|
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, February 5, 2007. We have in attendance with us this evening: Auditor Hamit, Law Director Stergios, Engineer Dylewski and Community Development Director Aaby. On the wall to your left are agendas for anyone who wishes to follow the meeting. Also under item #5 on the agenda is where the public can speak on any item that appears on the agenda and then under item #17 is where the public can speak on any item that does not appear on the agenda. I d also like to remind anyone with a cell phone please turn it off or turn it very far down. 1. ROLL CALL Roll call for the evening found the following Council Members present: Tim Bryan, Kathy Catazaro-Perry, Jayne Ferrero, Chuck Maier, Ron Mang, Paul Manson, Dave McCune, Donnie Peters and Tony Townsend. Thus giving a roll call vote of 9 present. 2. INVOCATION COUNCILMAN MANSON – Gave the invocation for tonight. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILMAN MANSON – Led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. READING OF THE JOURNAL COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Madame Clerk are the minutes of the previous meeting transcribed and open for public viewing (THEY ARE) Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes. If not the minutes stand approved as written. 5. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS ON THE AGENDA COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO As you all know there was just a recent merger of Massillon Community Hospital with Doctors Hospital. Although that’s all been in the works the city was asked to appoint two non-voting board members to their board of trustees. Those two people are Tom Seesan and Dr. Charles Paquelet. They had asked if they could come to council and just give us a brief overview of what’s going on with the merge between the two hospitals. Of course, we wanted to grant them that privilege. So Dr. Charles Paquelet is with us this evening and we welcome you and if you’ll come to the microphone. Thank you. DR CHARLES PAQUELET – You all have received a letter from Mr. Seesan and myself concerning the activities of this merger during the past year. Basically, I’m here to answer any questions you might have concerning that report. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I just a comment. Dr. Paquelet, I met with the CEO Mike Reichfield and Ray Martinez so the reason I don’t have any questions for you tonight is they had a nice 1.5 hour talk with me about things that were going on and the different changes that they were making and I think its all very positive for our community. So I’m very, very comfortable now with going forward with the merger. DR CHARLES PAQUELET – Well, the points and the report are that this hospital board functions primarily in an advisory capacity. There’s been basically two decisions made 1) has to do with the naming of the hospital, 2) the other has to do with which of the two hospitals would be acute care and which one would be chronic care. Both of those decisions have been made on a corporate level. Really this board of trustees has nothing to do with either one of those decisions. It’s a business and that’s the way its going to be run. You may or may not know but today Triad is just been involved in a leverage buy out for $4.7 billion dollars by Goldman Sachs and another holding company. So we’re likely to have a change at the top. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Would you see that change at the top have any affect on the plan as its laid out now? DR CHARLES PAQUELET – Well, I have a little trouble predicting the future you know. I, but its another variable. We no longer have control of the hospital in our town that’s the message. COUNCILMAN MANG Dr. Paquelet, basically what does this board then what do they control or what do they, are they, do they have any control or are they just in an advisory capacity? DR CHARLES PAQUELET – Well, the board of trustees functions primarily on a house keeping purposes things like credentialing in medically staff and setting policy and procedure for day to day operations. But the big decisions as to what’s done in which hospital and what’s built and what’s not built that sort of thing. Those decisions are going to be made on a corporate level which stands to reason if it’s a company. COUNCILMAN MANG But that’s nothing that we’re not accustomed to. That’s not something that we’re accustomed to. Normally, before was that the case of the community hospital their board of trustees that they acted in the same behalf or? DR CHARLES PAQUELET – It’s not a community hospital, it’s a business, it changed. For fellows like me it’s a little difficult to accept. But that’s the way it is. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO Well, the things that I’ve been reading in the paper it’s been more positive that what I’m hearing right now. So is your personal feeling that they’re not going to go forward and build another facility? Isn’t that what I had read? DR CHARLES PAQUELET – Well, I don’t know. I know that Triad as a company from investment purposes was on a high risk hold category. So if you’re going to buy stock it was in a high risk category and that’s before this leverage buyout. So what that’s going to do I don’t know. But this merger as we see it you know one of three things are going to happen 1) it’s going to be a smashing success and we’ll have a new hospital, 2) will be a dismal failure and it will be sold for 50 cents on the dollar or, 3) it will limp along like Hoover and Republic Steel and you know other businesses. I’m not here to predict which one I can’t tell you. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Dr. Paquelet, did this just happen this buyout? Is this just within the last 48… (This afternoon) this afternoon, okay. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Dr. Paquelet, you weren’t on any board when Akron General was involved with the Massillon Community (No). But I think even then which is prior to the merger Akron General was also making a lot of the decisions as to what happen in Massillon Community. So you’re right I agree with you its no longer the decision making is not local any longer. But I think that kind of happened back when Akron General acquired Massillon Community too. Would you say or am I wrong about that? DR CHARLES PAQUELET – Well, its kind of like how we got into the Iraq war I don’t think it makes any difference here we are. 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 14 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Authorizing the Mayor to enter into an amended agreement between the city and Wilmington Capital LLC und the Enterprise Zone Agreement. COUNCILMAN MANG In 2003, the city approved an Enterprise Zone Tax Abatement with C.L. Webster Properties LLC for the construction of a 15,000 square foot field service center for the United States Department of Agricultural. This facility is located at 2650 Richville Drive SE. Today this houses three U.S.D.A. agencies including the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Development as well as the Stark Soil and Water Conservation. The city was recently notified by CL Webster Properties LLC that they have conveyed this property to a new owner Wilmington Capital LLC. What this means is council now has to approve a new agreement which doesn’t affect the Enterprise Zone, but it does affect the signature in the relationship to the owner. So we’re asking for council to do is to amend the agreement changing the name from Webster Properties LLC to Wilmington Capital LLC. Since this seems to be a legal formality I’m going to ask council to consider suspending the rules and bringing this piece of legislation forward for question of its passage. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, if I might I have a question. Quite often when we transfer these tax abatement agreements its because the company itself has changed its name or made some other legal change even though its remaining the same principles. This sounds as though its an entirely new company that we’re transferring the tax abatement to; is that correct? COUNCILMAN MANG No, the tax abatement remains the same; it was a five year tax abatement for 50%. The tax abatement started in the year 2003 it still has until 2008. So the tax abatement goes back to the original date there’s no extension. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - My question is these are new owners in effect this is not just a name change these are new owners. COUNCILMAN MANG No, they’re new owners of the property, yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Okay. COUNCILMAN BRYAN For purposes of clarification could I ask Mr. Aaby to come to the microphone? Aane, the building and the land changed hands is that what we’re looking at here. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – Yes, the owner of the real estate. COUNCILMAN BRYAN The real estate changed. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – Sold to a new LLC. COUNCILMAN BRYAN The business is the same business, but the same ownership. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – Is still there. The Stark County Auditor will not allow the new owner to take the tax abatement without the consent of the city. That’s in our original agreement that it requires the approval of the city in order to consent to the assignment of the abatement to the new owners. COUNCILMAN BRYAN So, we have the, the reason we gave the abatement to begin with was so that we could get the development and the new jobs and the business. What’s the reason that we agreed to the transfer I guess is what council has to satisfy itself to. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – The original, I think the reason for the abatement was so that you could provide favorable lease terms to the tenant. They felt I think they had a five year lease so they wanted a five year abatement. So the new owners bought it and I’m sure its their understanding that they would like to have that abatement because I’m sure they already got the lease arrangements in place. But it would enable them to you know just take over the real estate as it was operating. COUNCILMAN MANG The reason for the legislation I mean it doesn’t change the reason for the abatement. The abatement still stands as required in 2003, as Aane states we’re talking about a change in ownership not a change in the abatement. Matter-of-fact, the abatement is still dated as 2003 and still has a five year limitation on the 50% property. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – I think if they had a mistake they probably should have gotten the consent to the assignment before they completed the purchase of the property. They knew we were going to agree to it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - I think that’s rather the point I was trying to make. It’s almost like the carts before the horse in this case. But as you say, the business stays the same it has one year to go. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 14 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 15 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Authorizing Mayor to enter a contract with Stark County Regional Planning Commission for housing rehab services in the city. COUNCILMAN MANG The city wishes to continue its contract with Stark Regional Planning Commission. Stark Regional Planning Commission has helped in many times in implementing in the various federally funded housing rehab programs. This service is payable under the city’s Community Development Block Grant Program, CDBG Program. Last year, in the calendar year 2006 the city’s housing department paid 45 rehab projects assisting lower income owners in the maintenance of their dwellings. The Stark Regional Planning Commission contract is up for renewal and I’m asking council to consider authorizing to reenter into a new contract with Stark Rehab Planning for cost not to exceed $15,000. Again, this funding for this contract will be provided from the CDBG fund housing rehab account. If you have questions on this we certainly have Aane here it’s a program that we’ve been utilizing for the last 10 years and the city feels that its something that they need to continue. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 15 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 16 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Rezoning a tract of land from RM – 1 Multiple Family Resident to B – 1 Local Business. The applicant is Andrew Oser. COUNCILMAN MANG This rezoning request is on Lincoln Way East. It’s lots 4328 through 4330; its located on the south side of Lincoln Way East between 21st Street and 22nd Street. It’s presently zoned RM – 1 Multiple Family Residential and the request is to change it to be B – 1 Local Business. The proposal is to construct an 8,000 square foot commercial building on the property. This piece of property is owned by Andrew Oser at the January 10th meeting the city’s Planning Commission recommended denial of this rezoning request. Which means it comes before council if council elects to overturn this it would take seven votes. This property consists of 3 lots which 47,000 square feet in size. The rezoning request is to work with in site real estate which is an Illinois developer and they wish to construct an 8,400 small commercial strip basically for Verizon Wireless stores. Now at the Planning Commission we heard an individual from Verizon who was asked if there were other sites that they had looked at. I believe the gentleman said that they had look somewhere in the 40’s, 44 – 45 different sites located just in immediate area and did not find a site that they wish to put their building on. It got more direct and asked if there is a site that they would wish to build this on and they said at this time the only site that they wish to build this Verizon site on is the site that they’re asking for to be rezoned. At that public hearing we probably had 20 – 24 people and the 24 people were here that were here were council would recognize these people they’ve been here to other rezoning on Lincoln Way and they stressed the same thing that they wish that piece of property remain multi family. They wish that if it’s going to be built they wish it would be developed as it is zoned. They are definitely opposed to any commercial construction on this site as they expressed on previous sites. They indicated that they had signatures I’m not sure of how many it was also indicated that Oser had a number of signatures. It was requested when we talked about this at a work session if we could have a copy of the addresses that would be receiving a letter from city advising them of this rezoning request. So the Council Clerk has provided all council members of list of people who will be receiving a letter from city council. This will have its first reading tonight, public hearing will be scheduled on March 5th at 7:00pm. ORDINANCE NO. 16 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 17 2007 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE Authorizing Safety Service Director to enter a Mutual Agreement for technical services between the city and Stark County Soil and Water Conservation District. COUNCILMAN MANSON We had considerable discussion about this at the committee meeting last Monday. This is a service, the service is not mandated but the what the service will provide is mandated by the State of Ohio. Any time we have a earth moving project its going to affect one acre of land or less than one acre of land if its part of a larger development its going to have to be looked at and approved. We have the engineer here he has worked on this agreement and he has worked with the people from Stark Soil and Water and if there’s any questions we can get him up there and he can answer the questions. I believe we have 29 projects last year that were reviewed by Stark Soil and Water. It just goes to show the amount of the development that’s going on in Massillon right now. We had more than I think any other city in the county I believe. So anybody have any questions; if not I was going to bring this forward tonight. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Mr. Manson, as you know I was ill last Monday night for the work session. This is just to tap into their knowledge and discuss issues throughout our city for different projects that we’re doing? COUNCILMAN MANSON Like I said, any time we have a development and they’re going to be rearranging dirt more than one acre, Stark Soil and Water Management has to review these plans. It has to be reviewed and approved you can’t just go in buy a piece of property for development and just start moving dirt around. It has to be approved how you’re going to rearrange that. So that is a service that they provide to us they not only review the plans but they come back and follow up on it the on site inspections I believe I may be speaking out of line. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY And the $3,500 per year would be coming out of the engineering budget is that correct? COUNCILMAN MANSON It could come out of salaries and services in the engineer budget or it could probably come out of the surface water through the Wastewater Treatment. We’re also required to you know handle all surface water storm sewer water. So it could really come I guess a couple other different places. COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 17 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 18 2007 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE Authorizing Safety Service Director to advertise for and receive sealed bids and enter into contract with the lowest and best bidder for the Harsh Avenue Sanitary Sewer Relocation Project. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, this is another ordinance we had a lot of discussion about we had a presentation by the mayor and the superintendent of the schools last week. I’m fully in support of it but I think I’m going to just give this first reading tonight in case there’s any other questions by some people that they’d like to ask next Monday night. ORDINANCE NO. 18 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 19 2007 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE Authorizing Safety Service Director to advertise for and receive sealed bids and enter into contract with the lowest and best bidder for sewer sludge removal and disposal at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, it’s pretty much self explanatory. We go out to the lowest and best bidder we do this annually. If there’s any questions maybe our engineer can help us out if anybody has any questions. If not I intend to move this forward tonight. COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 19 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 20 2007 BY: RULES, COURTS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE Accepting minimum rage increases at the Parks and Rec. Department due to new law passed in the State of Ohio. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND Last week we were provided some details relative to Ordinance No. 20 and due to the new Ohio minimum wage increase the Parks and Rec. Department has to adjust their pay rate to adhere to the new minimum wage law. For example, the current laborer I position at an entry level is currently making $5.15 an hour with the passage of the new minimum wage law that same laborer will be making $6.85. Also the individuals who are making a little bit more than minimum wage their pay scale will be adjusted as well. To my understanding it will cost the department I think roughly around $25,000. I tried to contact Mr. Kaminski today, but he wasn’t in his office. But to my understanding this is what Ordinance No. 20 is about. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 20 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 21 2007 BY: RULES, COURTS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE Authorize city to “pick up” percentage of the statutorily required contribution to the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio for certain employees. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND Last week at our work session Mr. Hamit the city auditor explained Ordinance No. 21 to us. The ordinance is very similar to Ordinance No. 10, the ordinance we passed on Tuesday, January 16th. January 16th that ordinance dealt with the AFSCME contract and this particular ordinance is dealing with the ACUE contract. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 21 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 22 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY Accepting replatting of Lot 10213 and Out Lot 206, located on the west side of 32nd Street NW, north of Lincoln Way West. COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, we did not discuss this at the work session on Monday because there wasn’t anybody here to discuss it with. I want to kind of clear this up, but I’ll ask Aane Aaby to come up and explain it real quick. It’s just a standard replat and dedication and then we can get this off the… COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – This request went to the Planning Commission at their January meeting. It’s property on 32nd Street it’s two lots that the owner wishes to combine into one. The way the property description is the property lines goes to the center line of existing 32nd Street. So when the Planning Commission approves the replat that part is done, but the dedication of that portion of their property which is really right-of-way comes before city council to accept that. It’s really more of a housekeeping type procedure. There isn’t really any new right-of-way being created. COUNCILMAN BRYAN So the replat was already approved; is that what you’re saying? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – Yes, but the dedication is under council’s authorities to approve that. COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 22 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 23 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY Vacating a portion of certain public alley located on Oak Avenue SE. The applicant was Floyd Barnhart. COUNCILMAN PETERS We all remember this don’t we? At the work session on Monday I drew a nice masterpiece and somebody gave me a “D” on it, but I thought I deserved better. I gave an in depth explanation of why I did not want to pass this. The Planning Commission recommended approval on June 14th I don’t feel that they might have looked at this as closely as they could have. I did look at it very closely. So I’m going to ask if there aren’t any questions, Kathy. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY – Did you say June 14th? COUNCILMAN PETERS Yeah, when I investigate something I go all out. It took me that long, I mean I took the ward councilman there, I’ve asked Mr. Manson he’s look at it and several other people. We’re all in agreement on that part of it. COUNCILMAN MAIERS Yes, it’s my understanding that this would actually land lock some people if we vacate this alley. Is that correct? COUNCILMAN PETERS It could. COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Now if I can you’re looking for a yes vote on suspension and you’re recommending a no vote on the ordinance as chairman. Is that correct? COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, sir. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Alright. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 23 – 2007 WAS DEFEATED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 NO. ORDINANCE NO. 24 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Authorizing the Mayor to accept the Domestic Violence Prosecutor Grant so the city will continue to have a prosecutor specifically for domestic violence cases. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This grant we would like to accept this evening for $29,000 and then our share would be $9,666.66. If there’s any questions we’ll have those answered the law director is here. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 24 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 25 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the Capital Improvement Fund and the Parks and Rec. Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Ordinance No. 25 talks about appropriating money from the unappropriated balance of the Capital Improvement Fund; we talked about that and we passed an ordinance saying that we would not do this prior to June. But these items here that we’re going to pass this evening are items that we already committed to. So it’s not like we’re going back on our word or on our vote. These are items we have to pay for anyway this year. $51,500 is for lease/purchases of fire truck, $30,012 is for the lease/purchase of police cruisers, $19,780 is for street department capital improvement equipment which is our street sweeper and $17,397 is also for two cruisers that we’re leasing. Section 2, talks about appropriating money from the Parks and Rec. Fund and these dollars are for our payment for the state hospital property. That amount is $38,567.41. If there are any questions I’ll be happy to answer those or our auditor is here as well. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I actually have a question for our law director. Mr. Stergios, section 2 is a payment for the land there where the Park and Rec. maintenance building is (correct) There was a deal brewing last year are we still working on that or have you…. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – The deal is still brewing. Yes, we are when I talked with Mr. Francis mid December he knows that it is still in the works and is still interested in at this point we are going I thought the surveyor had already been out there, but apparently that was a miscommunication. The surveyor had never been there for this parcel even though I think we were both otherwise he had been there for that adjacent parcel where we sold the piece for the First Energy substation. You might recall that and somehow they got their wires crossed and he had never been there on this one. So we’re doing that and making the minor changes to the lease itself. COUNCILMAN BRYAN So there is work in progress on this. I’m glad I asked you because people were beginning to ask me if we had just dropped the ball on this. So we are getting a survey done and then you’re going to revise the lease and get it back to the CIC is that the next step? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Correct, there were a couple small revisions that Attorney Percival discussed which none of them were objectionable from either side. So hopefully CIC will approve that and then we’d change the payment dates obviously for when the buyer pays us how much. So those will be backed up I imagine. COUNCILMAN BRYAN When do you think we can see something as far as the lease goes? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Well, the lease we could see in a matter of a couple of weeks the survey might take a little longer. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Bryan. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 25 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NOTHING 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS - NOTHING 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS 1. INDEPENDENT – $147.00 COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move that we pay the bills, seconded by Councilman Bryan. Roll call vote of 9 yes to pay the bills. 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY PERMIT REPORT FOR JANUARY 2007. COPY FILE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move that we accept the auditor’s report, seconded by Councilman Peters. 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Committee meetings will be next Monday, February 12th starting at 5:45pm. Do we have any committee reports? RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILMAN MANG I’d like to talk a little bit about the armory. You know the armory is located directly east of the baseball field. Not many people understand that the armory land extends to north approximately half of the parking lot of tiger stadium on the east side. It actually runs up to Oak and Oak Street was that street was vacating for the parking lot. So it’s a large piece of land prior to the city owning the piece of the property was owned by the State of Ohio. The board of education was able to work out a lease arrangement with the State of Ohio for $1.00 and with that they were had the use of the building besides maintaining the building. One of the things that happened at the armory to the east side of the armory was a very wooded area. That wooded area the trees removed it was grated, they installed a parking lot along with a fence and electrical outlets for the buses which provided heat for the oil and installed new lighting. They also improved the parking lot area in the front of the building. North of the building they removed brush, trees and enlarged the parking lot about maybe 30 cars plus parking for motor homes. They also installed new steps from the east side to the parking lot. Maintenance parking lot was even black topped at one time for the band usage along with maintaining the parking lot. Inside the parking lot or inside the building the heating system had to be totally revamped. The heating system in that building was the state of the art and unfortunately the state of the art apparently died by the time the board of education moved into the building. We had to totally revamp the heating systems, hot water heat had to be totally revamped along with the cooling system. In that process, many of the hot and cold water lines had to be replaced along with a new water tank; had to revamp the restrooms, the locker rooms and etc for the band to use. This also became a place for the gymnastics to work and they installed glass around the walls; had to revamp the offices. They also moved to that location the communication for the buses which meant putting in an additional tower up. I bring this all before you because I think there’s been a considerable amount of money that has been spent by the Massillon Board of Education on this building. For those reasons I would wish to that building be given to the Massillon Board of Education with one stipulation when I talked to Mr. Stergios about this stipulation it is basically that in the future any disagreements with this city for whatever it may mean or for whatever is if they pursue those things but we never use the “sue” or “we’re going to court”. All that litigation should be dealt with the good people of the board of education and this council to make sure that there’s no public money ever spent for litigation. I’m not sure how can this can be worded but I think there’s a possibility I’m looking at if it gets to the point where the two sides can not agree that it goes to an arbitration. An arbitration to me would mean getting the presiding judge in the City of Massillon to appoint five citizens of this community to work out the necessary details that again would mean that no tax payer in this city dollars would be used again in litigation between two bodies that depend upon the taxes of the residents of this city. That would be Mang’s fair way of dealing with no cost to the citizens. This is my commentary for tonight, the Mayor expressed his that he wished to sell it to them for a $100,000. I expressed the fact that I thought it should go to an auction, but it is as good as all level headed Germans are they set down and they think about all the things that need to be thought and I present to you my thoughts on the armory. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Thank you, Mr. Mang. We of course, have not had that legislation request yet, but when it comes in it will be in your committee. I’m assuming you’ll make this part of the discussion at that time? COUNCILMAN MANG That is correct. I felt though that I needed to since we had a proposal by the Mayor I felt that I should have a proposal also before this body. COUNCILMAN PETERS I have something new. Recent article in the Repository yesterday kind of bogged us down a little bit on the Tremont Viaduct. I’m speaking on behalf of the streets and highways committee by the way, but I’ve asked Keith to come up tonight to explain a few things where we’re at and so forth on this viaduct. As a lot of you people on council know you know 27th Street wasn’t done in a day either you guys went through some hurdles on that for a couple of years before it was eve finally done and being worked on. That’s kind of where we’re at with the Tremont Viaduct we’re not going to just let this thing die and someone asked Mr. Dylewski to come up and speak to you a little bit about it tonight. You want to tell us about your meeting with the county commissioners and so forth on this? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Yeah, actually it was with the county engineer’s office. It was a plan review meeting that we had the consultant finished the stage 2 plans which is there’s three stages in the design phase that they go through. So they’re in the process of beginning the final plans. So design wise every thing is right on tract. Of course, since this came out of the $500,000 we are going to meet with the county to come up with some alternates to make up this money. Also the final estimate hasn’t been on the bridge, so we might have some leeway there too. COUNCILMAN PETERS And you met with them recently to discuss alternate ways of funding this have you done that yet? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – No, we haven’t met yet. Last week’s meeting was just for the review of the plans and obviously this article came out Sunday. So it wasn’t known at that time. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Just you know so everybody’s on the same page here. Whether they read the Repository yesterday or not part of the funding plan was to get $500,000 or $550,000; I’ve heard two different figures set aside in the federal budget that Councilman Regula was working on. That’s what you’re talking about or that’s what Donnie’s talking about I should have said. The earmark and then all the earmarks have been stripped from the bill so it’s gone right? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – That’s correct. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Okay. COUNCILMAN PETERS But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the money’s not there. I mean they’re just not earmarked anymore. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Dylewski, what does this do to the time schedule for completion? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – I don’t see it compromising that at this time. I mean like I said we’re going to discuss some alternate funding. When the original estimate was done it was you know it wasn’t based on final numbers and facts of the design. So now we’re getting to that point where we can put a more concrete number to it and we think that might be a little less plus there’s some other things that we could see some cost savings in the bridge. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER And you’re still looking at an “08 finish? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – At this point. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright. COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yeah, my question is you know we were following this last year on the earmarks and the approvals. Now we requested this money awfully early we also asked for some more money for the federal avenue pump station; correct? (That’s correct) Which was much later in the year now are we absolutely positive that this was not approved earlier. Is there some chance that you know I realize they are stopping the spending, but Mr. Regula still was on that committee last year when this was requested. (That’s correct) I mean there’s no possibility that we’re going to get it or are we unsure yet. ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Well I don’t think all the facts are in I mean this article came out Sunday, quite a few people were out of the county engineer’s office today I wasn’t able to touch base with them. So… COUNCILMAN MANSON – I would assume anything that they had on proposed for 2007 that Mr. Regula was sheep herding through is probably dead. But like I said this was pretty early in 2006 when we asked for this money and I still would like to be a 100% certain that it is not going to come. ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Yeah, we don’t know at this point. Also you know money is not guaranteed and I think that was known back when this whole process was started. So I don’t it’s not a something that would kill the project by any means. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Keith, I knew that applied for grants for other streets projects. Are there grants that we could look to help fund this that we haven’t… ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Sure, that’s a possibility. I mean there’s OPWC which you could always go get. But you know as Mr. Gamber alluded to that you know would shift the timeframe possibility little bit because those monies usually are not available until July. So those applications that we would have to apply for this year are at the end of summer. So that would be for the following year that money would be available that’s a possibility yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are you finished is there anything else? Mr. Bryan” COUNCILMAN BRYAN Just to be clear on our next council meeting; is it going to be Tuesday the 20th due to the holiday on the 19th? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Committee session’s the 12th, council the 20th. 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR - NOTHING 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 2 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Rezoning from Tuscarawas Township (no zoning) to A – 2 General Agricultural District. Approximately 76 acre parcel located on the west side of Kenyon Avenue NW, south of Wooster Street. The applicant is the City of Massillon. Purpose of rezoning is for the National Resources Conservation Area Parkland. COUNCILMAN MANG Ordinance No. 2 tonight had its third reading also had a public hearing. It was well attended back on May 10th the city Planning Commission recommended approval of this request an it was to bring it from a no zoning from Tuscarawas Township to an A-2 General Agricultural District. The piece of property that we’re talking about is the Cottrill property which is approximately 76 acres of land that’s located on the west side of Kenyon Avenue and south side of Wooster. I think council’s all very much familiar with this. Obviously the opposition is not there the support is there I’m recommending to council adopt this ordinance this evening. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. ORDINANCE NO. 2 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. .SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 11 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY Vacating a portion of a certain public alley located between Tremont Avenue SW and Lincoln Way West running east/west between 6th Street SW and 5th Street SW. COUNCILMAN PETERS Second reading. ORDINANCE NO. 2 – 2007 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. RESOLUTION NO. 1 2007 BY: HEALTH, WELFARE AND BLDG REGULATIONS Authorizing Law Director to enter into professional legal services contract on behalf of the city related to claims against several lead-based paint and lead manufactures in order to remediate the hazards of lead to the city. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO I would like to thank council for your patience and participation in the discussion that we had on the lead based paint for sitting and listening to all the commentary from our presenters. I’m going to be giving this second reading; I have asked our law director to join us at our work session on Monday so that he can give us his legal input and that we can make a decision at our work session how we’re going handle this resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 1 – 2007 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. 16. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS .REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMAN MANSON I move that we adjourn, seconded by all.
|
©Copyright 1998 - present City of Massillon.
All Rights Reserved
Designed and Maintained by Imaging
2000 Web Design