MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL
HELD, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2011 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - I‘d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, April 18, 2011.  We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Cicchinelli, Safety Service Director Loudiana. Law Director Stergios, Building Official Roger Houpt, 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:  Gary Anderson, Kathy Catazaro-Perry, Dave Hersher, Ron Mang, Paul Manson, Dave McCune, Donnie Peters, Larry Slagle and Tony Townsend.

Thus giving a roll call vote of 9 present.

2. INVOCATION

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - I will recognize Councilman Dave McCune for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. 

COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Gave the invocation for the evening. 

3.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – 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 (Yes, 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

JOHN HELLINE  - I reside at 4530 Butterbridge Rd North Lawrence, Ohio.  Good evening council and mayor I appreciate the time to talk to you this evening.  I brought a letter I would like to pass out if it would be okay.  This letter also went to the paper so it’s a letter to the editor that I thought would be make sense to share with council this evening.  I’m here to speak as a result of the CDBG budget being on the agenda and the Hampton Inn having a CDBG portion of those funds.  We’re here really as what this letter states out to try to set some the facts straight and talk to council about what we feel is going on that is a little bit inappropriate.  Hopefully set out what I’ll say the facts tonight and I want to start by saying we had to write this letter because we feel we’re being put into a political arena and being used as a political football.  While most of the council members this isn’t directed to anybody directly or the majority of the council members I should say.  I first off respect and admire the civil service that you put in so this isn’t a blanket all council we feel is doing bad.  But there are certain council members and I will call them out tonight because I do Mrs. Catazaro-Perry is on a mayoral bid and I believe she is creating this as a political platform.  She’s sending things out that I believe are putting the Hampton in a bad light.  Putting the Hampton at risk for hurting our business which we put the city on notice a couple years back.  That the negative talk the negative image that negative media hurts our business, it hurts the people that work there it hurts our ability to be successful.  It hurts our ability to go out and land business and it’s something that I believe is on very thin ice when we’re putting this negative stuff out there after we’ve warned and pleaded with council a couple of years back to not do this and explain to them how it hurts our business.  We actually made offers to meet and discuss positive constructive ways to structure something that might make sense for everybody if it’s not the way they wanted it to turn out.  Mrs. Catazaro-Perry cancelled her meeting with us she didn’t even show up to the tour.    

COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY – That’s not true. 

JOHN HELLINE  - It’s very true.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Point of order.  I’m not going to we’re not going to get in he said she said he did she did.  If he wants to discuss this I would like to make a motion that it’s done at a work session.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Alright, we don’t need a motion please keep personalities out as much as you can. 

JOHN HELLINE  - I will do that for sure.  What I would like to make sure that we state is the hotel is here.  The hotel is a wonderful asset for our city the hotel is in first class condition because we’ve continued to reinvest in that property to the tune of close to a million dollars when it’s all said done after the next three years.  Keeping the beds new, keeping the linens new, keeping the draperies new, new carpeting, new TV’s we’re redoing the lobby, we doing all this as part of the efforts to continue to maintain a first class asset in the spirit of the public/private partnership we forged with the City of Massillon.  We’ve done that without taking profits out as owners, we’ve done that to our own detriment its not the property’s not doing everything we wanted it to do but we try and put that into prospective and we try to put that into relative perspective meaning we’ve gone through one of the toughest economic times we’ve ever seen.  Yet we’ve maintained one of the highest occupancies of all Stark County hotels.  Which tells you something about downtown Massillon and I’m pretty fortunate I’m a blessed individual I get to travel a lot I get to go around a lot of different places.  There are very few small downtowns like Massillon, Ohio that has a first class Hilton franchise in their downtown.  We have that here that was a decision made by council ten years ago to invest in this community unanimously approved.  We’ve lived up to our end of the bargain and then some continuing to reinvest and keep the property as a first class asset housing over 17,000 patrons a year who sponsor all of our social events come in and go to our events.  They come in and visit they come in and work with the companies that are in our community.  They has absolutely have scored us high enough as a Hampton Inn to rank in the top 15% of Hampton’s worldwide.  We were ranked as an outstanding hotel last year.  That is despite being in a difficult location at times being in a tough market as people will call it and being in a depressed economy.  That is a testament to the absolute blood, sweat and tears that the employees over there put in day in and day out.  We have one of the best teams in the entire franchise getting an outstanding is something that is literally less than 15% of the Hampton’s worldwide and that’s over 1,104 Hampton’s.  We got that here from all the hard work and from us reinvesting in the property and keeping the asset fresh. It is worth the support of the city it is worth the city continuing to support the project to the tune to the agreement we came to ten years ago.  We do believe we’ll be here long term and we will work through the issues in a private/public partnership to get the city whole at some point in time.  It’s not everything we wanted but again we continue to reinvest and we are patient enough to say this asset makes sense for this town.  I love the town I’m proud of the asset I believe the city should be proud of that asset.  I believe it’s a good use of our CDBG funds and the last thing is it isn’t using city tax dollars.  That’s the one thing without getting personal there are statements being made that are false they’re lies or they’re false statements.  That hurts our hotel it hurts it and I’ve said it before and we are thin ice making false statements in writing in campaign literature that is going to hurt that business.  I just don’t understand why anybody on council would want to bash local business.  We are here trying to make it happen day in and day out.  There’s a lot of other people here that work in this property that may want to come up and say a couple of things.  But I’m going to speak on their behalf and tell you they bust their butts.  They bust their butts day in and day out to put food on their table from what this Hampton does for our downtown and we’re bashing them and we’re putting them down and we’re hurting them and making it harder for them to do their job.  It makes no sense and it makes no sense to come out against local business.  Local business is here and trying and fighting hard if you don’t like the deal come to the table with something productive and constructive and we’ll talk to you.  We’ve always been willing to sit down in the spirit in the public/private partnership but continuing to bash us and continuing to put negative things out in the community that hurts our ability to do our job is skating on very thin ice.  It’s got to stop its just got to stop we’re not a political football we’re a first class asset located in downtown Massillon.  I go all over places there not downtown’s of this size that have a Hampton Inn in them that does as well as we do.  I just ask that we stop being used as a football if you want to get the facts straight and you want to come and sit down and be productive and constructive with us we have an open door policy.  Come visit us see what we’ve got there it’s a first class asset come see and meet the people that work there they are scoring the highest scores you can get in the system with our property.  The highest score you can get because they’re busting their butt day in and day out for us.  I just would appreciate going forward that the city and the council members specifically ones that want to make this a negative thing can stop making our job harder.  It’s just got to stop.  Thank you and I appreciate the support and I will entertain any questions I appreciate council’s support with the CDBG budget. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I apologize but I haven’t been paying attention to you like I always do, but did you give your address you starting talking?

JOHN HELLINE  - 4530 Butterbridge North Lawrence, Ohio.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Okay, thank you.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I have a statement and a question.  Mr. Helline stated that the you know they’re redoing the lobby employees are scoring the highest, the hotel is first class then he wrote the Hampton’s occupancy rate is one of the highest in Stark County.  They are under performing than other facilities in the county.  I guess my question to you how come you guys are not paying your own mortgage then?

JOHN HELLINE  - We are paying our own mortgage and that’s one of the false statements that’s in there so I really beg the differ with that comment. 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Would you like to elaborate on that?

JOHN HELLINE  -  We have a mortgage that we paid we have not missed one payment we are current with our mortgage.  There is a HUD 108 loan that was part of the original deal.  When we put this together this was not an easy green field site sir.  This was something that the community the private side, the public side and including SARTA said we’re going to pull funds we’re going to go get federal dollars and get federal dollars spent down here.  We spent $8 million dollars in this downtown market with federal money and private money not city money, federal money we spent that money down here to build a first class asset knowing that if I was going to do it in a green field if I wanted to risk my money in a green field and risk the effort and the time and the resource and the capital we put behind this project it would have been easy.  It would have been easy the financing was easy, clearing the land was easy getting occupancy was easy because you know what you’re numbers are going to be we took a big risk coming in a downtown market.  To do that there was an incentive financing package that it is what the city’s CDBG funds which are also federal dollars supports.  It does not support our private mortgage it doesn’t have anything to do with our private mortgage and there is a remainder on that that is a cash flow mortgage.  That’s why we are sitting on the sidelines not taking out profits which you audited the council audited I’m sorry if I’m getting contentious but I feel like I’ve gone over this so many times.  I apologize if it feels like I’m pointing at you I’m not.  We waiting on the sidelines to invest in this property and keep it first class for the community because I believe in this community.  I may live at 4530 Butterbridge now but my whole life I’m a tiger.  I grew up I was born and raised I worked in downtown Massillon when I was 8 years old washing dishes.  I know the city like the back of my hand and I love the city and I’m proud to be here and I’m to have put together a project to invest down here.  But there doesn’t need to be people making these false claims like we’re not paying our mortgage.  We are and when you make things like that and our first mortgage does get nervous and we have trouble refinancing you’re skating on thin ice.  It’s just not good business to bash us like that.  If you don’t like it if you think there’s something wrong come to the table and we’ll sit down and talk.  We’ve got some options that we’ve put out there as proactive ways to say maybe we could restructure.  We’re not as happy with the financial performance either but again its relative sir.  I mean nobody saw 9/11 happening nobody knew we were going to have the worse recession we’ve ever had.  Nobody could put that on the plate and say you’ve got to factor this into your project.  Our investors aren’t sitting back jumping for joy but they look at it relatively and say we’re going to be patient enough to let the asset and we are doing well.  We are out performing the market in occupancy that’s a great sign but that doesn’t mean the market is great it just means we’re doing better than most people in the market.  So are we hitting 89% occupancy with $90 rates no but we’re hitting better than market occupancy and we’re almost on par with rate.  That’s a great sign for our property and again the outstanding that’s ranked by Hampton Inn nationally they come in and they test every thing we do.  They test the tempature of the eggs on our breakfast they test how Kay is folding the towels in the bathroom.  They test if Dwayne is doing is walk around I mean they test everything from cleanliness to customer service to the scores that we get from our total quality management if you get the survey if you stay at a Hampton you get a survey that goes into there.  They test everything and they do it on a they don’t warn you they’re coming they just surprise here we are they go through they inspect and they do that and you get this score and its very difficult to score high because for our property it includes physical appearance and out what they call the sense of arrival.  Well we don’t have a great sense of arrival because we’re on top of the deck we don’t have that ability to say here’s some nice landscaping and here’s the pool over here and this we don’t even have a pool and we’re still able to score an outstanding which I don’t know if we’ve ever checked this Allan but I bet we are the only Hampton in the place without a pool.  So its relative. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Helline, if I could suggest the specific question was about paying the mortgage.     

JOHN HELLINE  - We’re paying our mortgage. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Has he answered that Mr. Townsend?

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Yes.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Do you have anything else?

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – No.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Thank you very much Mr. Helline.  If there’s anyone else who would like to speak please come forward and if there’s anyone after this gentleman please don’t wait for an invitation just come forward.

DWAYNE SPENCER – 515 Aultman NW, Canton.  It’s like John said we don’t want to be part of this political battle.  Me, myself, I’ve been at the Hampton Inn since the grand opening great building I’ve seen the good times and the worse times, bad times.  I’ve been able to move from the lowest of positions to the highest positions in 10 years you know I really feel blessed God has really blessed me in a nice facility.  I don’t think everyone really understands how important the hotel is to Massillon we are like the face of the hospitatilty of this city.  When a guest comes from out-of-town they stay at the Hampton Inn in Massillon.  Our personality and our hospitality lets them know how the City of Massillon would treat you.  That goes back to where John said I think everybody should be proud that we had an outstanding it basically lets everyone know we’re doing great.  That’s all we want to do I’m an employee at the Hampton Inn in Massillon I want my guest from out of town to know that if you come here to Massillon this is what you’re going to get in the surrounding area.  As far as an asset if you ask local businesses such as Demmer’s that’s been here for a while, Smiley’s, BW3, Kosmo’s especially, Bonnie Engravers Gallery these individuals will let you know we do business with them and we are a big asset for them we help their bottom line.  We make sure we stay in house but like John said when you see things thrown out such as what was sent to the residents it will make us look as if we’re not part of the City of Massillon like we’re separate.  But we are a part of the City of Massillon, we’re a part of DMA, Chamber, we’re on the Rotary, I’m on the Salvation Army Board, we’re on the Massillon Football Booster Club.  I just me personally I just wish that we were out of this whole debate if you will call it about who’s going to be mayor the next mayor.  So just to let everyone know that believe it or not whatever you see we are we are a part of Massillon.  Thank you.

LAURIE HERMAN – I live at 1337 Lincoln Way W in Massillon.  I’m a long time resident of Massillon and I’m also a long term employee at the Hampton Inn in Massillon.  I’m very proud of our hotel we work very hard there and I really do find it as a disgrace that we have to constantly explain ourselves and defend our business.  We are an asset to this community and we just work really hard and it makes our job so much harder when we have to constantly explain to people when they say you really do have business.  We really do that business and to say that we are not a shining example of an embassador to people who are first time visitors to Massillon its just disgraceful that we have to constantly explain ourselves.  You should be very proud of our Hampton we are very proud of our staff and our hotel.  Thank you.

GAIL DANZY – I reside at 1400 Gibson Avenue in Massillon.  I’m listening to the rhetoric and hadn’t planned to speak but I think there’s a misunderstanding going on here.  I would like to believe that no one is questioning the value of the Hampton Inn or their employees or the fact that they do a good job or the fact that everyone is entitled to employment.  I think what is being brought into question unbeknownst to some is the origin of the original agreement.  I can remember years ago not standing before this exact council because there were probably different people on it but questioning what was going to happen when CDBG dollars were pledged all be it through the Section 108 loan or whatever its called.  It pledged money to a private business in case they didn’t make it and were able to pay for it.  Now that money has been taken from the local community that would have benefited from those CDBG dollars.  I understand that dollars are still going to social services agencies, to streets and all of that but I live in southeast Massillon and I can give you a list of things that could have been done with the money that has now been pledged to the Hampton Inn.  I also question with the state of our budget now what’s going to happen in the years to come when that million dollars is due.  I haven’t heard any plans about that and I keep hearing people talk about balanced budgets but I worked in the financial arena too the banking business.  I don’t care what number you get at the bottom accounting records can be made to say whatever you want them to say.  But I want to know where the million dollars is coming from I want to know why southeast Massillon which houses the most people who would have benefited from CDBG dollars because there is where the lower income people were residing at the time.  Things may have changed now people have moved out into subura but at the time this was made the majority of the low income people were residing in ward 4.  Everything that ward 4 has come to the city for and let me not direct this to the council because you have voted on our behalf but somehow we’ve been vetoed with everything that our ward asked for.  Our ward could have benefited from those dollars.  So let me make it clear I don’t know any of the Hampton employees this is not against you its not against the hotel whether its quality or not its not against how many people come there its not against whether the towels are fresh and the draperies are nice.  It’s a comment about was that the best possible use of CDBG dollars at the time.  Thank you.

6.  INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 60 - 2011                      BY:   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

Authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Board of Stark County Commissioners and the City of Alliance, Ohio, to form a consortium for the purpose of becoming a participating jurisdiction in the Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program, and declaring an emergency.

COUNCILMAN MANG – At the work session I think Mr. Aaby did a fine job explaining to us why the consortium is formed and what it does for the city.  Without the consortium obviously Alliance and Massillon would not get the proper would not get money for some our housing.  Aane is here if you have any questions of Aane why he’d be glad to come up there and answer them.  If not I think the it’s not an emergency to pass this thing I think it’s only tried to show then that we are definitely interested in being a part of this project and giving this money to them.  If you object to it being an emergency we can go first reading.  But it is not something that has to have I’m only asking for the suspension so that this thing can move forward. 

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. 60 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 61 - 2011                      BY:   STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY

Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to sign the grant agreement with the Board of Stark County Transportation Improvement District for the 2011 Intersection Improvement Project, and declaring an emergency.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I was I got a call last week from the city engineer regarding this ordinance and I believe Mr. Mang also signed it to put it on the agenda.  Basically its to sign a grant agreement its for the funding of the intersection project at Tremont, Erie and 27th Street and Lincoln Way that we’ve already passed legislation on to go forward for the bids.  But what this entails is that this grant will pay for the entirety of the project.  If there’s any questions we could bring the city engineer up because I’m going to ask that we pass it on first reading tonight so we can expedite this. 

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Mang.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 61 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES

ORDINANCE NO. 62 - 2011                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the Stormwater Utility Fund and the Community Development Block Grant Program Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2011, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, this is to we have two parts to this $20,000 the first section is storm sewer repairs the engineer is requesting the appropriation of funds from the 2105 stormwater utility fund for various repairs relating to storm sewer infrastructure throughout the city.  These funds will be used to repair, replace storm inlets, catch basins, storm manholes and piping.  Then section 2 is the CDBG part of it and that’s $20,000 for the sidewalk replacement program.  This appropriation represents $20,000 allocated by the city’s 2010 CDBG program for sidewalk replacements.  If there’s any questions we the Mr. Aaby and we have the engineer here they can answer them.  Otherwise I’ll be asking to waive the rule. 

COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Hersher.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 62 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 63 - 2011                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Reducing the appropriations in the General Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2011, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, we have one part to this.  Please prepare an ordinance to reduce the appropriations in the general fund 1100 in the following accounts for the fiscal year $24,540 salary deputy clerks and $3,400 PERS clerk of courts for $27,940. 

COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Hersher.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 63 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

RESOLUTION NO. 4 - 2011                      BY:   COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Supporting the Stark County Community Action Agency for the services the provide to the citizens of Stark County while urging adequate funding for the Community Services Block Grant be adopted in the Congressional appropriations process so the vital services continue for the much needed citizens of Stark County.

 

COUNCILMAN MANG – Yes, at this point I will recognize Mr. Townsend who brought this forward.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – The passage of this resolution will just show Stark County Community Action Agency that the Massillon City Council supports the services that they provide  to the citizens of Stark County and not just Stark County but the citizens of Massillon.  Like everything else you know their block grant funding is being cut and we just want to show support for this organization.  Hopefully some time in the future the money is allocated back to their organization so that they can continue to provide services to low income citizens of Stark County.  If there’s any questions I think I can answer them.

COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Slagle.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes.

RESOLUTION NO. 4 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

7.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.  PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS

9.  BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS

REPOSITORY - $438.29

COUNCILMAN MANSON – I move that we pay the bill, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry.

Roll call vote of 9 yes to pay the bill.

10.  REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS

A). POLICE CHIEF SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 B COPY FILE
B). TREASURER SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 B COPY FILE
C). FIRE CHIEF SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 – COPY FILE
D). INCOME TAX DEPT SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 – COPY FILE
E). WASTE DEPT SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 – COPY FILE
F). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We have numerous reports from city officials all of which we will put on file.  We started sending those out by email is there anyone who is not getting these reports?  Alright, we’ll assume everyone is getting them.

11.  REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Works sessions will be held next Monday the 25th at 6:00pm. 

12.  RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS

13.  CALL OF THE CALENDAR

14.  THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 115 - 2010                    BY:   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

Declaring the improvements of certain real property located in the City of Massillon, Ohio, to be a public purpose; declaring such property to be exempt from real property taxation; designating the improvements to be made that will directly benefit or service such real property; requiring the owner of such real property to make annual; service payments in lieu of taxes; establishing a municipal public improvement tax increment equivalent fund for the deposit of service payments; declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN MANG – This piece of legislation deals with the O’Reilly the TIFs have been before this body for several weeks and if there’s questions that you would like to have answered I think we have some people who can answer them.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Hersher?

COUNCILMAN HERSHER – Just to make sure I’m clear in my mind this particular ordinance is this O’Reilly or is this Lincoln Phase III.

COUNCILMAN MANG – Lincoln Center Phase III.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Townsend?

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND– Does this TIF include the theater or just that one section down by the little plaza there?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Would you like to call Mr. Aaby forward?

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND– Yes.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Aaby?

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – It include the TIF includes the outlots that are owned by the theater as well as the properties along between 3rd and 21 and that triangular piece opposite of where the BW3’s is.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND– So would the theater benefit from this also?

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – Well, no they would not because that building has been open for quite a while.  It would be their outlots that they still have for sale if they would sell to a restaurant or something would go in there.  Those improvements would be covered not the existing improvement that’s there now. 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND– So from there all the way down to say the end of the plaza there. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AABY – Yes.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND– Okay.

COUNCILMAN MANG moved to bring Ordinance No. 115 – 2010 forward for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune.

ORDINANCE NO. 115 – 2010 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES, 2 NO.   CATAZARO-PERRY AND PETERS VOTED NO.

ORDINANCE NO. 25 - 2011                      BY:   PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE 

Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to enter into a Non-Surface Development Gas & Oil Lease with Lake Region Oil, Inc., for a 1.7 acre parcel owned by the City of Massillon, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – We’ve had quite a bit of discussion about this in work sessions and also during council meetings.  Does anyone have any questions about this?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – I don’t have any questions about it.  But I would say I still think and I agree with Councilman McCune that eh city should have a better say in all these projects than what we currently do.  I understand by voting against this we would in fact stop the drilling.  Its one of the few times that we could.  But Mr. McCune has indicated in his review that this is an area where there isn’t much impact on the surrounding community because it’s already in an industrial site.  However, I don’t think the underline this is kind of a unique situation but I think the underlining concern I think we should have is the number or the number of traffic that would be going into developing these sites.  The I notices the Summit County community raised issues with zoning questions about whether they could put them up.  Then finally I think the New York Times came out with their more recent articles saying that there is some concern not with the standard hydraulic fracking but with the horizontal fracking that the chemicals that are being used are a mix of dangerous chemicals.  That they still do not know if the effect will have on our environment and I think as a community we should have a say in these not this particular action but the other ones. 

COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Yes, as Mr. Slagle as has said I’ve been a firm believer that cities and municipalities should have a much larger voice in this than we actually do.  But this probably and most likely will be the only time that I ever cast an affirmative vote for one of these drilling ordinances.  It’s simply because in my due diligence and discussions with past members of council and with Mr. President Gamber most particular I found that because of the location of this while in during the days that council had a strong voice on these matters this is something that would have been given the blessing of council because of its location in an industrial area.  I do hope that in the future circumstances when these come forward that we as a council as a body will look to maybe follow the lead of others and find ways to look to stop these from drilled in the areas like in Mr. Townsend’s ward that are next to homes and churches.  These people can do nothing to stop it.  So I think its incumbent upon council that when times like this come forward and it does have some benefit to the city and it’s not negatively impacting residential areas that we do support the drilling well.  But when we’re talking about the drilling in residential neighborhoods or in areas that are contingent to the downtown area that we find ways to at least try to halt these types of drilling.  So as hard as it is for me to say because I have steadfastly opposed these ordinances in the past because of the location of this drilling I am going to vote in support of it tonight. 

COUNCILMAN ANDERSOND moved to bring Ordinance No. 25 – 2011 forward for a vote, seconded by Councilman Manson.

ORDINANCE NO. 25 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 5 YES, 4 NO.  ANDERSON, CATAZARO-PERRY, MANG AND TOWNSED VOTED NO.

ORDINANCE NO. 40 - 2011                      BY:   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

Declaring the improvements of certain real property located in the City of Massillon, Ohio, to be a public purpose; declaring such property to be exempt from real property taxation; designating the improvements to be made that will directly benefit or service such real property; requiring the owner of such real property to make annual; service payments in lieu of taxes; establishing a municipal public improvement tax increment equivalent fund for the deposit of service payments; declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN MANG – Madame Clerk before I make another mistake is this Fresh Mark?  (No, this is O’Reilly)  Oh, this is O’Reilly that isn’t bad one of two.  Again, we have basically it was the same piece of legislation as we had on Lincoln Center Phase III other than the area that we’re talking about.  There’s if you have questions we’ll try to get them answered. 

COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I have more of a statement than a question.  Over the times that we’ve discussed these TIFs I hope I want to believe that everyone realizes that these TIFs represent an ability to secure long term funding source that can be used for infrastructure repairs as well as for storm sewer repairs.  By establishing these we are elevating some of the burden on the general fund.  I think it’s imperative that we keep that in mind.  Yes, the fund generated must be predominately utilize in the area which they’re established but the most intriguing thing about them to me is that they can be utilized basically anywhere as long as you show that road leads to that area.  So that provides us an ability if we pass these in the future to utilize these funds to maybe improve roadways on the west side of Massillon even though maybe these businesses are located on the east side of Massillon.  I think that’s very important to something that we need to keep in mind.  So in essence the funding created to be utilized and improve roads on the other side of the city and by doing so we create a long term funding source to continue to improve the city’s infrastructure.  During our discussions I’ve heard the arguments that by establishing a TIF or TIFs we are taking money away from this, that or another entity but the truth is that these entities are supported by countywide or citywide tax levies not just by the residents of the City of Massillon.  We must also remember that by establishing a  TIF we are not taking money away from these entities as they will receive the same amount of money the day after these TIFs are established as they did the day before.  The current funding from the city is protected just as their protected is by the very levy that was passed.  So because I believe whole heartedly that these TIFs are a great benefit to the City of Massillon I will be voting in support of because I really believe that to vote against would be a violation of our oath of office and that we would be voting against something that is good for city which is what we were placed on this body for.  So I will be voting in support of all of these TIFs tonight and I would really hope that before a negative vote be cast that you consider all the ramifications of.

COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – Where is this located again. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I understand this is the O’Reilly located this is at the western edge of the Kmart parking lot and CVS.

COUNCILMAN MANG moved to bring Ordinance No. 40 – 2011 forward for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune.

ORDINANCE NO. 40 – 2011 WAS DEFEATED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 4 YES, 5 NO.  ANDERSON, CATAZARO-PERRY, HERSHER, PETERS AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO.

ORDINANCE NO. 41 - 2011                      BY:   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

Declaring the improvements of certain real property located in the City of Massillon, Ohio, to be a public purpose; declaring such property to be exempt from real property taxation; designating the improvements to be made that will directly benefit or service such real property; requiring the owner of such real property to make annual; service payments in lieu of taxes; establishing a municipal public improvement tax increment equivalent fund for the deposit of service payments; declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN MANG – This piece of legislation deals with FreshMark and that’s about all I’m going to say.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – I’d like to ask everybody if they’ve been up by FreshMark lately and see just how much money has been invested in that area.  I’d like to remind you that it’s probably been about 6 years ago but we redid Richville Drive we relocated the traffic light up there.  There’s probably going to have to be a considerable amount of infrastructure spent on those roads in that area.  Of all the TIFs I think this is probably one of the most important one we’ve got a company that’s already invested a lot of money the type of work that they do the trucks and stuff that come in and out its going to be tough on Richville Drive all the way from FreshMark all the way down to Route 30.  So these funds would be very helpful to us in the future.  That’s all.

COUNCILMAN MANG moved to bring Ordinance No. 41 – 2011 forward for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune.

ORDINANCE NO. 41 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 6 YES, 3 NO.  CATAZARO-PERRY, HERSHER AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO.

ORDINANCE NO. 43 - 2011                      BY:   HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS

Amending CHAPTER 1307 “BUILDING MAINTENENACE CODE” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by amending existing Section 1307.01 “Purpose and Scope” by enacting new Subsection 1307.01 (h) “Application and Enforcement”

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I would like Mr. Houpt come up briefly and just explain a little bit about Ordinance No. 43.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – We are asking that the ICC Property Maintenance Code be adopted by the City of Massillon.  Then all inspectors hold a license by the ICC International Code Council as a property maintenance and housing inspector.  That is it.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I have one more question are any fees attached to this?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – No sir.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – This is just stepping up your game somewhat within the department credentials and qualifications?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – Credentials and qualifications trying to give us something that we can follow that’s been accepted throughout this country as a property maintenance code.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved to bring Ordinance No. 43 – 2011 for a vote, seconded by Councilman Manson.

ORDINANCE NO. 43 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 44 - 2011                      BY:   HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS

Amending CHAPTER 1309 “HOUSING CODE” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by repealing existing SubSections 1309.03 “Minimum Standards; Light, Ventilation and Heating” (j)(13) 1309.07 “Rooming Houses” (c) (d) 1309.08 “Inspections” (a) and 1309.09 “Adoption of Rules and Regulations” (a) (b) and enacting a new SubSections 1309.03 “Minimum Standards; Light, Ventilations and Heating” (j) (14) 1309.07 “Rooming Houses” (c) (d), 1309.08 “Inspections” (a) and 1309.09 “Adoption of Rules and Regulations” (a) (b).

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Mr. Houpt can just briefly explain a little bit about Ordinance No. 44 – 2011.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – Ohio Basic Building Code is no longer there it’s gone it’s now called the Ohio Building Code.  We’re removing that wording we’re changing some wording.  We’re taking out old language for the National Electric Code for the rewire and putting in the new current words.  We’re taking out the old qualifications for smoke detectors and making them now the new ones according to the NEC National Electric Code.  We’ve taken in the permit fees for are down here I have increased those from $20 to $50 this is the same as we’ve done for everybody else in the city up until this point.  Then we’ve reworked the appointment of the code enforcement officers that when ever one is appointed they have to hold the qualifications of having a certification with the International Code Council as a code enforcement officer for the Property Maintenance Code.  Then the adoption of the rules and regulations have been removed A and B.  That is it.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved to bring Ordinance No. 44 – 2011 for a vote, seconded by Councilman McCune.

ORDINANCE NO. 44 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES, 2 NO.   CATAZARO-PERRY AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO.

ORDINANCE NO. 45 - 2011                      BY:   HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS

Amending CHAPTER 1311 “HOME IMPROVEMENT” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by amending certain SubSections and enacting revised SubSections as further provided hereto.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Mr. Houpt, if you could explain it a little bit.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – Some wording from license to registration there’s quite a bit of that.  We’ve removed a $50 fee and inserted a $75 fee so in other words we increased it.  We’ve taken out building inspector and put in building official that happened quite a few times.  We’ve taken  and brought the registration fees up to be equal with everybody else up until this point and that’s pretty much the jest of the whole section bringing everybody up to the same speed.

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Just so we’re understanding on these fees.  We are bringing these up to a current level its not like we’re increasing them to an unreasonable level we’re just bringing them up because they haven’t been raised in so many years correct?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – They haven’t been raised in late 60’s early 70’s.  These are the same fees that we started back I know the dates wrong at the end of last year November, December.  The people that everybody that was passed up through there they all the fees are the same price for everybody.  We’ve just putting everybody on the same playing board they’re equal with everybody around that we’ve checked with.  We’re not trying to be higher, we’re not trying to be lower, we’re trying to be in the same ball field.  We’re just bringing them up to current status.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved to bring Ordinance No. 45 – 2011 for a vote, seconded by Councilman Manson.

ORDINANCE NO. 45 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES, 2 NO.   CATAZARO-PERRY AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO.

ORDINANCE NO. 48 - 2011                      BY:   HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS

Amending CHAPTER 1341 “DEMOLITION AND MOVING OF BUILDINGS” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, and enacting amended SubSections 1341.02 “LICENSE AND BOND REQUIRED”, 1341.03 “PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION”, 1341.04 “FEES FOR DEMOLITION LICENSES AND PERMITS”, 1341.05 “PERMIT TO MOVE A BUILDING FEE” and 1341.06 “PERMIT FOR USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY”.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Real briefly Mr. Houpt to explain this.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – Same thing we’ve removed license put in registration, removed inspector and put in official in a few places a quite a few places.  We’ve also increased the fee bringing it up to the current amounts.  Like I stated Mr. Slagle just moments ago we’ve removed the $200 and I just have bits and pieces here.  We actually increased the square footage to give people a better deal.  It’s basically the same thing as I said before bringing us up to speed with everybody that’s been here in the past. 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – You went from 200 to how much?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – 200 square feet to 750.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – So what…

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – I’d have to…

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Oh never mind.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – I just have the abbreviated so we gave them more of an area before we…

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved to bring Ordinance No. 45 – 2011 for a vote, seconded by Councilman Manson.

ORDINANCE NO. 48 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES, 2 NO.   CATAZARO-PERRY AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO.

ORDINANCE NO. 49 - 2011                      BY:   HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS

Amending CHAPTER 1501 “BUILDING MAINTENENACE CODE” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by amending existing Section 1307.01 “Purpose and Scope” by enacting new Subsection 1307.01 (h) “Application and Enforcement”

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Mr. Houpt, what is the purpose of having a knox box. 

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – Should the fire department need into your residence, your place of business this knox box has a key on the front of it.  This box allows the fire department with permission from dispatch to access a key to open up that door to get a keep to get into your building without breaking the glass or the door for whatever.  This ordinance was passed back in 2004 and its just been floating around.  The fire department asked me asked Mr. Kraft if we would take it and put it in Section 1501.  That’s basically all I’ve done is taking this ordinance that’s already been passed by the city and we’re putting it into where people can find it.  We have contractors from out-of-town that say it isn’t in your codified ordinances well it is it was passed this ordinance was passed in 2004.  We’re trying to put it where they can find it.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Where did they put it?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – On the front of the building…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – He means in our code.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – We have no idea where it was.  I wish I could nobody else did.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Mr. Houpt, maybe I just misunderstood you but when you said your house this has nothing to do with you know single family residential homes.  I assume this is only on commercial occupancies and apartments and so forth.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – This box can go on your house.  If you would want it.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – But this ordinance doesn’t require it.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – This ordinance does not require it on a house.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – That’s what I wanted to clarify.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – No, its only commercial buildings. 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I’ve read the ordinance I know I just wanted to clarify that point that its not for residential.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – I’m not pushing for residential use.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – And also I want to stress the fact that this is only on any structure or apartment built after the 2004 when the original ordinance was passed according to this ordinance.

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – According to this ordinance all I’m trying to do is move the ordinance.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Now there was some concerns with some people that they feel that you know people can break them open and take the keys and go in and loot the place.  I mean how solid or how solid are these things where someone walking down the street can’t break it open…

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – The commercial knox box is half inch plate steel front, back, sides.  The sides are all one piece rolled into the shape.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – So they can’t be broken open?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – Well I’ll tell you what before I would want to try and get into that knox box I’ll pick up a brick.  I’ll be in faster than you will trying to get into that box.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Okay.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Understand this has nothing to do with whether we’re reaffirming the ordinance.  We’re strictly moving the location in our code is that correct?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – That’s correct.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson.  I’m sorry were you done Mr. Townsend?

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Yeah, I just wanted to know what the knox box was and I knew there were some concerns about it.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – My question we had Ordinance No. 75 – 2004 and I remember they brought the boxes in.  You’re saying we passed the ordinance but nobody put it in our codified ordinances?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – It’s in the code but apparently its in an extremely hard to find location.  Not a logical spot this is now putting it into the building code.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – So there’s no revisions at all we’re just moving to 1501.13 right?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – No, you’re strictly changing the address.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Alright.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER –  This has nothing to do with reaffirming or cancelling that ordinance its strictly moving it. 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I just had one other question.  I mean even though its an existing code I mean if a commercial building owner wanted to have one of these lock boxes installed and did that is there a fee or anything or any kind of what’s that entail?

BUILDING OFFICIAL HOUPT – Knox box charges and depends on the size of the box.  I don’t know the cost I just purchased one for my house its $200.  I’m installing it myself you can install it at your stores the same way.  You can have them built in they are flush mount also depends upon which one you order.  Go online to Knoxbox.com and there’s all your information.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved to bring Ordinance No. 49 – 2011 for a vote, seconded by Councilman Manson.

ORDINANCE NO. 49 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 53 B 2011                     BY:   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Approving an application for assistance under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan; authorizing the execution and filing of the application and related assurances and certifications, and declaring an emergency.

 
COUNCILMAN MANG B Second reading.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Also wanted to check with everyone you have a revised sheet tonight.  The bottom right corner it has today’s date I’m sorry April 13th which was last week and the program total is $611,000 does everyone have that?

ORDINANCE NO. 53 – 2011 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 56 B 2011                     BY:   RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE

Amending Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT of Ordinance No. 127 – 1997 by repealing Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WASTEWATER TREATMENT DEPARTMENT and the SOLIDE WASTE DEPARMENT, and enacting a new Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES - INOCME TAX, WASTEWATER TREAMENT DEPARTMENT and the SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT, in the City of Massillon, Ohio, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY  - This is ordinance is to bring back Linda McGill she retired she was a 20S we’re going to bring her back and pay her $25.00 an hour with no benefits.  She’s going to be split up into those three departments as you can see in Section 2.  That’s really it for this ordinance any questions? 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I have a question is this ordinance specifically for Linda McGill or is this to establish a position?

COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY  - Well they’ve already selected her to fill the position so I would say if it wasn’t her its just a position.  But they have selected someone already. 

COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved to bring Ordinance No. 56 – 2011 forward for a vote.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We need to suspend the rules.

COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY  - It’s third reading I believe.  Oh, its second then I’ll just give it a second reading.  Thank you.

ORDINANCE NO. 56 – 2011 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 57 B 2011                     BY:   RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE

Amending Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE of Ordinance No. 127 – 1997 by repealing Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE, and enacting a new Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE, in the City of Massillon, Ohio, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY  - Second reading.  I do want to apologize for that because but unfortunately my pages have coped of other things on the back and its very hard to read.  So I do apologize we’ll do final reading next time.  

ORDINANCE NO. 57 – 2011 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING.

16.  NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

17.  REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

18.  ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILMAN MCCUNE - I move that we adjourn, seconded by all.

 

_________________________
MARY BETH BAILEY, CLERK,

______________________________
GLENN E. GAMBER, PRESIDENT

 

©Copyright 1998 - present City of Massillon. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Maintained by Imaging 2000 Web Design