|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, June 5, 2006. We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Cicchinelli, Auditor Hamit, Law Director Stergios, Engineer Dylewski and former Council President Dennis Harwig. 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 PETERS led the invocation for the evening. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILMAN PETERS Chairman of the Streets, Highways, Traffic & Safety 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 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, you have a request? COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, I’d like to request that we change the order of the agenda and bring Ordinance No. 65 – 2006 as the first call. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Any objections to bringing Ordinance No. 65 forward? With no objections that’s what we will do. ORDINANCE NO. 65 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG – This piece of property has a little history here with us. Initially this piece of property was both in Perry and in the City of Massillon. Mr. Dale Alpeter decided that he wanted to live under one jurisdiction and he picked the City of Massillon and he asked for the city to annex him. That happened and after that happened the city had to apply a zoning classification for his property. At that time the city zoned it R-1 single family. It’s typical of all rezoning it must go through three readings and a public hearing. Tonight we had the public hearing and now this piece of legislation is up for its third and final reading and my recommendation is council is to approve this Ordinance No. 65. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE- I fully support Ron’s position on that and I’m glad that we can welcome a new citizen into the City of Massillon. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. ORDINANCE NO. 65 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY – I’d like to make a motion to amend the agenda by adding on Ordinance No. 90 and 91, please? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are those new ordinances? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY – Yes sir, they are. This was seconded by Councilman Maier. The agenda was amended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I have a question then. If they are new ordinances why do they say they say they are amended? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY – Well, we’re going to be bringing up there’s a split ordinances that we talked about. So they’re new as far as being separated out. We will be defeating an ordinance here later on in the agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, are your instructions to the clerk in writing as I requested? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY – We just discussed that this is what Mary Beth came up. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, I’m very serious that I would like these things to be writing from now on. Alright? ORDINANCE NO. 82 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG –.This piece of legislation deals with three lots located up on 4th Street SW which is south of Isabella Avenue. This land has been had a zoning of light industrial and now there’s a developer who wishes to rezone the entire tract of land to R-1 single family. In our work session we had this piece of legislation as being welcomed by the ward councilman and also by the President of Council. So it will be given three readings tonight will be the first, we have a public hearing scheduled for Monday, July 3rd at 7:15pm. That’s the night before the works. ORDINANCE NO. 82 2006 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 83 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, the Sanders Annexation was approved by the county commissioners on February 9th. But the city has not officially approved the annexation. So tonight we have Ordinance No. 83 – 2006 before you to accept the Sanders Annexation in the City of Massillon. I will be asking for suspension of rules so this we can get on with this piece of legislation. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY – I’m just a little confused on this. Is this the same one that the County Commissioners denied? (No.) This is not, okay. COUNCILMAN MANG County Commissioners approved it. COUNCILMAN BRYAN When we first discussed the Sanders Annexation there were two other annexations that were on our agenda the same time. The one out on 93 Sam Campian’s and Hunter’s Pointe and I understand Sam Campian’s was denied by the commissioners as was Hunter’s Pointe. Now I read in the papers that Hunters Pointe is going to refile. So I would like to ask the Mayor to answer a short question on Hunters Point. Mayor, I know you’re usually up to date on what’s going on with annexations. So I’m going to ask you the owners of Hunters Point are going to refile? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – We, yes, we already have refiled. COUNCILMAN BRYAN okay and when will the Commissioners have the Commissioners met on that yet? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – They’re suppose to set a hearing this week. That’s what they told us. COUNCILMAN BRYAN So they’ll meet this week to set a hearing time? (Yes) From what I understand in the paper the thing that’s different this time is that the owner intends to show up and speak on his behalf. He didn’t think that was necessary the first time, right? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Right, there’s one owner he signed the annexation petition it is a 100%. The owner did have representation at the hearing, but did not speak. So we felt that it would be wise since they rejected the annexation it would be wise to refile and he will be there and speak at the time. There’s just for the benefit of members of council that’s not too familiar with annexation. Annexation has changed a little bit as far as procedures. There are three methods by which you can annex. The one we are using is what they call the regular annexation petition which is majority signatures needed and that annexation petition hearing is scheduled by the Commissioners. The city if the annexation’s approved either through the commissioners or through a court the city must for 12 years pay the township reparations as I call them and basically what it is, is a real and personal property taxes. After the 12th year it’s over. The other methods there’s what they call an expedited annexation which is where the township and the city agree and they actually a new taxing district is creating. We looked at the other two types of annexation, but felt that if we would have went the expedited route the main difference there is with the expedited annexation procedure there is no public hearing and the Commissioners then rule. Ever since this new law they’ve always at least in Stark County have always approved them. Then the payments to the townships exist forever because you have like an agreement with the township. Then another one would be if you have a CEDA which is a cooperative economic development agreement. So point is, you should be aware because there are three different methods primary methods of annexation. The only reason we didn’t use the expedited route we were going to do that was because the taxing district that would had to be created would actually cost the owner more real and personal property taxes. The main reason for this is that most townships when they charge their citizens for fire levies, police levies, road levies they create a district. They create a fire district, they create a road district, Perry, Jackson and other townships in the county have done that; Tuscarawas Township didn’t do that. That would then force the property owners within that area Hunters Pointe to have to pay a higher tax rate, because they would be residents of the city, but they would also be residents of Tuscarawas Township and pay the voted on real estate tax increases to support police and fire or road levies whatever they have. Sorry to take a long time to explain but I think it’s important that we did look at alternatives, but we felt that and also with the regular annexation procedure the Commissioners rejected it because they can take the state statute changed they can look at the general good of the adjoining properties and they say they did that. We beg the differ with them and I think our case will be stronger and that figured with a 100% and by the way I did not attend that hearing. But I’m going to make sure I’ll be attending this one that everything is put on the record because we figure with a 100% why would anybody be opposed to it the owner signed for it. But he’s going to be here and by the way he did have representation there, but they didn’t want to speak. So we’re going to make sure that things are done differently and we’ll see what happens. By the way the Campian Annexation was not rejected by the that’s on 93, we actually withdrew it. 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. 83 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 84 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG This piece of these two out lots are located just east of Wales Road and bound by Hankins Road. These two out lots are presently 855 and 933 they are in the Pebble Chase Condominium area. Developer wishes to replat this under one plat whether than having two lots. There’s no digging involved, there’s nothing involved other than taking these two lots and making them into one lot. COUNCILMAN MANG moved to suspend the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 84– 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 85 2006 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, this is a routine easement so we can go onto the property and maintain the sewer there if we need to do that at some point in time. COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Maier. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 85 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 86 2006 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, it’s not my intention to do or take any action on this tonight. I would like to have a little bit of discussion on it though and not get into it too deep and delay our meeting. First of all, this is a very expensive project here. This is probably one of the bigger things we’ve been looking at for a while. It’s the we’re coming to the end of the road on the infrastructure requirements that we have for the Lincoln Center Phase III. Now we have four council people here that are really very not have not been very well informed about what is going on down there. We had a presentation in 2004 from the people that made recommendations on different alternatives that we could use for solving our problems with the pump station. So I’ve talked with Keith and we intent to put together a little better presentation give a little more history next committee meeting maybe identify a few more of the problems for you and also maybe talk a little bit more about the financing. Now last meeting, I passed out some letters of support I don’t know if you have those with you or not. I really shouldn’t have done that at that time; these letters of support are letters that went into Mr. Regula’s office and I’m going to let the Mayor talk about this here in a minute. We knew about at it, but I shouldn’t have passed those at that time, we were not sure if we were able talk about it. We’re requesting funds, federal funds more federal funds for this we’ve already had a couple of we’ve got a loan that was approved. We had some other funds from the grants that we had been using I think we used the grant money on the ponds and stuff. But Mr. Cicchinelli would you like to come up and talk and then also since Keith is here I know Keith has been looking at it without taking too long if there’s anything you would like to say tonight you’re welcome to. Otherwise next Monday we will be having a little better presentation. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Mr. Manson is correct. I think if you can some of the folks that here before can remember we had stated publicly that we were going to go out and try to seek other methods of other additional dollars other revenues to try to accomplish this really needed infrastructure improvement project. So we had some discussions with Congressman Regula’s office and he has informed us that he is going to seek some assistance for the city. However, what you have to realize there’s no guarantee we should be finding out very shortly here if the feds are going to assist us at all. But we have I think made a good case for some assistance. I think if you know anything about the history of Massillon when the river was straightened and the development of the currency district and the viaduct system if I’m not mistaken mostly all of that was paid for by federal funds. The pump station that we’re dealing with now was 1950 vintage and again what we’re trying to doing is improve the system that exists. So I think there’s some justification in seeking some federal help. Hopefully they can see fit to include in some type of appropriations bill some assistance for the City of Massillon. Any assistance would help fund and pay for the entire infrastructure project. Mr. Manson, I don’t know if you were in error of passing those out the issue is we didn’t want to do anything to put anybody on the spot and I think that’s what he was saying. But the letters are public information but we wanted to make sure that the Councilman will understand that I have to work with 9 other people and being a Councilman he understands that working with the President, the President’s office and Cabinets. So I don’t think you did anything wrong it was just that we it’s a very sensitive thing because there’s a lot of communities asking for federal assistance. So we’ll see what happens I’m willing to take any questions. COUNCILMAN BRYAN The only question I want to bring up here because you weren’t at the work session. I had a question then about the TIF and I’ve asked you about it before. Can you tell me where that’s at creating a TIF? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, you know we did the first phase of the project which was the retention basins between Great Escapes and the Rec. Center. Our goal was to get the second phase of the project scheduled, developed and underway. The TIF can be established at any time however, the more development you have with the TIF area the TIF geographical area the better it is. So we’re looking at ways to even expand the geographical area. Keep in mind folks, that this regardless what some folks are saying that sort of filtered information to council. This pump station project serves about 124 acres, it doesn’t just serve the Deville property and project which is like 3.2. So this whole project will serve a larger area of this part of our city than just 1 or 2 parts and 1 or 2 projects. So you need to keep in mind that in mind when you discuss it. The thing that you have to look at also as far as the TIF that is our intention regardless if we get federal assistance or not we still want to have some type of local share and that will established from the TIF. Those are dollars generated by development projects will fit in the area like for example the Great Escapes any thing that’s new dollar real estate dollars are generated and put in a fund to help pay for public improvements. So it’s our intention that we know Deville Development would like to start their at least one building this year along Tommy Henrich Drive where Ohio Drilling is along that area. So that helps and any other new development will help too. So but at the same time also looking to see if we can include additional areas within the TIF district and we’re looking at that. So it’s our intention of doing the TIF regardless if we get assistance from the feds or not. COUNCILMAN MANSON Maybe if the water doesn’t go down to quick maybe you’d get a chance to do down and look at it. We may have a little on site meeting or something somewhere along the way. I was down there myself looking around today and I ran into Keith and I don’t know who was with him but they were down there looking at the project close to the pump station. The gates were not closed over where they run out into the river today. But the river water was up high enough because of the rains we’ve had. The water was backed up through the pump station it was about 18 inches deep in that 5’ pipe that comes in off of Federal Avenue. Went over and pulled a manhole cover over by the ponds and the water was backed up clear to that point. This is what we would hope to solve if we do automate this process down there. We have a process where a person has to come from the sewerage treatment plant and it’s just a judgment thing. They have to come up walk across the bicycle path scale the levy wall, climb up out at where the river where the pipes come out, close those gates, climb back down, walk back over 21 on the bicycle path, go to the pump station on this side close those gates or do they open those 30” gates there, then they go inside they turn on a pump. If one pump works it starts to reduce the water level its fine. If it doesn’t they turn on a second pump if that’s not enough they turn on the third pump. That’s how we’re handling this system now. Today that system that should have been closed today you know we talk about this retention pond the 600,000 gallons retention pond. Anytime the water level, the river gets close to what the bottom of that pond those pipes and stuff are it should be closing so it doesn’t come back. Because with that water backed up through that system that whole area is going to continue to fill up with sediment down there. What we’re looking at is trying to solve that problem down there. So we’re going to have another presentation Monday. Any more questions you have please get them either to myself or Keith, if you give them to me I’ll pass them along to Keith. Another thing that he talked about it is after he thought about it rather than since this is going to be a lot of work rather than go through this thing we may change the legislation and ask for all of the money instead of 50% of it to get started. Because we’re going to have to do it all anyhow if we make up our minds to do it and move ahead we may as well approve all of the money as far as this $750,000.00. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Paul, what about the other portion of the pipe that’s still plugged? Are we going to address that? COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, and this wasn’t cleared up Steve was here the other night, but he doesn’t work for the city anymore. But we kind of overlooked what he said, this plan when they started to study this, this plan is planned with those pipes totally cleaned out, okay. Now because and I just gave a letter to Dave because he was unfamiliar with it. But we passed legislation in 2004 approving the detention ponds because at that time Great Escapes wanted to get moving. Great Escapes didn’t ask the city for anything; they bought the land from us the only thing they asked us to do was take care of our end on infrastructure and take care of the flooding. So that’s why we started there with those 2 ponds and a 1,000 feet of the pipe. But the rest of the plan was to do the pumps now and clean the rest of that pipe out and then it will be cleaned. That’s the way Steve planned that project development. So when we do the rest of this they will finish cleaning the pipes and then after that if the flow is good it should keep itself relatively flushed out. But if we have the river flooding above those gates and its not closing that water’s just going to lay in there and the debris’ going to continue to settle into the storm sewer system. Also we look and he showed me where there’s about a 12 inch sanitary sewer down there that goes straight through the middle. When we have a high water situation it does help restrict the flow in the storm sewer. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Mr. Manson, since you brought this up about the river being above the outlet pipes and it backing up. Isn’t there an alarm that rings down at the sewer plant when the river hits that height? (I don’t know) I believe there is. COUNCILMAN MANSON Maybe when it gets above them, but I think there’s nothing done like if it gets up just a little bit. Like today it was up maybe a foot into the pipes. COUNCILMAN BRYAN It supposed to ring when it gets up to the pipes. I don’t know if there’s a malfunction or somebody didn’t pay attention to it or maybe its been disabled. I don’t know, but that’s the way it was before. COUNCILMAN MANSON I think… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Manson, would you like to call the engineer up to describe the process? COUNCILMAN MANSON Keith, will you come up please? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Well thank you, you described the procedure well on what happens when the flood comes up. As for an alarm going off I would have to check on that I’m not sure if that’s the case or not Mr. Bryan. I spoke to Mr. Manson today I took a site visit out there and I don’t know if he was going to bring it up or not. But we were going to invite members of council before the next meeting to come out meet at the site there and we can kind of give you a more of a visual of what actually takes place because actually seeing what has to be done kind of opens your eyes a little more than us sitting here and trying to describe you know what takes place. As he said cleaning out that line is not going to do anything because its flat. As to the situation today we had water all the way back up almost to the ponds and those pipes and it just sits stagnant and what happens all that settles out and you’re just going to be creating you know all that debris to be in that line again. So COUNCILMAN MAIER You say cleaning out the pipe won’t help, but you said the ponds were backing up but the pipe is 50% blocked. So why wouldn’t it back up to the ponds. I mean I would assume the first step we have to do would be to clean out pipe and see it may or not be flat. We don’t know that for fact. ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – The elevations that our department has taken on those pipe has shown that’s the case. COUNCILMAN MAIER And you’ve taken elevations with the sediment in it? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – They said they got good enough shots that they are confident that’s the case. Its not the water that’s backing up this water is actually coming from the river. You know its not the other way from the retention ponds from by the Rec. Center. COUNCILMAN MANSON Some thing Steve said last week. He did address that last he said they had to dig out to get to the bottom of the pipes to shoot their elevations when they were doing these studies. That’s another thing hopefully when we bring Steve back and we’re going to try to clear these things up a little more for everybody. Planning was done with the pipes opened up, I mean we not looking at a problem that can just be solved by just cleaning the pipes out. We do have to pump when the river goes above the level of those pipes we have to pump that area out. COUNCILMAN MAIER The engineer that was here last Monday stated that it is adequate the current pump system and I just you know its been here 50 years. So is the new if we do a new pump station will that be here 50 years then we need to replace that? COUNCILMAN MANSON I can’t answer that I would hope it would last that longer. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Yes Keith, if the river doesn’t back up into the pump and into the pipe then there won’t be sediment moving into from that direction. My point is I don’t think the river ever should ever back up into there because there is an alarm system that rings at the sewer plant when the river approaches that height. It worked for many, many, many, many years I don’t know what the situation is now. But if you would please investigate it I think you’ll probably will what that situation is now. Because I don’t the river should ever back up into those pipes, but maybe I’m wrong maybe it has been over a longer period of time. But as I understand it that thing goes off and they dispatch a person or two to the pump stations and close the valves when the river’s reached a different height. So you can find out for us if I’m right or not. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Manson, if we could I rather not have this turn into a long committee session. So… COUNCILMAN MANSON Okay and we will get we will find out about that; that’s the first I’ve heard about an alarm. But I think what’s going on is that unless we see a very serious event that’s going to take the river above the whole pipe we’re not messing with it. That would be handled by automated system; that’s all. Next Monday we’ll get into it more. ORDINANCE NO. 86 – 2006 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 87 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Ordinance No. 87 consists of 5 sections. The first section is for the Wastewater Treatment Fund $149,000.00 to purchase additional peroxide to help with the odor. Section 2 is $100,000.00 on the Massillon Municipal Court Capital Improvement Fund is going to be using that to pave the parking lot. Section 3, is $7,000.00 for recycling services and contracts for the Waste Management Grant Fund and section 4 is $2,918.00 and this is to audit the Muni Motor Vehicle License Fund. Then section 5 is to declare this an emergency measure. Are there any questions concerning any of these sections. I would like to say that I am hesitant to vote for section 1, however I’m going to go ahead and give my vote as yes to this ordinance. Because when you look at this entire amount it’s really not an entire amount we’re already six months to the year. So the whole amount for the extra peroxide on a yearly annual basis would be $300,000.00; which is quite a bit of money for additional peroxide. They do have things up and running, mostly except for one item down at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. So I just wanted to make that comment I am hesitant I’m going to go ahead because its such a problem the odor is such a problem to vote yes. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 87 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 88 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This ordinance has been long awaited for we are going to approve tonight and appropriate $272,865.88 for the 27th Street/Jackson Avenue Project. We did met with the Perry Township today and I would to thank Mr. Paul Manson, Mr. Donnie Peters and Mr. Ron Mang for attending it as well as well as our new engineer Keith Dylewski. But it was a very good meeting today its wonderful the two entities can come together and support a project and share in the expense. We do need to address however, change orders from the original contract and the Mayor is here and he may be able to speak to this that change orders will be shared 50% as well and any refunds would be shared 50% as well I believe that’s standard procedure. They also requested that we inform them and Keith said he would do that of any change order and always keep them in the loop. So with that if there are any questions I’ll be happy to answer those or the Mayor, Keith is here to answer those as well. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – My concern is of the concern of the citizens that live on that street that don’t want it to be a three lane highway. That has been I’ve gotten quite a few calls from people and people have come in the audience about that. I know we’re in a position that we can’t change that at this point, correct? (Correct) But that gives me concern because so many people have come forward and did not want that to be a three lane highway. So I’m going to vote for this because I know the street needs it desperately, but I regret that we can not go back because of the time situation and readdress this and have it remain a two lane highway. Because I don’t think its necessary that it does become a three lane highway. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY If I may Jayne, I have not accept for one negative comment received anything as ward 3 council besides the one comment Mr. Peters received. Perry did say today that they had two of their residents that were unhappy, but they had many more that were very positive about it and said they were looking forward to the change. So with your complaints I’ve only received the one shared through Mr. Peters. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Well, I’ve had more than four complaints and a lot of people that have walked up and addressed it with me too in public places and things know who I am. I again, told them if we go back to the drawing board that its going to delay it that much longer and the funds may not be available at that point in time. So because of that I am going to vote for it. But I am hesitant because of their concern and I think we have to be conscious of what the people really want. You have to also realize that there’s only how many turn offs on Jackson Avenue; we don’t have big intersections there you know. We have two streets to the right that come down and besides Colonial Hills just those two small streets up above Sundale and oh there’s three streets behind K-mart there that turn off. So that isn’t a big turning area except for the residents there and that was their concern. I just wanted to voice to council and I mean we have to get it done its necessary and we can’t pass this up especially for this price. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY And I do appreciate your comments. However, I had as streets and highways chair last year zero input as to the design of the street. Our previous engineer Mr. Steve Hamit he designed it I don’t know why he chose three lanes I just know that that’s what the design was. So and we did discuss possibly changing it two, but unfortunately with time and you’d have to go all the way back to the beginning of the drawing board. So any other questions, Tim did you have your hand up? COUNCILMAN BRYAN Well, I was going to point that out what Mrs. Perry said. But also that this project had been talked about in the Perry Township meetings, at Massillon City Council meetings, discussed in the newspaper. It goes back what three or four years so you know its human nature to wait till the last minute to find something out or do something. I’m just saying it was discussed plenty, but maybe if we learn from our experience here not a mistake so much as experience maybe the next time we have a big project like this we’ll have public meetings about it while its still in the design phase. Then we can get that input up front when we have the chance. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 88 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 89 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This ordinance we had previously agreed to allow the Administration to go out to bids on this. I believe the bids did come in now and I guess we can discuss those this evening. But this ordinance is to approve and appropriate the $800,000.00 to do the resurfacing project in the City of Massillon. So Keith would you be able to approach the podium and talk with us about the bids and answer any questions that council members may have. COUNCILMAN PETERS – Like are all the bids within the amount that we appropriated. I mean I’ve never seen bids so I mean that’s why I’m… KEITH DYLEWSKI – Yes, their, I believe the lowest bid was $763,000.00. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Okay, Keith how many bids did we receive on this project? Three bids and the low was from which company? (Superior Paving?) Superior paving, now I’ve got to be honest here I had a conversation with our Mayor this week so I know a little bit more about this baby than some. But I understand that there was also a bid open for the target area streets and that was a little higher than the estimate instead of like this was lower than the estimate; is that right? Do you remember what that low bid was? (Low bid was $128,000.00 I don’t recall what the estimate was) Okay, well I think the estimate was $112,000.00 or $114,000.00, but I think the budget figure was $100,000.00 in our budget is that right? The Mayor’s shaking his head yes, let the record reflect. So but Frank could I ask you to come to the podium because this is obviously something Frank had talked to me about and I’m trying to talk to Keith about it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Could you explain to the rest of council what you explained to me about what you want to do considering these two projects. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Right, council remembers when we had three different discussions, three different meetings on the streets before you gave us authorization to advertise for them. There was some discussions on where the streets were and we tried to say “okay, we would go and visit ever street that was on that list then we came back the next meeting and made some changes. Well, in order to do that we wanted to take the first street project, 1st Street NE project put it on the target streets. That changed because that increased because that a little bit more expensive. So we knew going in that was going to be a little bit higher than what we originally thought and what we had available for CDBG. Since the regular street resurfacing program came in under our $800,000.00 estimate actually it was $815,000.00, but in our tentative budget it showed $800,000.00 but the actually estimate was a little over $815,000.00. What we want to do the target street dollars are not going to be available until later this summer. So we can’t enter into contract on those now anyhow because CDBG’s not a calendar year it’s a fiscal year. Those dollars come in probably anytime from August, September something like that. Hopefully, we can get those dollars in this year and I say that because last year and the year before we got the target streets done within the CDBG year that you approved the budget. Previous to that 4, 5 years previous to that a lot of time HUD was late in authorizing those dollars so by the time we got everything approved the plants were closed. So we couldn’t actually do the streets for that year until the following year when the plants reopen after the winter. So we’re going to try to push through and get the approval from HUD if we do that, that’s a separate contract anyhow. Now the good thing, the good point is Superior was the successful bidder on both target streets and the regular resurfacing streets. So what we came up with and what I talked to Tim about was since we were less dollars the bid came less than what we though for the regular streets that we will take a couple like 1st Street and get those get that number from the target streets down to $100,000.00 because that’s all that’s available. Take whatever we can take out of that and move those streets with for example 1st Street NE and put that in our regular street resurfacing which we can do. Then we can do all the streets that are all the list and we might be able to add 1 or 2 it all depends on how it all flushes out. But the list that you have both the target streets and the regular resurfacing list all those streets will be done. But there still might be chance we can do more. So we want to do that we want to get started because Superior wants to get in here by the week of the 19th of June. They would like to get moving because costs is escalating for them as you all well know the gas prices and every thing else. They are held to the bid I mean there’s nothing they can do about that. However, its costing them money the longer they wait and I’d like to be one of the first communities we’ve already had some of our streets resurfaced held over from last year and I’d like to get these streets done in June or July so our citizens can have the streets completed. So that’s how I explained it to Tim and I hope it helps you all understand now. But it looks like we’ll be able to do all the streets on both of the lists at the minimum and that’s what we would like to do. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Bryan, anything further? COUNCILMAN BRYAN No, I just I’d just like to say that given the situation I think that’s a reasonable approach I don’t expect we’re going to do anymore than the streets probably that we bid out. Because that comes to $891,000.00 if you add both low bids together I think. If I did it right and we between the two budgets we’ll have about $900,000.00 so that’ll probably be about it. But I think that’s the approach. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – I think you’re right, but I just wanted to leave the door open in talking to Greg McCue from the engineering department the reason I said there might be 1 or 2. Once you get into it then there’s some things that can happen once they get in here and like I said they’re going to this is a lot. They sharpened their pencil on this because this is the largest amount one year we’ve ever done. This is a lot of streets. COUNCILMAN BRYAN And you add to that the streets we just finished doing because those are the ones from last year’s budget. What was that $2….? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – $270,000.00 so $270,000.00, $800,000.00, $100,000.00 CDBG last year, $100,000.00 this year. That’s a lot of residential streets plus Richville Drive that we’ve got completed this year, 27th we’re going to do this year. That’s a lot of streets and we’ve got some coming last year Erie Street, Wales, so Amherst we’re looking at municipal road for Amherst. So we’re getting there but its always use more money. So I’d like to get these things, get these streets going so people can have their streets done. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Bryan. COUNCILMAN BRYAN When we approved going out to bids did we approve entering into contract? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Not on the $800,000.00 we did not approve entering into contract. We only approved going out to bid we scratched that. I remember doing that sir, because Donnie Peters was absent that evening and I scratched that he was out of town. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Bryan is right there is a step missing here. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – I thought the original request okay I did not know that was taken out. But I’m afraid we’re going to have to… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER You can appropriate this tonight, but it can’t be spent. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – No, you can still appropriate it, but we have to get another ordinance on the 19th to enter into an agreement enter into the contract. Okay, we’ll get legislation on the 12th what time do you want to call it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER 5:45 is when committee meetings are Mrs. Catazaro-Perry? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I would just like to suggest that we just remove our motions amend this quickly and just add enter into contract this evening. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER If that’s what you would like to do I propose we take a recess and put it in writing just one moment we’re not finished with discussion yet. Can I call the Law Director forward? Mr. Stergios, would it be better to amend this, this evening and include the entering into contract should that be a separate ordinance, should we wait until Monday? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – It could be done very quickly without even a recess I think. Donnie wanted a recess, Perry wants to go home. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I feel more comfortable taking a recess so that we can make sure Mrs. Catazaro-Perry would you make a motion, please? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for a recess to discuss 89 – 2006. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY withdrawn motion for suspension, seconded by Councilman Peters was withdrawn also. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY made a motion to amend Ordinance No. 89 and add section 2, which would allow us to enter into contract, seconded by Councilman Bryan. ORDINANCE NO. 89 – 2006 WAS AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Bryan. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 89 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, now we’re ready to move on to Ordinance 90 and 91 which we added to our agenda. Does everyone have Ordinance 90 and 91; anyone who does not? One member of the press, two, three members of the press if you would please get copies to the press. Mrs. Catazaro-Perry, I have several questions for you before we move into that. We have an Ordinance No. 79 that we gave first reading to on May 15th for two items for the fire department. That’s coming up for second reading later in our meeting. We now have been given Ordinance 90 and 91 which puts those two items separately. How do you want to handle that? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Well, according to the agenda I would assume we would go to second readings, but if you want to move Mr. President to go to these that’s fine. But Ordinance No. 79 is in mine and I was going to recommend that we defeat Ordinance No. 79 as instructed to me today from council clerk. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, our clerk has been instructed to give no instructions. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I’m not going to embarrass anyone on the Mr. President. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Okay, I would like to ask… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I’m not finished yet. At that point then when we move to 90 and 91 these are not amended ordinances. These are new original ordinances and the question then comes if we just defeated this these then become reconsiderations. So technically we’ve got a nice mess here. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Actually, it’s very easy I will move that we bring Ordinance No. 79 – 2006 forward on the agenda, please. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Law Director, can I call you forward; we do have a motion on the floor to bring Ordinance No. 79 forward is there a second, seconded by Councilman Peters. Mr. Law Director, Perry, I just gave you copies of two ordinances which apparently you have not seen before is that correct? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Right, that’s correct. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER How would you like to handle Ordinance No. 79 and then what becomes of 90 and 91 in your opinion are those amended ordinances, are those original ordinances, do they come reconsiderations where are we at here? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I don’t know they’re not amended I know that. I would think the proper thing to do would be to either table 79 indefinitely. Do something with it other than vote it down because if you vote down then 90 and 91 are like reconsidering it which is doesn’t make any sense under our rules I don’t think? Or amend 79 to vote on it in separate phases I’d rather take a moment to look at our rules I guess. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Thee again we’re going to need a recess, we need a motion for a recess, COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for a recess to discuss Ordinance No. 79. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Stergios, can you tell where we’re at? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Yes, I believe its been decided by Mrs. Catazaro-Perry that we will go ahead forward with second reading and potentially voting on Ordinance No. 79 and re-amend the agenda to delete the Ordinances 90 – 2006 and Ordinance No. 91 – 2006. They never were read we’re just going to remove them not we you guys are going to remove them from the agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER And what’s the mechanism to do that? She make a motion… LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – That we get them on, that we move to amend the agenda to add them? (Yes) Withdraw the motion and vote on withdrawing it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, Mrs. Catazaro-Perry do you agree with that? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Yes, I do. Due to the fact that our council clerk was trying to be helpful and due to the fact she was being helpful to certain council members that may have wanted to vote separately on these issues it has been misconstrued and created an embarrassment for several members of council as well as the council clerk. So I move that we remove the number 90 and 91 from the agenda that we amended earlier. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved to withdraw her motion to amend the agenda adding 90 and 91, seconded by Councilman Peters was withdrawn. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NOTHING 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS (A) LETTER FROM OHIO DIVISION OF LIQUOR CONTROL REGARDING A TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE FROM WEBB STREET COMPANY LLC DBA ABBEY ROAD 1008 9TH ST SW 1ST FL MASSILLON, OHIO 44647 TO SANTANGELOS RESTAURANT & PARTY CENTER LLC 1008 9TH ST SW 1ST FL MASSILLON, OH 44647 COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Peters, do you have a copy of that? (Yes) 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS 1. INDEPENDENT - $1,158.00 COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move we pay the bills, seconded by Councilman Peters Roll call vote of 9 yes to pay the bills. 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY PERMIT REPORT FOR MAY 2006. COPY FILE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move that we accept the Auditor’s report, seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote of 9 yes to accept the Auditor’s report. 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We will be next Monday the 12th starting at 5:45, does anyone know right now of any guests attending? COUNCILMAN MANSON – We’ll have another presentation on the Federal Avenue Pump Station. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER And will that be in the course of business or first on the agenda? COUNCILMAN MANSON – Well, then I don’t know we’re going to have probably a couple extra people here if there’s nothing else big I would like to lead off with it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, coordinate that with Mr. Bryan. I saw a hand up over here, Mrs. Catazaro-Perry? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Mr. Bill Hamit will present our debt that’s out 20 years. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER If I might mention I think I heard Steve Hamit’s name mentioned for Monday. Will he be here? COUNCILMAN MANSON – Well we’re going to be talking about that this week. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, just as a note to council members Mr. Hamit is on a retainer with the city and when he’s here he is on the clock a very expensive clock. So just keep that in mind Mr. Manson? COUNCILMAN MANSON – He is on a retainer, but he’s also part of this project right now with Tetra Tech. So we’re talking about this project so I would hope we would not have to pay a retainer on that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Well he indicated to me last week when he left that he was billing for his time. We’ll iron that out later. COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, but he is part of this project. So I would not assume that we’re going to have any additional expense there. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS - NOTHING 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR - NOTHING 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS – ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF 15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 73 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG I’m a little bit confused, but second reading. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER May I ask the nature of the confusion? COUNCILMAN MANG Since I wasn’t here at the last meeting I don’t have the ordinance. I’ve been advised by a good competent individual that second reading is in order. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, the Mayor has indicated he would like to come forward. Would you like to come forward with comment? COUNCILMAN MANG Why sure, love to have the Mayor come forward. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Just so you understand the $100,000.00 that’s we’re asking the ordinance that’s before you is for Polymer Packaging. This week in fact it appears talking to the Law Director that the land near Massillon Market Place that we’re selling to Deville for $248,000.00 plus will be closed this week. Those monies deposited in our Economic Development fund, so we’re taking $100,000.00 out of that hopefully to attract Polymer Packaging as grant money. So that money is coming out of that fund. COUNCILMAN PETERS – So do you feel confident enough that the money will be there this week that we can vote on this now or not? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Whatever the chairman of the committee that’s fine it doesn’t matter because it’s after they move in anyhow. So we have time. ORDINANCE NO. 73 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. ORDINANCE NO. 78 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Second reading. ORDINANCE NO. 78 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Second reading. ORDINANCE NO. 79 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. 16. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS COUNCILMAN BRYAN – Mr. Manson has some new and miscellaneous business. COUNCILMAN MANSON – To go along with the presentation we intend to have next Monday the engineer would like to have an on site meeting that everybody is invited. I’d ask Mary Beth if you would email again everybody and remind them we’re going to try to do it next Monday before the committee meeting. Keith what time would you like to do it? Alright, we’ll shoot for 4:14 we will meet at the pump station down on Federal and for anybody that wants to see what is actually taking place down there. We may go over and take a look at the ponds also. He would like to have an on site inspection. So… COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I’d like to call the Mayor forward he wants to talk about Steve Hamit? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Just a little FYI because I heard a member of council say it sounds like he’s double dipping. Just a clarification Mr. Hamit is not on the city payroll for the project that you are talking about the pump station. He is working with Tetra Tech through McCoy; he’s not on a city retainer so there’ll be no double dipping. Besides that point as far as no I’m glad it was mentioned because I want to just clear the air on that because this is just the way it is. As far as the retainer he hasn’t been used for anything and I don’t want to say totally because what happens if we had him until we hired our new city engineer he was on a retainer. But there still might be some billing if we call him for a project that he had worked on and Keith is here now I’m sure he’ll bill us for that call. But the point is he’s not on a full time like retainer. He doesn’t come in here, he doesn’t come in, he doesn’t do any work. So that is dwindling and it has dwindled drastically. So I want to clear the air on that. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I would like to add something also. Mr. Hamit was here in regards to his duties with the sewer plant. He was asked to stay to discuss another project and indicated that he could not stay to stay to discuss that project because as I indicate he was here for the other project for which he was being paid. Then when he left he felt badly that he didn’t stay, but he explained that he was working on that other project anymore. 17. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - NOTHING 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMAN PETERS 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