North Canton's Law Director Usurps Authority of City Council in Rezoning of Fieldcrest!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

September 25, 2017 

          Five years ago, Mayor Held's Director of Permits and Development, Eric Bowles, authorized the abatement of property taxes for a forty-unit apartment complex on North Main Street called North Ridge Place. The authorization by Mr. Bowles was done behind closed doors and remained secret for nearly three and one-half years. The abatement of property taxes for the investors in North Ridge Place amounted to nearly $1.0 million dollars.  

          I think everyone will agree that Mr. Bowles usurped the authority that City Council gave him by ordinance when he secretly approved the property tax abatement for North Ridge Place.  

          Denials by City officials that they had knowledge of the abatement are laughable, especially from North Canton's Law Director, Tim Fox. 

          Since Mr. Fox became Law Director in September of 2012, two months before Mr. Bowles submitted the North Ridge abatement to the Stark County Auditor's office, Mr. Fox has gained knowledge and control of every aspect of City business and usurped control of everything that transpires in North Canton City government.  

I have no doubt that Mr. Fox provided guidance and support to Mr. Bowles in November of 2012 with regards to the closed-door approval of the North Ridge tax abatement, thus usurping the authority and intent of legislation passed by City Council.

It is unfortunate, but a citizen cannot receive a Public Record from any office in the City without the knowledge and approval of Law Director Tim Fox. 

Law Director Fox has his fingers into every nook and cranny of North Canton City government and nothing happens without his knowledge or his approval. 

A more recent example of Law Director Fox's usurping the authority of City Council is the path that he has chosen to follow in the possible rezoning of the Fieldcrest property. 

Why did Law Director Fox not give City Council an opportunity to choose between having the City hire its own consultant to write the zoning code for Fieldcrest instead of asking the property owner to write the zoning code for the City? 

An independent, unbiased land-use planner hired and paid for by the City and responsible to the City, could have been an option City Council might have chosen. 

But seemingly, that choice was not available as Law Director Tim Fox took that right away from my elected representatives when he failed to allow City Council to make this decision themselves. 

Instead, at last Monday's City Council meeting, Council was reviewing a proposed zoning code written by a consultant hired by the property owner.  

And at the same meeting, North Canton's Law Director became a lobbyist on behalf of this property owner and further, began urging expedited approval of the rezoning. 

Law Director Fox has guided this whole process and for some reason City Council is oblivious to what is going on before their very eyes. 

Mr. Fox is taking from the citizens of North Canton any semblance of representational government. 

Concerns have been raised by citizens that the rezoning of Fieldcrest would be "Spot Zoning" and I concur. Law Director Fox rebutted that assertion last week with his pronouncement that the Fieldcrest property was "unique" thus qualifying the property for a change in zoning from residential to a meaningless zoning classification called "Fieldcrest," which is being pulled out of thin air and does not represent the use truly intended for the property.   

I would like an independent assessment from a land planner regarding whether a rezoning from residential would indeed constitute Spot Zoning.  

Fieldcrest is but a portion of what was once property owned by the Hoover Company. It is surrounded by Auburn Knolls and Monticello, all residential properties, and all cut from the original Hoover Company property. 

These developments are the most expensive residential properties in the City of North Canton.

And now you want to create a commercially zoned property and call it something other than what it truly will become if this rezoning request comes to fruition. 

North Canton City Council must function as representatives of all of its citizens. City Council members must act and think for themselves. 

Please, reclaim for yourselves your role as representatives of the people. Stop letting Law Director Tim Fox usurp your authority in the proposed rezoning of Fieldcrest. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

Resident, City of North Canton  

North Canton's Tax Policies Detrimental to its Schools Now Foretell Calamity for the City!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

August 14, 2017  

          North Canton was once overly reliant on the Hoover Company thinking that the days of Hoover would last forever. 

With the large numbers of well-paying jobs at the Hoover Company, a minimal income tax for the City was sufficient and provided ample revenue for City operations. 

The loss of Hoover in 2008 should have ushered in an increase in the City's income tax rate but that has not happened.  

Instead, a flawed mindset took hold that by keeping an artificially low income tax rate business would locate in North Canton. 

To augment that flawed mindset, commercial tax abatements were given to businesses over the years to entice them to locate here. They were given freely as good-will gestures, sort of a thank you; as if to say here is a little token of our appreciation simply for locating to the City, often with fewer than a handful of employees.  

The commercial tax abatements that this Council has approved that I have observed since 2003 repeatedly resulted in a loss of revenue for the North Canton City Schools. 

The tax exemption given to North Ridge Place was the wake-up call for the City's School District.

I hope each of you here at City Hall are beginning to see that North Canton's tax policy has not been good for the City or the City's schools and that you have not been good fiduciaries of public tax dollars. 

The artificially low income tax rate that many here on City Council have praised each other for maintaining over several years has resulted in the following: 

1)    Reduced revenue for the City that could have been used for vital infrastructure improvements. 

2)    An opportunity for the North Canton City School District to place their own income tax on the ballot for voters at this fall's November General Election.

Can anyone blame the school district?

For years and years, this Council and this Administration have given away revenue desperately needed by the schools with nary a thought of the financial burdens you were creating for our City schools.

How does it feel to see the North Canton City School District come after a funding source typically utilized by municipalities?

Now the shoe is on the other foot and I am sure you do not like it.

The school income tax of 0.75 % when combined with North Canton's 1.5 % income tax rate will result in a combined income tax rate of 2.25 %.

It is my understanding the school income tax will remain in effect for thirty-four years if the school's ballot issue passes.

What is the likelihood that voters would further increase the City's income tax rate at some point in the future on top of the added school income tax rate?

That presents a calamity for the City of North Canton.

 Does anyone in here believe that this City will need to increase its income tax rate in the next thirty-four years? 

What is the likelihood voters would approve an income tax rate increase for the City when a combined City/School income tax rate is already at 2.25 %?

Not very probable!

The City's long-standing artificially low income tax rate along with the needless commercial tax abatements that have been handed out to businesses for years, have been ill-conceived. 

North Canton, the City schools and its residents now face a "financial perfect-storm."

          All of this as a result of many years of North Canton's failed tax policies! 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne  

Veracity of Rebuttal Remarks Made by North Canton Law Director Unsupported by Public Records

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

April 24, 2017

 

On February 27, 2017, I highlighted to City Council a multitude of actions which have violated the North Canton’s City Charter. 

The first violation I detailed as a direct violation of the City Charter was the approval of a variance at an August 5, 2015, meeting of the City’s Planning Commission with the City’s Law Director in attendance. 

From the minutes of Council’s February 27, 2017, meeting, Law Director Tim Fox immediately follows up my remarks with a rebuttal stating, “Mr. Osborne stated that the Planning Commission granted a variance for the cell tower. And clearly that did not occur.”

As is clearly described on page 5 and 6 of the minutes of the August 5, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission did in fact approve a variance for the cell tower.

In fact, the minutes of the Commission reflect the following dialogue: 

Commission Chairman Flechtner states,

“Question[?]. Do we need a third vote for the variance?” 

North Canton’s former Director of Permits and Development Bowles responds stating:

 

“No. You can approve it with it as presented…” 

Chairman Flechtner responds stating,

“So that would be a part of the motion to approve the site plan….”

 

The City of Canton and the Montabella Estates Homeowners Association also were well aware that North Canton’s Planning Commission had approved a variance for the cell tower. Each entity appealed the Planning Commission’s approval citing the fact that North Canton’s Planning Commission exceeded its authority under the City’s Charter when it approved this variance. I include copies of the appeals from each of those appellants. 

On September 22, 2015, an appeal was on the agenda for the meeting of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals. 

Prior to the Board’s hearing the appeal, Law Director Tim Fox addressed the Zoning  Board. From page 4 of the attached minutes of the September 22, 2015, meeting of ZBA, Mr. Fox states in part,  

“…The Planning Commission had stated at its meeting regarding a conditional use that it approved of a variance but it’s clear from the City’s Charter and its ordinances only this body, the Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals may hear a variance….” 

Mr. Fox clearly and purposely misled this public body as the North Canton Planning Commission did in fact approve a variance for the cell tower at the August 5, 2017, meeting of the Planning Commission. 

I believe this instance to be but a snapshot of the manner in which Mr. Fox handles his position as North Canton’s Law Director. 

I include with my remarks, the various documents I have cited. 

Every member of this Council should cast a critical eye as to the way the current Law Director spins and twists the facts, not only in this instance but often since he has taken on the role as North Canton’s Director of Law. 

If Law Director Tim Fox can find the need to twist and distort the facts in an effort to reign supreme over a citizen as myself, who regularly researches Council proceedings, what is he doing under far less scrutinized circumstances? 

I find Mr. Fox’s veracity to be highly questionable!!  

I ask that City Council end the reign of Law Director Tim Fox.

 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

North Canton’s Part-time Elected Officials More Interested in Self Service than in Public Service

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

March 13, 2017 

          On tonight’s agenda for it 3^rd reading is Ordinance No. 6-2017. This legislation provides for automatic pay raises for North Canton’s part-time elected officials as OPERS increases the minimum annual salary required to qualify for 100 percent service credit for pension benefits. 

          City Council will no longer come under scrutiny when their salaries are increased. The citizens of North Canton will no longer be able question the compensation City Council receives as both citizens and Council will be removed from the process.

 

          Ohio, as well as states across the country, needs to eliminate pension eligibility for part-time public employees as pension funds are grossly underfunded.

          The state of Ohio has chosen to eliminate pension eligibility for part-time public officials by raising the minimum salary needed for full service credit, thereby elevating salaries over and above what will be warranted at some point in the future.

          This minimum salary will be further increased over the next few years. The need to increase the monthly salaries of North Canton’s part-time elected officials by $60 is a drop in the bucket as to what will be required in the not too distant future to maintain eligibility for full service credit under OPERS. 

As this minimum salary is increased further and further, most part-time elected officials will ultimately no longer participate in Ohio’s pension program.  

Several years ago, I recall seeing reports in the press that the General Assembly initially discussed raising the minimum monthly salary to as high as $2,000 per month.

This is where this is headed and this Council agenda with this legislation. With the passage of this legislation, North Canton City Council believes they will not have to take responsibility for setting their salary when OPERS increases the minimum salary to salaries far above what is acceptable to the taxpayers of North Canton. 

Possibly this Council is unaware that OPERS does give partial credit for salaries that do not meet the minimum salary for full service credit?

 

This legislation makes one big assumption and that is that North Canton part-time elected officials assume that they will remain in office the minimum required ten years to qualify for a pension. 

This is a pretty arrogant assumption on the part of North Canton’s part-time elected officials.

 

I believe that this legislation violates Section 4.04 of the City’s Charter which states,

        “The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members, and that of the Mayor….”  

It does not say the “General Assembly” or “OPERS.” 

Frankly, I am stunned that Council has the audacity to even propose a raise for

itself and the Mayor. 

First, Council and the Held Administration failed to place a renewal levy on the ballot in a timely fashion and now that failure is going to cost taxpayers close to $15,000 for a Special Election in August. 

Second, Council is in violation of its own ordinance requiring four meetings of Council four Mondays each month.  

I have a spreadsheet detailing the meeting nights of City Council over the last fourteen years. Under the current Law Director and untrained Council Clerk, the lawfully required Council meetings schedule of four Monday night meetings per month is in decline. 

The required four Monday night meetings per month have declined nearly twenty-five percent over the last fourteen years. That downward trend has just come about in the last couple of years. 

North Canton no longer has a major employer across the street. The City is struggling financially. 

Scrap Ordinance No. 6-2017. 

Represent your constituents. 

Show the citizens of North Canton that you are indeed interested in Public Service.  

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

Habitual Violations of North Canton’s Charter by City Officials is Unnerving, Unacceptable and Unlawful!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

February 27, 2017 

The habitual violation of North Canton’s Charter by City Officials that has and continues to occur is Unnerving, Unacceptable, and Unlawful. 

Section 3.07(3) of the Charter, titled, Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals, states in part,  

“It shall be the duty of the Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals to hear and decide appeals for exceptions to and variations in the application of ordinances… in the municipality….”

          If that is unclear, further guidance comes from Chapter 1125.02 (116) of North Canton’s Zoning Code, which defines a variance as, 

 “A grant by the Board of Zonings Appeals….”

This provision has existed in the City Charter since 1963.

          At a meeting of the North Canton Planning Commission on August 5, 2015, the Commission, in violation of the Charter, granted a variance for the construction of a Cell Tower at First Friends Church.

Present at the meeting were all members of the Commission, including City Administrator Mike Grimes, former City Engineer Jim Benekos, former Director of Permits and Development Eric Bowles, and City Council’s Chairperson of Ordinance, Rules, and Claims Committee, Stephanie Werren. 

          Also present at the meeting was North Canton’s legal authority, Law Director Tim Fox.

How could this have been allowed to happen?  

          How could all of these individuals allow the Planning Commission to exceed its authority under the Charter? This was unprecedented in my sixteen years of observations of the actions of North Canton City Government.  

          The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by parties in opposition to the tower and on September 22, 2015, the appeal was to be heard by the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals. As the Board meeting was about to hear the appeal, Law Director Fox acknowledged that procedural requirements were not followed.

The admission that the Planning Commission had exceeded its authority forced a reapplication of the entire issue before the Planning Commission which took place on December 9, 2015.

          Another violation of North Canton’s Charter derives from requirements in another part of Section 3.07. 

In paragraph (2) titled, Planning Commission, and paragraph (3) titled, Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals, the Charter states in part,   

“…a member of Council, selected by Council, shall serve as non-voting members of the commission in an advisory capacity and shall attend all meetings.”

For Planning Commission meetings, City Council’s Chairperson of Economic

Development Committee, Marcia Kiesling, is Council’s selected representative and by Charter is required to attend all meetings of the Planning Commission. 

          Over the last four years, Mrs. Kiesling has attended six of the thirty-six meetings of the Planning Commission. Percentage-wise, Councilwoman Kiesling has been absent for eighty percent of the meetings she is obligated by Charter to attend. 

          For meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals, City Council’s Chairperson of Ordinance, Rules, and Claims Committee, Stephanie Werren, is Council’s selected representative and by Charter is required to attend all meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

          Over the last four years, Mrs. Werren has attended none of the six meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Percentage-wise, Mrs. Werren has been absent for one hundred percent of the meetings she is obligated by Charter to attend.

          The most recent violation of North Canton’s Charter originates from Section 6.04 which states,

“In January, 1967, and in January of each tenth year thereafter, the Council shall appoint a commission of fifteen (15) electors of the municipality…. Such commission shall review the Municipal Charter, and …recommend to Council such alterations, revisions, and amendments, if any …are desirable….” 

Council has failed to act in accordance with this Charter provision. This failure to act as prescribed hampers the work of the Charter Review Commission and it jeopardizes the success of the Commission’s work. 

Elected and appointed City Officials who cannot comply with North Canton’s City Charter should resign or be replaced. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

September 19, 2016 - North Canton Council of the Whole Meeting

North Canton Residents and anyone Having Interest in the Business of North Canton City Government:

Pasted below is a link to a video of the North Canton Council of the Whole meeting held on September 19, 2016.

https://youtu.be/PKkd3t8Ofrw

Description of Video:

September 19, 2016 – North Canton City Council Committee of the Whole meeting lasted approximately one hour and thirty-five minutes. 

          The video captures pre-meeting activity with the actual Council of the Whole meeting commencing at the 6:30 mark. 

The agenda for the September 19, 2016, meeting can be reviewed at the following link: 

http://northcantonohio.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/September-19-2016-North-Canton-City-Council-Committee-of-the-Whole-Meeting-Agenda.pdf 

          Council President Peters calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. After the Clerk of Council takes attendance, President Peters asks for a motion and a second to excuse Councilmember Stephanie Werren as she did not answer Roll Call. 

          This is Councilmember Stephanie Werren’s third absence this year. Mrs. Werren has also failed to attend meetings of North Canton Council on April 11, 2016, and on June 27, 2016.  

          Lack of attendance of attendance at North Canton City Council meetings by members of Council has no impact on the $600.00 per month they are paid.  

          7:20 Mrs. Kiesling is given the floor to begin discussion of Ordinance No. 52-2016. This is the discussion of the City’s Community Improvement Area (CRA) which has been going on since April of this year. 

          The City’s CRA discussions began earlier this year in April with a proposal to expand the boundaries of the City’s CRA to encompass nearly the entire City. 

          Amid a vehement outcry over several months from City residents, including the City’s former Mayor, Daryl Revoldt, Council backed away from the proposed legislation at a June 13, 2016, meeting and killed the proposed legislation, labeled as Ordinance No. 32-2016.  

          During those discussions earlier this year, in addition to citizen concerns that expansion of the CRA program was very bad for the City, it was discovered that CRA property tax abatements for new construction had been given in direct violation of previous North Canton ordinances. 

          Property tax abatements had only been authorized for remodeling.  

          One of the property tax abatements, for a new residential property, amounted to $30,660. This amount will likely grow higher over the fifteen-year term of the abatement.  

The second property tax abatement was for a forty-unit apartment complex, called North Ridge Place, amounted to $709,549. This amount will likely grow higher also over the twelve-year term of the abatement. 

City officials have acknowledged there are problems with the illegal abatements. 

Mayor Held has vehemently tried to distance himself from the issue. At an August 22, 2016, Council meeting, Mayor Held calls the abatement to North Ridge apartments “STUPID” at the 45:05 mark of the video. 

Mayor Held has a lot to say about the North Ridge Place abatements. Those remarks can be heard and seen on a link to a video of the meeting (between the 38:45 mark and 45:05 mark). 

http://northcantoncityhallvideos.blogspot.com/2016/08/august-22-2016-north-canton-special_29.html 

At a September 12, 2016, meeting of Council, Law Director Tim Fox advises Council that earlier CRA ordinances have not been certified by the Ohio Department of Development and that prior abatements could be deemed invalid.  

The Law Director’s remarks can be seen at the following link between the 49:20 mark and the 52:20 mark of the video. 

http://northcantoncityhallvideos.blogspot.com/2016/09/september-12-2016-north-canton-city.html 

          After Law Director Fox explained the mess that the City of North Canton has created for itself with regard to the City’s CRA, the sad saga continues as Councilmember Kiesling explains in her opening remarks.

          Mrs. Kiesling quickly discovers that the map describing current boundaries of the City’s CRA is totally flawed and she tosses it aside. 

          It should be explained here that Council is attempting to correct an accumulation of errors contained in ordinances passed in 2009 (Ordinance No. 107-2009) and again in 2010 (Ordinance No. 5-2010) with the passage of Ordinance No. 52-2016 under discussion. 

          The problem is that the City’s Law Director has crafted a very convoluted piece of legislation with which to accomplish that end. 

          10:45 Mrs. Kiesling mistakenly states that applicants can still apply for an abatement after the CRA legislation is corrected.

How would that be possible after Council has rescinded the ordinance under which it would have been authorized?

          The CRA discussion continues until the 37:00 mark.  

After the meeting, I suggested to Council President Peters that the City discontinue the CRA program entirely. 

Surprisingly, Mr. Peters was in agreement that the program be dropped entirely.  

Of course, Mr. Peters stated this to me off the record. Will Mr. Peters follow through with that position?

I urge the public to listen to the entire CRA discussion.         

37:50 Law Director Tim Fox speaks to proposed legislation that is entirely out of this world. 

It is Law Director Fox’s proposal that future Public Hearings before the City’s Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permits be conducted as an Adjudicatory Hearing. 

What this would entail are the following: 

1)   Any and all comments made by speakers before the Planning Commission would have to be sworn in. 

2)   Anyone contesting the application under consideration or contemplating a lawsuit on the issue before the City’s Planning Commission would be required to also have an attorney present at the meeting.

For over fifty-five years North Canton residents have been able to

attend a North Canton Planning Commission and present their concerns, questions, or opposition on an issue before the Commission. 

          In fact, that is the very purpose of the Public Hearings before the Commission. 

          It is the desire of Law Director Fox to turn the Public Hearing into a legal proceeding at which he alone will preside. 

          In layman’s terms, Law Director Fox wants to be the Ringmaster of a Public Hearing that is turned into a Circus for his own edification. 

          A good example of a Planning Commission meeting where Law Director Tim Fox took control of the meeting and inserted himself into the role, in my opinion, of presiding judge, is the December 9, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 

A link to that video is below. 

The December 9, 2015 – Planning Commission meeting was about a request for approval to construct a Cell Tower at First Friends Church located in the vicinity of 55^th Street and Market Street. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwTH-OqaXs 

          Law Director Fox, in effect, commandeered the entire nearly three hour meeting.  

          The entire discussion on the proposed change to North Canton’s Zoning code to conduct Public Hearings for Conditional Use Permits as Adjudicatory Hearings should be watched closely. 

          Councilmember Doug Foltz is the only member of Council who was highly critical of this proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code. 

          Law Director Fox pushes hard for this change for thirty minutes. The discussion on that proposal concludes at 1:21:45.

Sadly, Council sidesteps making a decision on this proposal, choosing instead to pass a resolution sending this issue to the Planning Commission. 

1:21:45 Council President Peters amends the agenda to briefly discuss Ordinance No. 49-2016 that was tabled the previous week. 

This was a proposal to allow residents to utilize up to forty percent of their front yards for parking of automobiles.  

Council agreed to leave Ordinance No. 49-2016 tabled permanently. Regular attendees had vehemently opposed this proposal on two grounds. 

First, it was a very bad idea. 

Second, Council was attempting to amend the City’s Zoning Code without seeking the guidance of the City’s Planning Commission as required by the Zoning Code. 

1:31:00 Council welcomes the City’s new Director of Permits and Inspection. 

1:31:20 Council votes to adjourn the meeting. 

The video continues to run until 1:34:12 capturing post meeting activities. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

September 12, 2016 - North Canton City Council Meeting

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 meeting held on Monday, September 12, 2016.

https://youtu.be/4xrVSyS9-8k

 

 

Description of Video:

September 12, 2016 – North Canton City Council meeting lasting approximately one hour and fifty-three minutes.
 

          The video begins as Council members return to their seats after a one hour Executive Session that began at 6:00 p.m.
 

Executive Sessions are held behind closed doors and not open to the public, thus, no video recording is available. 
 

1:50 Council President Peters calls for a motion and a second to adjourn out of the Executive Session and notes that Councilmember Stephanie Werren joined the Executive Session in progress and that no action was taken.  
 

According to the Council agenda, the purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss the employment of a public employee and to confer with the Director of Law concerning a dispute involving the City that is the subject of imminent court action. 
 

The agenda for the September 12, 2016, Council meeting can be found using the following Link: 
 

http://northcantonohio.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/September-12-2016-North-Canton-City-Council-Agenda.pdf 
 

2:25 Peters calls the North Canton City Council meeting to order. An opening prayer is given by Pastor Walter Poe and followed with the Pledge of Allegiance. 
 

4:20 The Clerk of Council calls roll and all Council members answer roll except Councilmember Dan Griffith. 
 

President Peters asks for a motion and a second to vote to excuse Mr. Griffith. This is Councilmember Griffith’s third absence this year. Mr. Griffith has also failed to attend meetings of Council for May 9, 2016, and June 13, 2016. 
 

I believe Councilmember attendance at meetings is quite important. In the last few years, failure to attend Council meetings is being abused. A few years ago, this abuse became quite obvious when Councilmember Marcia Kiesling was repeatedly absent. Analysis of Mrs. Kiesling’s attendance in that time period showed she was absent from nearly 30-percent of all meetings of Council. 
 

For this reason, I further divert a moment to report Councilmember attendance at North Canton City Council meetings. 
 

I should note here that, historically, City Council has met four times a month. The legislative schedule, according to the Rules of Council, calls for the Council of the Whole (working session) to meet on the First and Third Monday of the month and for Council to meet for legislative sessions on the Second and Fourth Monday of each month.  
 

This legislative process has been followed since North Canton became a City in 1961, fifty-five years ago. 
 

Unfortunately, the current membership on City Council, along with the support of Law Director Tim Fox, have cut the number of Council meetings down to two meetings per month, and on some occasions, only one Council meeting. 
 

Consequently, failure to attend a meeting of Council could result in weeks, or maybe months, between Council meetings for a member of Council who might miss a meeting. 
 

A perfect example of this is Councilmember Marcia Kiesling. Last night, Mrs. Kiesling made her first appearance in NINE WEEKS at City Hall. 
 

An explanation is as follows: 
 

Earlier this summer, City Council held its last meeting before the summer recess on Monday, July 11, 2016. Councilmember Kiesling was in attendance at this meeting.
 

Council ended its summer recess on Monday, August 22, 2016, six weeks after its last meeting. Councilmember Kiesling was not in attendance at this meeting. 
 

City Council did not hold another meeting until three weeks later on Monday, September 12, 2016. 
 

Thus, NINE WEEKS had elapsed between Council meetings attended by Mrs. Kiesling. 
 

And I guess to be fair; I should point out that the remaining six members of North Canton City Council attended only one meeting over the same NINE WEEKS. 
 

In case anyone is curious, there is no interruption in the $600.00 paid monthly to City Council members. 
 

North Canton City Councilmembers get paid even when there are no meetings.  
 

In recent years Council has cut back on the number of weekly meetings. And when they fail to attend meetings under this reduced schedule, they continue to receive a paycheck. 
 

Perhaps this is North Canton’s “welfare system” for elected officials.
 

Mrs. Kiesling’s failure to attend scheduled meetings of City Council is not her only shortcoming.
 

After Council had returned from their six-week recess and after Council had held their first meeting on August 22, 2016, there was a September 7, 2016, meeting of City’s Planning Commission which by City Charter and City Zoning Code (Ordinance 1171.03) Mrs. Kiesling is required to attend.
 

Mrs. Kiesling failed to attend this meeting as well. Mrs. Kiesling attendance at the high school girls’ soccer game held September 7, 2016, has been documented so there is no denial of her attendance at the game. 
 

Councilmember Kiesling failed to attend Council’s first meeting back after last summer’s recess, again taking a NINE WEEK break for herself and collecting $600.00 per month while doing it. 
 

In 2015, City Council’s last meeting before summer break was held on July 13, 2015, at which Mrs. Kiesling was present. Mrs. Kiesling was absent when Council returned from their seven-week summer break on August 31, 2015.  
 

Mrs. Kiesling did not appear at a Council meeting until September 14, 2015, NINE WEEKS later. 
 

I believe Mrs. Kiesling is taking public funds under false pretenses.  
 

Perhaps citizens and taxpayers of North Canton should come to a City Council meeting and address this issue publicly with Mrs. Kiesling? 
 

5:30 Council President Peters calls for Recognition of Visitors. This is also referred to as “Public Speaks.” 
 

Mr. Peters dispensed with his usual admonitions to prospective speakers tonight. I would suspect this was because Martin Olson, author of the Stark County Political Report (SCPR), was present at the meeting.  
 

There are eight speakers who addressed members of Council. 
 

5:40 City resident and former North Canton Mayor/former City Council President Daryl Revoldt is the first speaker. 
 

Mr. Revoldt makes a request that Council table a scheduled vote on Ordinance No. 52-2016 to allow time to more closely study CRA legislation from other municipalities which he provided to Council. 
 

8:40 City resident Miriam Baughman is the second speaker. 
 

Mrs. Baughman points out to Council that the scheduled vote for Ordinance No. 49-2016 has not followed the City ordinances regarding amendments to the City’s Zoning Code. 
 

16:05 City resident Glenn Saylor is the third speaker. 
 

Mr. Saylor outlines to Council why the CRA property tax of nearly $1.0 million given to the developers of the forty-unit apartment complex called North Ridge Place is illegal. 
 

21:35 City resident name unknown (residing at 638 Portage Street) is the fourth speaker. This resident asks Council about the feasibility of naming a street that runs behind her residence that apparently has no formal name. 
 

Despite the oft-repeated rule that City officials will not engage speakers who speak at Public Speaks, Councilmembers and the Mayor enter into a running commentary with several residents at the podium during their remarks to Council. 
 

24:45 City resident Melanie Roll is the fifth speaker. 
 

Mrs. Roll speaks to the illegal property tax abatement given to the owners of North Ridge Place. Mrs. Roll also questions Council’s true intentions regarding Ordinance No. 52-2016, that is on the agenda for its 1^st Reading. 
 

It is interesting to note that at the conclusion of remarks made by Mrs. Roll, Council President Peters states the CRA ordinances passed by North Canton City Council in 2009 and 2010 (specifically, Ordinance No. 5-2010 and Ordinance No. 107-2009) were never certified by the state. 
 

Law Director Tim Fox repeats these remarks later in the meeting at 50:05 minutes. 
 

As a consequence, in addition to incorrect and inaccurate statements made on the application for the abatement of property taxes for North Ridge by the City’s former Housing Officer, Mr. Eric Bowles, we now know that Ohio’s Department of Development had never certified the CRA program under ordinances passed years earlier. 
 

Ordinance No. 52-2016 that was up for its 1^st Reading tonight seeks to repeal ordinances passed six and seven years ago, respectively Ordinance No. 5-2010 and Ordinance No. 107-2009 and then revive three ordinance that were passed twelve, seventeen, and sixteen years ago, respectively Ordinance No. 71-04, Ordinance No. 22-1999, and Ordinance No. 106-2000. 
 

Many of these ordinances have been superseded by successive ordinances over the years.  The older ordinances limited property tax abatements to remodeling only and not for new construction. 
 

Tonight, under Ordinance No. 52-2016, Council is attempting to include new construction as eligible for tax abatements to ordinances passed as far back as seventeen years ago for one ordinance, sixteen years ago for a second ordinance and twelve years ago for a third ordinance. 
 

This legislation reminds me of an old quote that says, "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."  
 

The proposed legislation (Ordinance No. 52-2016) which many residents as well as North Canton’s former Mayor opposes is indeed a convoluted twisted mess. 
 

27:35 In response to a question posed by Councilmember Werren, Mrs. Roll is allowed to return to the podium to state her concerns that new construction should not be allowed to qualify for property tax abatements as they siphon tax dollars from the schools. 
 

Council President Peters then responds to Mrs. Roll’s concerns at 28:05 and says “…We [Council] are opposed to new residential…that is not what the CRA was intended for….”
 

Mr. Peters must think that North Canton citizens cannot read as Ordinance No. 52-2016, uses language, such as new construction, new housing, commencement of construction, completion of construction, new structures, or simply the word construction on ten occasions in Ordinance No. 52-2016. 
 

What Mr. Peters states is Council’s intent, and the legislation that Council proposes differs entirely. 
 

Council President Peters is intentionally misleading the citizens of North Canton, and City residents who have closely followed this issue since April of this year are totally fed up. 
 

North Canton City Council has been totally disingenuous to the point of deceitful on the CRA issue.  
 

The proposed language for Ordinance No. 52-2016 can be found using the Link to the meeting agenda provided earlier in this video description.
 

29:25 Former Mayor Daryl Revoldt returns to the podium to point out that in a Commercial CRA abatement, the collection of income taxes helps offset the loss of the abated property taxes whereas in a residential CRA abatement, no taxes are collected that are needed to support the schools and finance City operations.
 

30:50 City resident living at 373 Pershing Avenue, NE is the fifth speaker. 
 

The resident brought to the attention of Council that he observed that the traffic signal lights at the intersection of Portage Street and Frank Avenue were not easy to identify when approaching from east to west. 
 

33:55 City resident Sue Platt is the sixth speaker. 
 

Mrs. Platt questions why Council is voting on the CRA legislation (Ordinance No. 52-2016) when it does not have the required map which illustrates the coverage area for the CRA legislation and delineated in the legislation as Exhibit A.   
 

Councilmember Kiesling acknowledges that Council does not have Exhibit A and then dismisses Mrs. Platt’s concerns that Council does not have all the information related to Ordinance No. 52-2016 before voting. 
 

35:20 Former Councilmember and City resident Chuck Osborne is the seventh speaker. 
 

I addressed many of the remarks made by earlier speakers regarding the following: 
 

·       Proposed CRA legislation which attempts to introduce property tax abatements for new construction which is patently unfair to all residents who pay their fair share of taxes and also devastating to City schools.  
 

·       Attempts by Council to amend the City’s Zoning Code without following due process as the code requires. 

 

 

In summary, for residents who are unaware of the

 



          City Council has totally abandoned all established legislative process and curtailed the number of nights that City Council meets each month. 
 

          My remarks to Council were a little too passionate this evening but that is how many of us feel with the actions of City Council and the City’s out-of-control Law Director, Tim Fox. 
 

          41:10 City resident Larry Tripp is the eighth and last speaker at Public Speaks. 
 

          Mr. Tripp speaks in opposition to the proposed legislation (Ordinance No. 49-2016) which will allow homeowners to convert up to forty percent of their front yard for the parking of automobiles. 
 

          This amendment to the City’s Zoning Code has not been reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission as required by City ordinances. 
 

There has been no Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and no recommendation from the Commission.
 

          There also has been no Public Hearing before City Council as required by the City’s Zoning Code. 
 

          North Canton City Council has abandoned compliance with the very laws they have passed and that are expected to follow. 
 

          44:00 The legislative portion of the meeting now begins. 
 

          45:50 Council President Peters asks for a motion to table Ordinance No. 49-2016.
 

          Residents at this and previous Council meetings have repeatedly alerted Council that this proposed amendment of the City’s Zoning  Code has not followed requirements set out in Chapter 1181 for amending the City’s Zoning Code. 
 

          If Council complies with the very laws on the books, the two previous readings are null and void and Council will have to begin after this issue goes before the City’s Planning Commission and a recommendation is rendered to City Council. 
 

          46:15 Council President Peters calls for a motion and a second to read Ordinance No. 52-2016. 
 

          Despite the recommendations of former Mayor Daryl Revoldt to table the legislation and despite the pleas of City residents who are vigorously opposed to the CRA legislation, Council moved ahead with its 1^st Reading on the legislation.
 

          49:20 Prior to the Council vote on the CRA legislation, Law Director Fox speaks at length regarding past and present CRA legislation, concluding his remarks at 58:50.  
 

Mr. Fox tells Council at 50:05 that there is no record that Ordinance No. 5-2010 and Ordinance No. 107-2009 apparently were ever certified by the Ohio Department of Development. 
 

50:40 Law Director Fox comes right out and states that a CRA must have a certification from the state [Ohio Department of Development] before a tax abatement can be issued. 
 

WOW!  
 

What a mess! 
 

In addition to the fact that the application for the abatement of property taxes for North Ridge Place, amounting to nearly One Million dollars, was totally flawed, we now are told that the North Canton Ordinance on which the abatement was predicated was never certified by the Ohio Department of Development. 
 

Why won’t City officials rescind a totally flawed illegal abatement that was given to a multi-millionaire that is financially detrimental to the North Canton City Schools? 
 

Why aren’t North Canton City School officials stepping up on this issue?  
 

No school district anywhere can survive when property tax abatements are given for new construction. Period!
 

51:20 Law Director Fox continues explaining the mess that the City has found itself mired in stating that prior abatements could be deemed invalid. 
 

52:20 Law Director Fox acknowledges that there is a problem with the North Ridge Place CRA in that new construction is not identified as qualifying for a property tax abatement under current CRA legislation.
 

54:00 The advice given by Mr. Fox that by state statute only the Housing Officer can authorize tax abatements is misleading. As a community that has chosen to be governed under “Home Rule,” North Canton can tailor laws, given to it by the state legislature, as it sees fit. 
 

No one individual behind closed doors should be allowed to give tax abatements.
 

56:55 Mr. Fox states “…we know it’s clear that we only have authority to grant the abatement for which we have the certification for….”
 

Law Director Tim Fox concludes his remarks regarding the CRA legislation at 58:50. 
 

Council then approves the 1^st Reading of Ordinance No. 52-2016. Eleven additional pieces of legislation receive their first reading with all except one passed invoking the emergency clause. 
 

1:27:15 The legislative portion of the meeting concludes and Council reports begin. At this point, city officials seated at the dais are given time to present remarks on any subject of their choosing. 
 

As City Officials make comments, one might notice the absence of the City’s new Finance Director, Laura Brown. 
 

I was told at the conclusion of the meeting that Ms. Brown is on a two-week vacation. 
 

Ms. Brown started as the City’s new Finance Director on August 1, 2016. With only four weeks on the job, and just learning her way around the office and the new faces of her staff, and now she is gone for two weeks. 
 

This is something I have never seen before. 
 

         Recent changes to the City’s vacation policy for exempt employees states:
 

“The appointing authority may grant up to four weeks of vacation for the positions of Director of Administration, Director of Finance, Deputy Director of Finance, City Engineer, Director of Economic Development, and Department Chief or Superintendent.” 

 

          Will the City’s new Director of Economic Development, Mr. Gary Fry, who began his employment sometime around September 5, 2016, also be given four weeks of vacation for his three months of employment this year? 
 

This would effectively result in him working less than three weeks of each month of the remaining three months he is employed this year. 
 

City Council has stated that the starting salary for Mr. Fry will be $83,000 annually. Mr. Fry’s starting salary is approximately $17,600 more than was paid to the outgoing Mr. Eric Bowles who held that position for eleven years.  
 

          Big salaries and long vacations are great, courtesy of politicians who find it easy to spend other people’s money. 
 

Inflated salaries and long vacations will pay for a lot of loyalty to Mayor Held who asked Council for the increased compensation for his new hire. 
 

Mayor Held never advertised the position filled by Mr. Fry. 
 

Based on public remarks made by Mayor Held, no other individuals were considered or interviewed for the position of Director of Economic Development/ Director of Permits and Inspection. 
        

1:52:48 The meeting exceeds the memory capacity of the camera and the video ends prematurely at this point. 
 

This was just moments before the Council meeting was adjourned. 

 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne