the City’s Housing Officer is
pure hogwash.
Law Director Fox is simply trying to
absolve both the Mayor and City Council of their failures in preventing the
squandering of what could ultimately total nearly $1.0 million dollars of
public money needed by the North Canton School District and levies that support
streets, sewers, EMS, MRDD, and the 911 system to name a few.
1:46:20 minutes into the video,
Council moves on with the remainder of the legislative agenda.
*1:56:05 discussions begin on a
request from the Mayor to increase the compensation for the City’s new Director
of Permits and Inspection, Mr. Gary Fry.
Just a little over two months ago on
June 6, 2016 Council increased the salary ranges for high-level department
heads in the City.
This current request by the Mayor is
in addition to the already increased salary ranges given in Ordinance No.
37-2016 in June.
Mayor Held states that he would like
to offer his new appointee, Mr. Gary Fry, the replacement for the now retired Eric
Bowles, a starting salary of $82,300, the same salary being payed to the now
retired and rehired City Engineer, Jim Benekos.
A recent records request has
revealed that the City’s former Director of Permits and Inspection, Eric Bowles
was earning $65,677.56 annually.
Does anyone think that Mr. Bowles might
feel a little slighted knowing that his replacement will be payed nearly
$17,000 more a year than he was being paid?
And this is the starting wage for
Mr. Gary Fry.
Mr. Bowles had been on the job for
eleven years. And further, Mr. Bowles put in sixty-plus hours a week juggling
multiple responsibilities for the City.
Will the Mayor’s new replacement
devote the hours that Mr. Bowles did?
Mayor Held asks that the salary
increase for his new appointee be passed on “an emergency.”
2:01:55 During this salary discussion, Councilmember Foltz
urges the hiring of another nuisance inspector for the City. Currently the City
has only a part-time nuisance inspector and Eric Bowles has divided his time covering
nuisance complaints in the City.
Mr. Foltz then states that it should be made clear to Mr. Fry
that he will be expected to serve as a nuisance inspector as well as the myriad
of other duties formerly handled by Mr. Bowles.
Goodness knows he will be paid enough.
That remains to be seen. Does anyone expect to find an
attorney who is willing to devote some part of his work day as a nuisance
inspector?
Does anyone think that $82,300 a year for a nuisance
inspector is a little hefty salary for a nuisance inspector?
Is that a good use of a person’s time when they are paid that
level of a salary?
2:17:00 Anxious to leave the Chamber, Councilmember Werren
gets up from her seat before voting for adjournment of the meeting.
2:17:20 The Council meeting is adjourned.
The video continued to run until 2:22:57
minutes capturing post-Council activities.
Chuck Osborne
