|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, April 3, 2006. We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Cicchinelli, Safety Service Director Loudiana, Auditor Hamit, Community Development Director Aane Aaby, Law Director Stergios, Police Captain Ullum, and Greg McCue from the Engineer’s Office. 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 MAIER led the invocation for the evening. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILMAN MAIER Chairman of the Police and Fire Committee 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 THOMAS ROSS – 1721 10th Street NE, Massillon, Ohio. I come to speak in opposition to Resolution No. 10. If you’ll take a look at 6 and 3 of that resolution. It says that council determines that economic impact will be beneficial to the City of Massillon and its residents. Now that means if you vote for this resolution you personally have determined that it is going to be beneficial to Massillon and its residents. If you’re considering what you’re saying very carefully before you vote. MARK WILHELM I live at 1111 Beaumont Avenue SE. I am replying to remarks of some… (Inaudible) Last week while I watched the tape on television and I saw something on there that wasn’t very nice in my opinion. First of all, when of the people brought up the subject about corruption and they said that they wasn’t applying it to any of you guys here in this room. Well corruption comes from Washington D.C. look at all the stuff we have going on in Washington D.C. today that the Republicans was reported today that the Republicans spend more money than the Democrats ever did. How you (inaudible) when they tell when they get on television and they say “hey we must tighten our belts” that means you know you have to save we have a what 9 trillion dollar debt here. Who is responsible for that debt you know who is responsible for it? The people in Washington D.C. and you know who’s going to get stuck with it you, your grandkids and your great grandkids. Think about it you know like so many people in here last week said you know you don’t get something for nothing. I know that from experience I never hardly had anything you know my whole life and its true I come from an alcoholic family background and that I’m not afraid to admit that. But what I am saying is look what’s going on in Washington D.C. okay. Look what you guys do you guys vote when these people put them in office and you have to pay. You have a job to do we expect you to do it. So I am not for this casino you know why these Republicans don’t make any difference if you’re Republican, Democrat what so ever okay. Mayor, I commend you on your job of bringing business here in Massillon. We needed that very much, but we don’t need a casino. We have too many problems right now and we’re here to try to find out how to solve them. If everybody thinks that this casino is going to solve everybody’s problem. Well I’ve got news for you it’s not going to help. One other thing I want to say too this guy back here Mr. DePietro he got up last week and he made a remark when you know my friend one of my friends was here and he was talking about the corruption. Well, first of all, we have the right to say what we want to say. If he don’t like it they don’t have to show up here. They don’t have to listen. Like I said before you think long and hard what are you going to give your kids and grandkids that 9 trillion dollar debt? Thank you. DIANA RILEY – 815 Lincoln Way East, Apartment 412, Massillon. I don’t want the casino here we have enough problems here. We don’t have money to finish the bridge, the Tremont Bridge. So how can we have spent money to do other things for this casino? We don’t need that here. I want to ask my Councilman Catazaro-Perry. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER This is not a period for questions this is for you to make your comments. DIANA RILEY – Okay, I just wanted all I wanted to do is have her don’t vote for this. Okay, and put it on the ballot I want to put it on ballot in November we don’t want to vote for it tonight. Thank you. WILLIAM VAN VICK – From Parma, Ohio. I see two very grave problems with gambling. One is it is a lie of hope. It is holding out a hope to people that you give me your money and we will you’ll win the big one that ever really comes. They make the money people who gives the money are usually the poor by the way and they lose in the long run. The second lie of it is that of a false savior you win the big one and all your troubles will be over. It never happens that way; people win millions of dollars and they lose their whole life. There’s people who say “well, they drew lots in the bible”, but when they did that they did that to see what God had to give them. In this kind of gambling like in a casino it is people who are out to make money who are promising they will be the ones to solve the people’s problems with the big win. They’re taking the place of God in that. It’s not the same as the lots drawn in the Bible. There’s two ways to live you live to give or you can live to take. It is the people who were dedicated to the leader Jesus who taught them to live to give who made this country great and made Massillon great. It is not the people who live to take. Although our system tolerates those to live to take hoping that they will learn to give because they can make some money maybe they are at least contributing something to society because money is only a record keeping system of how much good you have given to society. How much good is given to society by somebody who simply want to gain money? That’s all the casino wants to do. The only thing they offered to the community is this false hope of the lie that somebody’s going to win the big one and they put out just enough prizes that people become convinced maybe they can. But everybody looses money in the long run and it’s the casino people who get the money. What do they contribute to the society nothing except the false hope? They’re taking the place of God; they’re putting themselves in the place of God to say “they will help everybody out with the big win”. It doesn’t help everybody out because most of the money goes into their pockets. Thank you. RICK FERGUSON – I live at 411 Korman Avenue NE. I’m here not to talk about the moral aspects, but the business aspects of this transaction. Just so you have an understanding of my knowledge in 1997 I was Chief Financial Officer of Arbula Industries who entered into a management contract with the Gold and Hill Pakasa Tribal Nation in Cold Chester Trumbull County Connecticut to develop a casino in Bridgeport, Connecticut. So I’m well aware of the circumstances and necessities and from what I see from this circumstance and my knowledge from the position that I was in. Number one, this tribe is not state recognized, number 2; it’s not federally recognized which is a significant necessity in proceeding forward with any kind of successful adventure in this area. I believe that they’re utilizing Massillon in order to try to support their case for state recognition which will help then support their case for federal recognition in the state; which they are also intending upon looking at 30 other counties. I don’t, I in the process of doing business with the Indians in Connecticut I spent a week at the behest of Chief Drum at Fox wood Resorts and they showed me how they put their entire operation together; which is probably the best of any of the Indian gaming and it’s the largest casino in the whole. They still have problems in the community to some degree. What I see here is that we’re going to have a small casino that’s going to be a market for the addictive gamblers in our area. Just to give you an idea of business is business my management contract with the tribe, they retained 65% and I have it with me I’m not just talking. They retained 65% of the profits; we retained 35% of the profits. We were also responsible to raise up to 400 million dollars for development of infrastructure and building. All of the, all of that was encumbered until the tribe paid the money back. So if the City of Massillon is expected let’s say the casino goes 30 million dollars that means the City of Massillon will receive $600,000 based upon 2%. That’s a minimal amount of money considering what necessitated with respect to infrastructure, clean up site and additional police and everything else that goes along with a project of this type. So I’m just asking the council and everybody here to consider the business aspects of it and what’s best for the business of Massillon. I’m not against any gambling necessarily or making an agreement with an Indian tribe, but I believe based upon you know we need to take a look at the treaties especially the Glenville Treaty and other tribes that may have land claims in this area and may have an idea from proceeding in a little different way and developing these 300 acres into something that is beneficial for the entire community and isolated to some degree from the security stand point. Okay, so it doesn’t affect the local people in downtown. You know, it shouldn’t change the type of lifestyle that the people are use to in Massillon. I lived in New York City for 25 years and I’m back in Massillon, because it’s a lot quieter and it’s a lot nicer and I enjoy the people a lot more. That’s pretty much what I have to say and I hope the council gives consideration to that and leave it open for further negotiations with another tribe or see what is available and what’s been done in those treaties and who has actual land claims that will stand the test of the state and federal recognition. MELANIE ELSAY – I am the Director for Ohio Roundtable we’re located at 11288 Elmeada Drive Strongsville. As a side note I am a resident of Stark County. While I respect the intent of council to step back from the specific agreement proposed by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe in order to become more informed on the issue. I have concerns with the structure and content of the proposed resolution. The first whereas clause is not subjectively based on fact. It states that “whereas as part of a potential settlement of the Eastern Shawnee litigation the tribe has proposed the construction of the casino and entertainment resort situated within the City of Massillon”. There is no land under the jurisdiction of the City of Massillon which is part of tribal litigation within the State of Ohio. In other words, there is no land claim that needs to be settled. Third whereas clause is not subjectively based on fact. It states “whereas the city recognizes that if it enters into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the tribe that such an agreement could result in significant litigation payments to the city. Beyond the ambiguity of the concept of receiving significant litigation payments council members must be aware that whatever portion of the funds that are remitted to the city must be spent in a manner consistent with IGA. If you are under the impression that you’ll have complete control to spend the 1.5 to 2% for projects that don’t offset your cost to the casino project you will be sadly disappointed. More importantly, section 1 of the resolve section expresses support for the proposed construction of the casino. It’s not contingent upon changing the state law the way it’s written. This means that council will be supporting the conduction of games of chances and schemes of chance for profit and activity expressly define and prohibited in the state law Revised Code 2915.02. Section 2 requires council to enter into negotiations with the Eastern Shawnee Tribe to determine the final terms of the agreement. I am not confident that there has been enough time for council members to understand the terms of federal law that will be non-negotiable in the context of that agreement. Another words it’s critical to fully understand the implications of placing land under a sovereign authority of the tribe before you trap yourselves into supporting it. Section 3, acerts that the economic impact of the casino as part of the proposed project will be beneficial to the residents of Massillon. You have formally received testimony from one expert witness brought in by the developers. This minimal amount of information simply is not comprehensive enough to draw conclusions regarding the economic impact of casinos. I would point council members to the editorial published in the Columbus Dispatch just yesterday. It provides some interesting statistics and concludes that quote “the gambling industry is a parasitic industry it doesn’t produce wealth, it plungers it”. I believe council members need more time to understand the economic issues. In conclusion, it troubles me that you are not leaving yourselves any leeway in this decision. The language could state in a way that I think is much more… to becoming more informed. If the be resolved clause would state “the council of the City of Massillon, Ohio shall enter into negotiations with legal representatives of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma with the intent of determining if the final terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement will benefit the residents of Massillon”. Then you would have the flexibility to explore all sides of the issue and truly make an informed decision. Thank you for your time. DARLENE KLINK – 211 15th Street NW, Massillon. Tonight I stand before City Council and our Administrators not as just a voice of one person, but as you saw from the petitions that were before I speak for the voice of 804 people that are residents of Massillon or part of our community surrounding Massillon that really opposed to a casino being built in Massillon. I would hope that as our city officials that you would you take at least into consideration the voice of these people which I do feel is like your obligation as our city council members and for various reasons whether its economic reasons or whatever the reasons they really do not want to see this casino here in Massillon and if you also I would encourage you to continue to do your research looking at Wheeling, West Virginia and the other cities that were mentioned that have casinos now and how they are not the people there are not benefiting from it the residents are not it seems that the poorer people are becoming poorer and only the rich are becoming richer. So please consider don’t take this as the ship that’s coming into Massillon, but it could possibly be a Pandora’s Box that we don’t want to open. Thank you. HERBERT HUFF – I live at 1184 Bradford Road NE, Massillon. I’m a registered voter and I vote regularly. I’d like to see us stick to the facts regarding the proposed casino issue and not just state what we think they are or what we would like for them to be. Last Monday evening in the Independent on page 5 I contributed a statement to a gentleman who’s name I will not name right now saying to city council at the public hearing Massillon already has crime higher than Atlantic City. That simply is not true; I would challenge this gentleman to produce the source of his information because I can produce easily verifiable information that shows that this is not true. It’s information from the HUD state of the city data system based on FBI crime statistics and it tells a completely different story. Crime statistics for 100,000 populations for the year 2003 the latest available show that Atlantic City crime rate far exceeds that of Massillon. In the category of murder – 12.4 to 2.5, rape 56.9 – 33.9, robbery 683.2 versus 85.1, aggravated assault 1732.7 versus 113.2, burglary 1475.4 versus 680.2, motor vehicle theft 406 versus 225., larceny 10134.4 versus 2723.6. Those are the real facts now on side note in 1994 slot machines were first introduced at Mountaineer Resort in Wheeling, West Virginia the same FBI data crime statistics show the following increases in Wheeling’s crime rates from 1992 to 1997; 2 years before the slot machines went in, 3 years after they went in. Here they are: murder increased by 55%, aggravated assault increased by 48%, larceny increased by 95%. Now I have a question for city council rhetorically. Can you blindly ignore these verifiable facts? Okay, I didn’t make this stuff up it’s out there for you to see. Crime is just one of the many reasons why you should vote no on this resolution which includes casino development. I’m not done yet. Okay, I’ll move on I’d like to address one comment to Mr. Ziegler concerning bankruptcies. There was a study recently released that included the following comment “but counter the what the gambling industry claims personal bankruptcies rates are twice as high in counties that have gambling as opposed to counties without legalized gambling. If you think you have a problem now with people coming to you Mr. Ziegler about personal bankruptcies and not being able to pay their taxes you better put a revolving door on your office because its only going to get worse if this casino becomes reality. Thank you. MARK PAUL – 7000 Fohl Road and also a pastor at Emmanuel Christian Church. First of all, I want to tell the council that I don’t envy you your job. It’s a tough decision, but we’ve been praying for you and I know you’re going to hear a lot of statistics about the business aspects and about the financial aspects. I will tell you the only aspect that I think you really ought to focus on is the moral aspect. You’ve just heard a bunch of statistics that all reflect a moral problem when gambling is allowed into an area. It has really has our church and I’m sure as most of the churches in the area that’s the only thing we’re concerned about. The moral issue is the issue that you have to consider. Because that’s the part that affects people’s lives I know the jobs will sound intriguing and all the possibilities of what it can do, but the facts are that it will affect people’s lives in a negative way. We will have more problems than we currently have and I will tell you as a church pastor that’s what we deal with a lot of times is people that have problems. We do our best, but you have an opportunity to keep Massillon a clean, moral city that doesn’t have to deal with these problems. I just would hope and pray that you do that. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Once again, I’d like to thank and commend everyone who came forward this evening to speak. We appreciate it; its always a fine thing to hear the points that the public wishes to make on the various issues. 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 55 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG .We spoke a little bit about this final plat at our work session. We also had the proposer the applicant Ron Duplain come up and spoke. This plot was approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting held in February 8th. The plot would create 45 new lots and include the dedication of 4 new streets. I know with everything that’s been going on with council members this past week I’m not sure how much time you’ve had to think about Ordinance No. 55. But I believe that the Planning Commission has taken upon themselves to look at this pretty thoroughly and pass the approval on to council. Council has questions tonight we do have Mr. Duplain here I’m sure he’d be glad to answer those if not it is my intentions to ask for suspension of rules and bring Ordinance No. 55 – 2006 forward its vote. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Yes, I’d just like to ask where the entrance and exit into this allotment is going to be. Is it going to be just a one exit and entrance and is that going to be off of 27th Street or where’s that going to be at? COUNCILMAN MANG .I think that’s a fair question Tim, I’m looking at the diagram and I only actually see one what appear to be an entrance. But since Mr. Duplain is here I’ll ask him to come up to the microphone and I’m not sure if he has this diagram or not. If you could explain to council where your ingress and egress will be. RON DUPLAIN – 7906 Peachmont Avenue, North Canton. The entrance that you see is on 27th Street that will be the only ingress and egress this was approved by the engineers and also your fire department and your police department. The entrance is wider than normal and then you have the you only have phase I, but it goes around in a circle with three cul-de-sacs and its all designed you know properly for your fire department and your emergency vehicles and the police. That’s what they decided on at the Engineer’s Office. The police actually like it better they feel that its more contained, there’s only one way in and one way out end any type of crime and that’s why we made the entrance bigger just in case something was blocking and the fire department couldn’t get by. They approved it also. COUNCILMAN MANG . You say this was I know the Planning Commission approved this. By approving it I’m sure they had to approve the one entrance. I can’t imagine them not by approving the plat without approving the one entrance. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Mr. Mang, the only reason I bring it up is that it normally our fire department would prefer to have two entrances in case there’s one blocked during an emergency they can still get in. But I understand if it’s wider than normal that may be the solution. COUNCILMAN MANG .I think initially that was one of the questions that council had the very first time this was brought in the public meeting where they discussed this. I think council at that time was very much concerned about only having one entrance as I recall. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, if I could I was chairman of Community Development Committee at the time. We were concerned about the one entrance; in fact we sent a letter to the Administration that indicated the Community Development Committee would like to see two ways in and out and we were told that the entrance that was planned would be a boulevard type entrance. I don’t see the boulevard aspect of that entrance. RON DUPLAIN – In the entrance you see a little it’s for a sign and you know cosmetic purposes. But either side of that is wider than normal and that’s what the Engineering Department came up to alleviate if there would be any problem. Plus 27th Street is wider down there than 27th Street is from Harsh to Lincoln Way. We’ve widened that street also and also they said they would put “no parking” on 27Th Street so they wouldn’t run into a problem. COUNCILMAN MANG .I think what council is having somewhat of a problem with is because we actually just have the plot. We don’t have the map as you have in your hand. What we have here is a little bit different to read. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY That my comment was just what Ron just said that we don’t have the same map that he is looking at. We have something a little different. COUNCILMAN MANG .If you have the map that was passed out to everyone. If you look in the lower left hand corner you’ll see an area there that shows the entrance going into the area. That’s right there by lot #1, right to the we’ll call it east of it you see the opening for the proposed street. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I just have a question on your map it shows that the street goes all the way around and on ours it looks like there’s cul-de-sacs. So which is it? RON DUPLAIN – That is just phase 1 and that’s what they wanted us to do right now was phase I. Then you come into phase 2 and 3 and that becomes the full circle. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Okay, thank you. 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. 55 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 56 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS .Yes, this is an ordinance this replaces our ordinance our previous Ordinance No. 20 that city council that we voted on February 6th of this year. It’s just being reworded because the State of Ohio is changed their practice and now they want us to use their own legislation instead of ours. It’s just I guess a formality. So we’ve already passed it it’s just a wording change. 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. 56 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 57 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS This is a repeat of the last one only this replaces our Ordinance No. 19 that council also passed on February 6th of 2006. 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. 57 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 58 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This ordinance is to create more money available for workers comp this year we did not receive the 20% grant that we normally receive. In section 1, from $47,200.00, section 2, $6,244.00 from the Rec. Fund, section 3, Street Construction M & R Fund $4,707.00 and $756.00, section 4, its from the Solid Waste Fund $3,360.00, from the ADR Fund $1,850.00, from the Waste Management Fund $526.00 and from Parking Enforcement Fund in section 7 $141.00. Section 8, $44.00 from the Enterprise Zone Monitoring Fund and section 9 just says that this will be an emergency measure. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZRO-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. 58 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 59 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I would like to just clarify with our Law Director that we don’t need to rescind the ordinance that we previously passed. I have noticed that it is written down here in section 1 $50,000.00 which we’ve already appropriated that. We’re just appropriating $615.00 more dollars today. So I would like to clarify that if I could with our Law Director. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – The first $50,130.00 has already been appropriated in a prior ordinance. (Yes, sir) Okay, I was not aware of that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Do you have the ordinance number? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I don’t have it handy; I’m sorry. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Why do we not just if you’re going to pass it as an emergency amend it to delete that line right now and just leave the $615.00 remaining; would that be accurate? (Thank you) I’d feel better if we did that then why bother repealing the other one just change that line and knock it out. COUNCILMAN BRYAN As I recall from our work session my memory is not perfect. But I think the $50,130.00 is an appropriation for this year’s payment on the cruisers that we purchased or leased a couple of years ago. The $615.00 is an additional amount for the two cruisers and the two cars that we’re leasing this year because the radios wouldn’t fit in the two cars we were going to get so we decided to go from one car dealer to another and we need another $615.00. If I remember right, these are two separate items and that could be why these two separate account numbers. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Could we take just a moment Mrs. Catazaro-Perry do you have an idea of when we might of done this? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Mr. Bryan, is correct there are two separate ordinances what they did was they put them on one. So we are absolutely fine we do not need to strike that and we signed off on $615.00 and then we also signed off on $50,000.00 I was prepared to have them to be separate and they were put together. So we are absolutely fine we can appropriate both of these at the same time. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZRO-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. 59 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 10 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG .You probably had an opportunity to see this for the very first time this afternoon for you who was able to pick it up on our email the rest of you probably just had an opportunity to see it tonight. So I think at this point I’m sure council members have some questions regarding this. I think we ought to pursue with the questions and we’ll get the Law Director if he would to come up to the microphone chat back and forth and get everything we know of our here on the table. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I think this maybe quite possibly maybe a little bit too committal. I think none of us at least I walked away from here Monday with the impression that none of us are totally comfortable with the Intergovernmental Agreement that we wanted a resolution to express interest but to make no commitments. I have made a couple of notations that I talk to council about prior to the meeting. I’d like to throw those out for consideration. In the 6th whereas “whereas the Council of the City of Massillon supports” I would like for us to consider putting in there instead “whereas the council of the City of Massillon is considering entering into negotiations”. On the next page first paragraph “the council of the City of Massillon hereby expresses interest in the proposed construction does not necessarily support” I don’t think we have enough information yet to support this fully. In the next paragraph “the council of the City of Massillon, Ohio may possibly enter into negotiations with legal representatives of the Shawnee Tribe”. I suggest this only because like I said previously I do not believe we were are in a committal phase here we are still in a due diligence phase and I believe the wording of this puts us in a position where it looks like we support rather than our investigate. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER At this point, Mr. McCune, we’ll take your comments and suggestions and then later after the rest of the people have commented Mr. Mang can decide what to do. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Well I would like to get Perry’s input on this. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I have no objection to changing that language as indicated by Councilman McCune. I thought when it was drafted or tossed about the other day that some of those words might have some impact on various council members that they don’t necessarily want to indicate that they’re quote “supportive or shall enter into negotiations” I also thought I’m not the one who gets to vote on this. So it’s going to be up to them as to whether they want to go that far or change it. So I have no objection to changing it exacting along the lines as you just indicated. I not to be you know act like it’s a big game, but they’re the ones who need this it’s up to you to decide how much you want to give them. How much weight its going to carry is anybody’s guess anyhow. So council members are more comfortable with that type of language that’s fine with me. I mean we can easily amend what’s before us tonight and go with that if that’s what you chose to do. COUNCILMAN MANG . I think what bothers me little bit more than anything is probably section 3. I would be happy if section 3 didn’t really exist I’m concerned about the would be beneficial to the city granted that an awful lot of what we’ve heard about the casino and the money that would possibly be coming to the city certainly sounds like it could be beneficial. But by the same token we don’t really know about our infrastructure, we haven’t had the time to discuss what the infrastructure cost may be to the city. In that sense maybe it would be beneficial and maybe it wouldn’t be. I would be happy if section 3 did not appear I also would support Dave’s comments. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Couple of comments, I made some notes here from some of the statements and input that we got from the public before the meeting. In section 1, I’m sorry in the whereas that was objected to it says “it could result in significant litigation payments to the city and be an economic benefit to the city” and I think that’s all we’re saying is it could. I think most of this language was drafted by you Perry, I know you’re not recommending that we leave anything in or take anything out, but it could. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – That’s why I put could was my recollection at the time; because I don’t know either. COUNCILMAN BRYAN As far as the whereas that Councilman McCune wants to change I think that’s the last one and its “the council supports entering into negotiations to determine the terms of any such agreement” and I think all we’re committing ourselves to there is negotiating not that we will enter into an agreement. Is that the way you would read it Mr. Law Director? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Oh I believe that is true I just can also see the point the someone might say the word support means we’ve already made our determination. I don’t we can enter into negotiations and say we want 25% and the negotiations are going to end pretty quickly. So it’s a play on words I guess of systematic of it all is how you want to interpret that. But it doesn’t hurt us to leave it the way it is; it doesn’t hurt us to change it to what Dave has suggested either. So… COUNCILMAN BRYAN As far as section 3 that Councilman Mang is uncomfortable with I can understand it is kind of strong. It says that the council fully supports the project and expresses its support for the same. I just wonder how important this to the tribe if that language is struck does that take any impact of this resolution away. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I might not be the proper person to ask but I can tell you and I think Attorney Morisset told the ones who were able to be here all Friday morning that I believe one of their intentions is to go ask the federal court for a stay of the briefing schedule to allow them more time to potentially negotiate with it be Lima or us or whoever. From a legal prospective do I think the federal judge cares what Massillon is saying or not saying my guess is the federal judge could care less about whether we indicated our support or not. He’s a federal judge, he doesn’t run for election he’s appointed for life that’s the whole point of some of the federal system he shouldn’t be swayed by the politics of it all and worry about whether he’s going to get re-elected or not. Because he’s there forever and I don’t think he really cares what Massillon says or doesn’t say. So I think section 3 is strong, would have an impact on him I don’t know at the time I wrote this my recollection is that it appeared to me that council was going down the road like a locomotive to sign this Intergovernmental Agreement and I was trying to give us an alternative that I felt was a lot safer and wasn’t as binding for us. So that was about at this point about two weeks that I wrote that and things have seemed to have changed tremendously in the past 10 to 14 days. So again, I can see the point that again section 3 from your perspective may be stronger than what the council members wish it to say. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I would suggest a possibility of putting may where would is and interest in place of support or else as Ron said just striking the entire section. I don’t think we need to send mixed signals to these people; we haven’t committed to anything we have told them that we are interested in going further with our due diligence and we haven’t made a decision whether we’re for or against this at least I haven’t. Now some may have already made their decision but there’s lots of questions that we need answers to and I do not think we need to show a lot of support we need to show a lot interest. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Perry, I just wanted to bring up the fact that in the very beginning the title is says “a resolution expressing the support of the council of the City of Massillon for a proposed casino” and I think that really says that we are in support of it where in fact I agree with Mr. McCune that I’m not there yet. You had suggested that we hire an attorney that is versed in this and I agree I think that we need to take the time to do that and study this fully. I don’t think we need to do anything tonight I think we should table everything and do what we should do as a council and that is spend the money to hire the attorney that can fully understand this Intergovernmental Agreement and I understand this is just a resolution, but this resolution says we support that and I’m not ready to say that. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I think you just said this you know in light of what some of you are saying then maybe that is the best thing it’s just either give this first reading or table it if practical effect is the same and work on some of the language. Again, that’s up to you I don’t know vote on it as is, amend it to water it you know I’d be more inclined to just either give it first reading or table it like Kathy just said if that’s what everyone is inclined to do. COUNCILMAN MANG .Members of council, you’ve heard some of the recommendations by the Law Director there’s some things in here that I’ve expressed that I don’t feel very comfortable with. Dave has expressed them, Kathy has, I’m not really sure how the rest of you feel as to this resolution or the ordinance we have coming up later in the meeting. But for the sake of trying to expedite everything that we’re trying to do this evening I’m going to move that we table this piece of legislation. COUNCILMAN MANG moved to table Resolution No. 10 – 2006 until September 1st, 2006, seconded by Councilwoman Catatzaro-Perry. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I have a question for the Law Director. If we table this during that time frame that Mr. Mang projecting will we be able to put that on a ballot for a vote? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – The Intergovernmental Agreement or the resolution? I’m assuming you mean the actually agreement itself. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – The actual agreement that the people of Massillon can vote whether or not they want the casino or they do not. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I know that President Gamber was checking to see when a special election would be I don’t know if he found out. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I have been in touch with the Board of Elections a primary and a general election which is in May and November is when these types of issues are generally considered. There are special elections that could be held in August and February. This issue is too late for the May ballot it would next be eligible for the August 25th ballot, but it may not be the appropriate item to put on a special election in which case we would have to wait until November. In any event that’s preliminary information I have contacted Jeanette Mullane at the Board of Elections and she will be getting back to me with more information on that. COUNCILMAN PETERS Glenn, the last correspondence I got not to be corrected its August 8th I thought not August 25th was the special election. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I’m sorry August 8th is the time, you’re correct there’s a deadline of May 25th to put something on the August ballot. Mr. Bryan? COUNCILMAN BRYAN Yes, at our meeting Friday, Mr. Morisset the attorney for the tribe said that he wanted to present our resolution in federal court and that was going to be done I believe tomorrow. As part of his argument to try to gain some more time to prepare their case and to work on a settlement. Now I understand that some people don’t think that our agreement or our resolution makes any difference or that you know perhaps it won’t mean anything to the federal judge, but I understand not going forward with the Intergovernmental Agreement because not everybody is comfortable with the terms of it yet and we really haven’t worked on the terms of it yet. I’d like to see us some group of us start working on the terms of the agreement in case that’s what the people of Massillon want or in case that’s what the council passes so that we have a good agreement if it’s passed by council and then sub sequentially by the people that it’s the best agreement that we can get. But I understand that we don’t have that best agreement done yet and that the time was short and that perhaps we need to hire an attorney to help us work on that. I thought the purpose of Resolution No. 10 was just merely to express our continuing interest in the project and the jobs that it would bring to the city and as an effort on our part just to keep that door open. There’s no one here tonight from the developer or the tribe to give us their input. Oh, there is okay, I didn’t see them back there. But I would support you know if someone wanted to amend the Resolution No. 10 and possibly make the language a little less a little more non-committal I could see doing that. But to just table it I don’t think I’m going to vote for tabling because you know I saw it as sort of a minimal effort just to keep the door open and keep the conversation going to begin with. COUNCILMAN MAIER .Yes, I would agree with Councilman Bryan. I think we could make the we could amend this and make it not so committal on our part, but I left here Friday with the understanding that we were not saying we support it but we were interested in and we wanted to be at the table and we could also allow us to at a later date maybe ask the citizens to vote on the Intergovernmental Agreement. But I’m not for the IGA, but I’m for this with a little bit different language at this point in time also. COUNCILMAN MANSON .Yes, Mr. Stergios, I have both resolutions here; the original Resolution No. 9 and the proposed one for this evening No. 10. Do either one of those in anyway commit us legally to some Intergovernmental Agreement or an agreement with the tribe or is it both of them nothing more than a resolution of some kind of support to keep moving forward? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – When you reference Resolution No. 9 I think we have two versions of No. 10. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was answering the right question. COUNCILMAN MANSON .Is there any commitment to us to be involved in a financial agreement with the developers or the Indian tribe in this? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Under the original version versus the revised one is what…no enforceable commitment to be enforced against us or to binding us to anything under either version I don’t think one sounds stronger than the other. COUNCILMAN MANSON Just for myself I’m not in favor of tabling this all together right at this point. If there’s language that some people feel is too strong that they would like to see changed I’m not opposed to that, but I would like to keep this process now that we’ve put all this time and started on this moving in someway. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, if I could make a suggestion we do have a motion and a second on the floor to table this. COUNCILMAN MANG .I think we still have some more debate. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I was going to make a suggestion to you COUNCILMAN MANG .I have a statement to make as soon as statements are made here. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Okay, well my suggestion was going to be that we take a recess for a short while and work on either changing the language on this or moving forward with your motion to table. COUNCILMAN MANG .I’ll consider that. But basically council you know I couldn’t get you to move until I said something drastic like tabling this. I had very little input until I said table this piece of legislation. I really appreciate what you’re doing we’re not talking about this piece of legislation and I do think we can come up with a resolution that this council would be prepared to vote on tonight. I thank you for that it was very important to me to make sure that everybody could express something I didn’t like to use you, but I had to. I had to get everybody to say something about this. Mr. Gamber, I certainly appreciate your words and if council doesn’t object we take a 10 minute break here and get with the Law Director and see if we can come up with something that we can bring forth for question of vote. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are you withdrawing your motion or do you want to leave that on the floor? COUNCILMAN MANG .I will withdraw my motion at this point. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry will you withdraw your second? (Yes, I can.) Okay, the motion has been withdrawn I have a request for a 15 minute recess, is there any objection. Okay, we back into session; Councilman Mang has the floor we have a new revised Resolution No. 10 I would suggest everyone mark on there that this up in the corner revised 4-3-06 so that we know which document we’re working with. COUNCILMAN MANG .Yes, members of council, the easiest way probably would to look at Resolution No. 10 that was presented and then look at the proposed Resolution No. 10 with its changes. If we start with the title “a resolution expressing the interest for the council of the City of Massillon for the proposed casino and entertainment resort to be built by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma”. Much of the first title has been changed the whereas in the second “whereas the Eastern Shawn Tribe has proposed the construction within the City of Massillon”. The next whereas “whereas the city recognizes that the project could potentially resolve in the creation of new jobs and new employment for the City of Massillon and the surrounding areas” I think that’s the same. The next whereas “whereas the city recognizes that if it enters into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the tribe that such agreement could result in significant litigation payments to the city and be economic benefit to the city; I think that’s the same. The next whereas there’s been a change here “whereas the city recognizes the possible” instead of significant the word possible “economic impact of both the proposed project and the potential residual development occurring in and around the former Republic Steel site” The next whereas “whereas if gambling casino every becomes legal in the State of Ohio it would be beneficial to the economic development of the city to have an agreement in place specifying what the city will receive in the event that project is built in the City of Massillon” that’s the same. The next whereas has a change “whereas the Council of the City of Massillon is considering entering into negotiations to determine the terms of any such agreement” as that stays the same. In section 1 “the Council of the City of Massillon, Ohio, hereby expresses its interest for the proposed construction of a casino and entertainment resort on the former Republic Steel site by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma”. Section 2 “The Council of the City of Massillon, Ohio, may possibly enter into negotiations with legal representatives of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma with the intent of determining the final terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with the tribe concerning this project” Item 3 from the original Resolution No. 10 has been deleted and section 3 is basically now the same section 5 was. It would be my position to ask council to amend Resolution No. 10 to read as the amended Resolution No. 10 is before you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER May I call the Law Director up Mr. Mang? (Yes, sir.) Mr. Law Director we had never formally had an motion regarding Resolution No. 10 other than to table. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – That is right. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Does this become the active document or do we need to amend something before we act on this? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS –Since it was on the agenda I would feel better and safer if we just amended it so there’s not any debate that we presented a different one than what was originally with our packets. So amend it to reflect the changes indicated on the one in front of you and what Mr. Mang just said and vote on the amended version would be a better way to go I believe. COUNCILMAN MANG . Since we changed the title somewhat; the title that was initially read is different so I totally agree with you Mr. Stergios. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Are you accepting questions Mr. President or a motion? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Well, we have a motion on the floor we’re waiting for a second, seconded by Councilman McCune. Open for discussion. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Maybe we’re arguing over small points, but I think that the amendment goes too far in a couple of ways. One in section 4 disappears from the original resolution which says “the Council supports the tribe’s request for a delay in the current court schedule” and I believe that language was added Friday after our Law Director met with their attorney and it was important to their attorney. So I think that among other things I think it just goes from being a show of some support for the project to something that’s just sort of expressing a casual interest and I don’t think that’s I think that’s backing off a little too much at this time. So I intend to vote no on the amendment. COUNCILMAN MANSON I see no reason why section 4 should be left out of there myself either. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I don’t think anyone indicated to remove that section 4 they meant to delete what was section 3 and section 4 in hast somehow got deleted. Which I think if we orally read it into the record what section 4 said because no one said to delete that was pounding away at the computer and three people talking to me at the same time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, do you agree that section 4 was never meant to be deleted? COUNCILMAN MANG .Yes, I would totally agree in the discussions that we were having of amending the resolution that was not one of the items. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We should verbally include section 4 and section 3 becomes section 5. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Old section 4 becomes new section 3 it says “the Council of the City of Massillon, Ohio, supports the tribe’s request for a delay in the current court schedule” that would be section 3 and then section 4 would be what is currently section 3 in the revised document. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Can we ask you to play secretary again and have these changes made so that it will be available at the end of the meeting? (Absolutely) Another questions for the Law Director? We have a motion and a second to amend Resolution No. 10 as written and verbally added to by the Law Director. RESOLUTION NO. 10 – 2006 WAS AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES, I NO. BRYAN VOTED NO. COUNCILMAN MANG . Before I ask for suspension of the rules I’d like to make a comment. I know council has entertained and listened to many, many comments by our citizens at which we deeply appreciate it. I think that’s what council’s been asking for is to have that for the most part most of the individuals were speaking for themselves for their family or speaking for their church or whatever which again we totally appreciate. But council we have we’re in a position that we have to speak for the city and what we feel will be the best thing for the city. I know that we’ve all been plagued by a number of requests inside and outside and we’ve tried our best to listen to everybody and talk to everybody on the phone even to some of the people who may not have been as casual or cordial as you would like for them to be. But I think our job here tonight that we were elected to is to vote on this piece of resolution to vote on this resolution. I’m going to ask you to vote on it in the way you think will best serve this city. I’m not asking and I’m not telling you that the Community Development supports this, I’m not telling you Community Development does not support it. Because I think this is an issue that each one of us has to resolve with ourselves and that will be in the vote that we cast tonight. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes, 1 no. Peters voted no. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Can we have discussion? (Sure) I would just like to make comment to throw this out to all of you. I think perception is huge in this vote and I think that the people are going to say that we support this even though this resolution says we’re just interested and I think we need more time truly we’d like to have this as a first reading only. However, that’s not what the proposal was so I just think that perception is everything and even though the word says interested and I’m happy with the changes in that I think the people are not going to view it as that as one person has already stated that in the audience. I really would like to see this finally go on the ballot and let the people vote for it and so tonight even though we have had these changes I just wanted to throw that out to you and I will be voting no. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I believe we also need more time to consider this. However, I believe that representing the people we’re not really voting yes or no on this at this given point in time. What we need to do is we need to bring in expert council to help Mr. Stergios and we need to take this as a vote to the people and saying that I intend to vote yes for this because I think it’s a very, very important issue with the City of Massillon and we need to go forward and pursue all of our options and what the citizens of Massillon would like for us to do. So I think by voting yes I’m not saying I am for the casino I’m not saying I’m against the casino. I’m saying that we need to pursue it further with further legal counsel and a vote of the people. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE .I’d simply like to echo what Jayne and Kathy have said we have not shown significant support of this we’ve shown significant interest in doing our due diligence and that eventually this will go to the people to make the decision. Once we are fully educated then we will begin the process of fully educating our constituents. COUNCILMAN MAIER .Yes, I also would like to make a comment that this resolution states that we’re interested to keep this thing afloat. Doesn’t say we’re for or against and at some point in time I think it would need to go to vote of the people, but I will be voting yes to keep this thing alive. COUNCILMAN PETERS Reiterating what everyone else has said I want to make it clear that a no vote here does not necessarily mean that I am opposed to the project either. But I’m going to vote my conscious tonight and I will be voting no. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NOTHING 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS (A) LETTER FROM OHIO DIVISION OF LIQUOR CONTROL REGARDING A TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE FROM TNK ENTERPRISES INC DBA NEIGHBORS PUB 120 6TH STREET NE GROUND FL & BSMT MASSILLON, OHIO 44646 TO RANDY YARNELL DBA R PLACE 120 6TH ST NE GROUND FL & BSMT MASSILLON, OHO 44646 (B) LETTER FROM OHIO DIVISION OF LIQUOR CONTROL REGARDING A NEW LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 248 FEDERAL AVENUE LLC DBA KRACKERS PIZZA 248 FEDERAL AVE NW MASSILLON, OHIO 44647 COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Do the appropriate council members have those communications? (Yes) Thank you. COUNCILMAN MAIER I didn’t see the letter of Division of Liquor Control on that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Which one? COUNCIL CLERK MARY BETH – It’s your folder, I can give you another. 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS NOTHING 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY PERMIT REPORT FOR MARCH 2006. COPY FILE COUNCILMAN BRYAN I just wanted to say that for everyone perhaps who wasn’t a part of this process to kind of explain during the negations that led to the City of Massillon agreeing to the merger of Doctor’s Hospital and Massillon Community Hospital. As part of that process we were the City of Massillon was given two appointments to the board of the newly formed organization. So this request from the Mayor tonight is to approve Dr. Paquelet and Mr. Seesan as the city’s two appointments to that board. I just want to say that I’m very happy with the two people that the Mayor chose. I will make a motion that we accept the Mayor’s appointments, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. The Mayor’s appointments were accepted by a roll call vote of 9 yes. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I make a motion that we accept the Auditor’s report, seconded by Councilman Mang. The Auditor’s report was accepted by a roll call vote of 9 yes. 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Yes, I have a memo that was sent out there is going to be a fairly significant number of mailboxes that are scheduled to be removed due to low usage. Debbie Stephan is the Acting Postmaster; she says they will be placing this list in the newspaper within the next week. If anyone has any questions to give her call by April 7th of this year at 330-837-8323. The boxes are scheduled to be removed in the next 30 days; is it necessary for me to read the list? Okay, I just wanted to make everybody aware of this situation and that’s all I have. COUNCILMAN MANG Mr. McCune, I wonder if council members could have a copy of that list. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Pass it over to the Clerk, she can have copies made and distribute them at the end of the meeting. Committee meetings on Monday, April 10th starting at 5:45 unless we have any quests coming in. Does anyone know now? 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I’d like to request that Mr. Loudiana attend our work session to discuss the capital improvement list which he was going to about a week ago and wasn’t able to be here. 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR - NOTHING 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 38 2006 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, all of you should have a copy of amended Ordinance No. 38. The reason for this is that we went to three readings before we acted on it. If we would have acted on it either first or second reading as an emergency it would have taken effect April 1st. Since it’s going to three readings if it’s passed it will take effect July 1st. COUNCILMAN MANG .Paul, what have we amended? COUNCILMAN MANSON What we have amended is the $14.00 to $15.00 on the monthly fee. COUNCILMAN MANG .Then why are we amending Ordinance No. 38? COUNCIL CLERK MARY BETH – We’re changing April to July. It was April and because we passed the deadline it’s going to be July; it’s the last page in the emergency clause. COUNCILMAN MANG .So we’re amending date only? (Yes) Thank you. Mr. Manson, if I may say something I was given a copy of what two of the other people are charging and the one which is considered a very large trash hauler has added a fuel charge to their bill. So over a three month period their bill would be $45.00 plus a fuel charge right now is $3.20 or $3.30. So actually at that rate Massillon’s proposed ordinance here would be well in the competition. The other individual was $15.00; so I’m referring to Republic in the very first one. COUNCILMAN MANSON I have a slip here from my trash hauler and from now on we still take grass clippings the city does. My trash hauler will be going to $1.00 per bag for any grass clippings. So everybody’s raising their rates in some way. COUNCILMAN MANG .I had a concern whether we were going to put ourselves beyond what the competition is doing but obviously we haven’t. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY They did add on an extra bag did they not? Well, I thought she stood up there and said she was going to add an extra bag that evening. COUNCILMAN MANSON No, she may have said that, but they discussed that with the Safety Service Director and they looked at that and looked at 5 bags and they think 5 bags is adequate for what we are doing. They also the other thing to look at is okay let me explain a little bit if you have a 30 gallon garbage bag or garbage can that’s one bag. So you would be talking 5 – 30 gallon garbage bags they would take 5 bags. If also if everybody went to a 6 bag we may be looking at increasing our cost by as much as 20%. The average talking with them is somewhere between 2 and 3 bags. So that was a decision made between Mr. Loudiana and Ms. McGill. COUNCILMAN PETERS Paul, I just want the people to know that you know we’re not ramming a price increase down their throat that it is competitive with other companies that are within the city collecting garbage and they do have other choices. Although I would hope they used our service, but they do have other choices so we’re not forcing them into something that you know… COUNCILMAN MANSON And that’s part of the reason I allowed it to go three readings and not bring it I think the last time we went to the second reading was the first night that the Independent had any information on this in the paper and I figured well it’s a good time to let it go another 2 weeks and see what kind of feedback we get; quite honestly I haven’t had any feedback. COUNCILMAN MANSON moved to amended Ordinance No. 38 – 2006, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. ORDINANCE NO. 38 – 2006 WAS AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 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. 38 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 42 2006 BY: STREETS. HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, this is the third reading, but I’m going to make a motion to table this until our April 17th meeting at which time we will put it up for a vote. There’s a lot more questions than there are answers and it’s not like we all haven’t been doing something else. We’ve been quite busy and we just want ask Mr. Loudiana some questions at the next work session. COUNCILMAN PETERS moved to table until April 17th 2006, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. Roll call vote of 9 yes to table until April 17th. ORDINANCE NO. 42 2006 WAS TABLED UNTIL APRIL 17TH 2006. ORDINANCE NO. 43 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This is an ordinance for the street sweeper for $118,255.00 and for fire department repairs at $65,000.00. Also for a fingerprint technology upgrade at $39,000.00 and the Special Fund for $8,750.00 for services and contracts. I also would like to table this until our Safety Service Director can come next week to our work session and answer some questions for us. As we need to prioritize the capital improvement list that we spoke about previously. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Yes, I’d like to call the police captain up and ask him if there’s an issue with the fingerprint thing that has to be done that’s on this. POLICE CAPTAIN ULLUM – I’m really not familiar with what upgrade their doing or just exactly you know the details you have to speak to Brian Schnell about that. But I know at this point they can’t import the fingerprints or the photographs or whatever they need to do into the identics the AVIS machine because of some kind of glitch in the system I do know that. COUNCILMAN MAIER – So you don’t know if there’s a time constraint on that? POLICE CAPTAIN HERRICK – This $39,000.00 is actually we’ve already it’s a reimbursement that we’ve received. We need to pay back out directly to the company; we’ve already received the equipment it’s been in operation for 2 years we submitted to the state I believe it was to BCI to qualify for the funds. They’ve cut a check to the city so we have the money available, but I do not know if there’s a time constraint on it. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY While you’re there can I can ask you do you think 2 weeks it will be 2 weeks to the most before we approve this do you think that would be a hardship? POLICE CAPTAIN HERRICK – I don’t believe so. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved to table until April 17th 2006, seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote of 9 yes to table until April 17th. ORDINANCE NO. 43 2006 WAS TABLED UNTIL APRIL 17TH 2006. 15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 47 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG We do have before us I feel a very important piece of legislation. I know council‘s been under a lot of pressure lately to try to understand all the information that was transmittal to us. But I do want council to spend some time week looking at what is being proposed, looking at the letters that Aane has passed on to us. I would like at our work session next Monday night to try to bring this to some type of closure because we will have it up for a public hearing on the 17th. I have one question though, Anne if you would come to the microphone. I noticed in the paper that it states that we would be available or you would be available to listen to comments up until April 30th and I’m wondering if we pass this prior to that date of April 30th will we have given everybody an opportunity. I’m only going by the legal announcement. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – We advertise the program for a period of 30 days I think the notice was in the paper such that 30 days would be end of April. COUNCILMAN MANG But I think it also says that would be the last day that we would accept comments. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – Right, I think May 1st would be the next council meeting. COUNCILMAN MANG My question is when would this piece of legislation then… COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – It can be voted on May 1st. COUNCILMAN MANG It could be? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – The application is due to be filed by May 15th. COUNCILMAN MANG I’m not trying to delay not putting this through, but after reading it I thought that there may be some concerned that one date says April 30th and council’s passing it on the 17th or whatever. With that we will still go ahead with the public hearing on the 17th, but actually delay the vote until the following council meeting to be in line with what we have published in the paper. ORDINANCE NO. 47 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. ORDINANCE NO. 49 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, I believe at our work session Mr. Oser was here and he passed out a piece of paper that indicated that the property is still that the Dopco Development Company is still interested in purchasing the property. I believe it was recommended by at least several council people that if that’d be the case then we thought he should consider bringing back to council drawings or whatever of what they propose to build there. In lieu of that we’ll give it a second reading tonight, but the public hearing will be held on the 17th and not unless something is brought back to Mr. Aane that we feel will be a something council would like to look at we’ll bring it up for a question of vote on the 17th also. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, what time is the public hearing? COUNCILMAN MANG Public hearing is at 7:00pm. The public hearing on the other one was at 6:30pm. ORDINANCE NO. 49 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. RESOLUTION NO. 9 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG After having the vote on Resolution No. 10 we’ve pretty much have stated that we have an interest in pursuing a contract with the Eastern Shawnees which may or may not look like the ordinance that we have before us. I’ve been considering either tabling this piece of legislation or bringing up and defeating it. Tabling it again would to a definite time would give us so that it would come before council again but our resolution doesn’t talk about a time period and I’m looking at it that way I’m inclined to table this indefinitely. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I do have a question you know several council members have said they have an interest in pursuing with an attorney that has the knowledge of these tribal agreements. I would be in favor of supporting a resolution like that or if the Law Director terms it to be a resolution or an ordinance I definitely think that we should because council has voted 7 to 2 tonight because we interested that we should continue to look at this and do it in a systematic fashion that we are going to review this IGA fully and do that with an attorney that knows that legal terms for the tribal agreement. COUNCILMAN MANSON I see no problem with tabling it indefinitely we’re not acting on it. If as we research this and we find out that we don’t like it we can recall this and vote it down at any time we feel like it. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I don’t see anything wrong with tabling it indefinitely, but I don’t want us to now this has been tabled now that we’ve got the resolution passed we have our full agenda of other business we’re dealing with. I hate to see us lose focus and lose time on this thing again and be sitting here 30, 60, 90 days from now saying we don’t have enough time to get the information that we need and I’ve been thinking about this and what some of the things that I think we need to do and I would be willing to help or to do in anyway I could is as Mrs. Catazaro-Perry said comply with our Law Director’s advise and hire an attorney with experience in this intergovernmental Agreements. Secondly, some members of council have asked what the infrastructure costs would be if this development ever went forward. I would like to see us pursue an answer to that question at least you know no one can guarantee what will happen in the future but at least a reasonable answer to that question of what kind of infrastructure would be required. Thirdly, to do kind of a cost benefit analysis I think we need to pin down what the economic benefits would be. We’ve been told by people representing the development you know given some rough figures, but there are other businesses and casinos and things in business that publish their receipts. I’d like to see someone on council or with the Administration tackle that question and try to give us a range of how much income tax revenue it would generate and how much would be generated by the 1.5 or 2% in the litigation payments so that you could do a cost benefit analysis and say the city would receive this much in additional income and would have to send this much for additional infrastructure and or police and fire and whatever else. The City of Monroe did that for their own purposes and I would like to see us do something along the same lines so that when we get to a point where this gets called from the table and voted on that council members feel that they have the information to make an informed decision. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I agree with you, Mr. Mang, is the person on council to do that he’s chairman of Community Development. Mr. Townsend and Mr. McCune are also on that committee. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, another thing about retaining council to help Mr. Stergios out. I totally agree with that, but I also believe that we should be a little careful how far we commit to that or how much money we spend on that because quite honestly this court case isn’t resolved and we may spend a lot of money for nothing. So I don’t want to get too carried away I want to start on the process and be ready if something does happen along the way, but I still look at this thing maybe as an outside possibility. I mean I don’t want to spend a lot of Massillon’s money getting too deep into this until we know where the court case itself stands. COUNCILMAN MANG I think what you’re telling me is that we should be asking the Law Director to give us some direction in the hiring of an individual and get back to us with some type of cost that council could consider. I think the big thing we are not in a position to spend a lot of money no matter what it happens to be. But I think we need the direction of the Law Director to help us in that means and he has indicated to me before that he would be happy to do that to get forth the information as far as whom we might hire and what the cost might be. I think that would be kind of based on an initial type of looking at the contract, might be an initial cost and then it could go into a much larger picture if council would also like to do that. So I think what I would be asking him is for someone to take a look at it as an initial investment and come back with some type of word as to what changes they think should be made in the present contract without going too far. Anybody have any objections of me making that request to the Law Director but since I see the Law Director here I didn’t see him here. I thought maybe you had to leave, but forget what I just said since you’re here. You propose to us what you think our steps should be as far as looking for an attorney to help out. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I can have my committee meetings on Monday, I’ve already talked to a couple I can nail that down to some sort of information regarding the resumes, the backgrounds, hourly rates and what they think our initial expenditure might be to get an initial overview of this thing and a letter to all of us showing us the pros and cons, points that we may really need to consider and the ballpark price. I can have that for all you by committee meetings on Monday I would think. I may be able to piece something out by email as it comes in the next couple of days, but that’s certainly I think an acceptable way to precede initial. Because like Mr. Manson put it we don’t want to make a huge investment and it never… anyhow. I can do that. COUNCILMAN MANG Thank you, the other request I would have would be Mr. Mayor would you come to the microphone please? Mr. Mayor, we’ve been discussing this infrastructure as far as it would pertain to the development of the Republic Steel site. Do you think there’s possibilities that we could get engineering to look at some of the aspects that would be involved in our infrastructure if this would happen and council would pass the Intergovernmental Agreement do you think there’s some things they may be able to give to us so that we have some idea of what’s there? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – You say infrastructure needs, Mr. Mang, you mean if this development occurs what that would mean as far as the need for sanitary, storm, roadways… COUNCILMAN MANG Roadways, public utilities, I think that was one of the things was outlaid in here. I think that would be if we had that and the roadways that traffic might be on right now it doesn’t look like there’s too many ways to get there. But I think if we had some of that at least we would have a start as to what our cost might be associated with this. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – What I think would need in order to get you a good proposal is more than just the picture. If we had something from the developers that more along the line of a site plan showing exactly where things go. I think if we could have them give us something that at least take the 300 plus acres and lay it out with what they’re proposing and they may have to go to some expense I will talk to them. Because in order to give you an intelligent opinion or opinions on what would be needed we would have to have more than just a picture which appeared in the paper. So I think they need to understand that that’s council’s wishes then we will I will convey that to them and they need to get us something more than a picture. So in order to get you that information because I do agree if this development takes place you need to have more than one way in. COUNCILMAN MANG Mr. Mayor, I appreciate your input I also appreciate your interest in the fact that you are willing to get more information for this council than what I asked and I appreciate that. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I was also like to know if its possible to you had already looked at dates for the ballot to vote on this in May and August. Would it be possible to find out the deadline for November ballot for something like this so that council’s aware of that up front rather than wait and possibly miss the deadline? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Sure, as I say I have a request in to Jeanette Mullane at the Board of Elections she will get back to me and when I get that information I’ll pass it on. RESOLUTION NO. 9 – 2006 WAS TABLED INDEFINITELY BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 16. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS NOTHING. 17. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA NOTHING. 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMAN MAIER 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