|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, July 3, 2006. We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Cicchinelli, Auditor Hamit, Police Chief Williams and Fire Chief Layne. 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 BRYAN led the invocation for the evening. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILMAN BRYAN Chairman of the Parks and Recreation 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 BRIAN MUNTEAN– I’m with the Massillon Police Department about 12 years; 6861 Lorraine Avenue NW in North Canton, Jackson Township I’ve been the police department for little over 12 years. First of all I’d like to say that I very much so have enjoyed my time here it’s been nothing but a positive experience I’ve been treated very well by our chief and very well by the administration of the whole. The reason I’m here today residency is on the agenda here and for several reasons why I’d like to have the residency laws on the city ordinance changed to reflect that of the current state law. Senate bill I’m sure you’ve already heard Senate Bill 82 was enacted into law I believe sometime in April or May by the State Governor. Right now the city ordinance as we know just conflicts with that change. There’s several members of the fraternal order of the police that actually all of them that I spoke to would like to get this changed so that it reflects the current state law. Some of the things that aren’t so obvious to people who really aren’t directly affected by it for example I’m getting married in two weeks to my future wife Crystal she’s in nursing school she may want to work someday at either Akron General or Cleveland Hospital. Because I have a residency requirement if this forces her to drive you know 40, 50 miles to work instead of us living between the two jobs you know in essence making it a stress on us. Currently, its been written up as western Stark County you could Dalton is 3 miles west of here you know if that we can’t live there it seems kind of unreasonable and very restricted. My brother was recently hired by Massillon Police Department probably 2 or 3 years ago he lived about a half mile out of the jurisdiction of the court’s jurisdiction in the East Sparta while he had to move within the year. So he did that he moved his entire life sold his house his house was paid for, sells his house moves into western Stark County because that’s by requirement and wasn’t a year later he was laid off by the city. So it cost him and his wife a hardship for a long time. Also on a bigger and a much broader horizon it really limits your pool of applicants that when a police department’s trying to do recruitment you’re limited so much because a lot of your potential applicants they won’t even touch you know the application process because lets face it moving is the second biggest stress in life. A lot of people just don’t want to pick up their whole entire life and chance all that you know for a job. So it really limits what kind of applicants you may have as a police department. There’s also I think there’s a big misconceptions that officers should live in the city or officers should live close for safety reasons. I’ve been in police work for as general over 13 years and I know how police officers think and trust me if there is an emergency in this city and these people are asking for our help we’re going to be here we’re going to be here quick no matter where we’re coming from. So maybe that makes people feel a little better about that. You know other than that just the obvious that it has been signed into law and the fraternal order of police are asking that the city abide by the state law amend this ordinance. KENNY HENDRICKS – Massillon Police Department, president of the Massillon Henderson Lodge of Police Officers Association 852 1st Street NE Massillon, Ohio. I speak on behalf of the union members of Massillon Police Department are strongly in support of this residency change. We don’t see a mass exodus of people moving out of the city once this should be moved into the law. As Brian Muntean already stated officers are going to respond to help the citizens of this city no matter where we live. We are strongly urging city council to support the current change in law of residency and allow us to at least abide by that. Also I was going to point out that the fire department already has it in their contract that they can live within western Stark County however if there’s a change in the current state laws the city can also allow the change. We’re strongly pushing for it and hopefully will change. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We’ll move forward with the introduction of ordinances and resolutions. Mr. Mang, you have a request? COUNCILMAN MANG – Yes, I’d like Ordinance No. 82 – 2006 be brought forward on the agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Is there any objection to moving Ordinance No. 82 forward, if not we will proceed with Ordinance No. 82 which will be third reading. 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 82 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG – This evening we had a public hearing regarding the rezoning of these three lots. The Evergreen Homes representatives were here and expressed their interest and what their plans were we also had one man and woman not quite certain if they’re husbands and wives who have a resident in the area that all supported this resolution or this ordinance. The Planning Commission felt that the zoning change would help to improve this neighborhood and for this reason recommend a full request. The request is to change this property from I-1 light Industrial to R-1 Single Family Residential. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I would just like to repeat my comment for the record which I made at the public hearing that I will support the ordinance. But I noticed that there are dozen or two dozen more lots in the same blocks that are currently zoned industrial and I would strongly recommend that something be done to change the rest of that zoning so that somebody doesn’t plop down a transmission shop or some other industrial use right next to these brand new houses going up. But with that comment made I will support the rezoning. COUNCILMAN PETERS With that I’ll reiterate what I said at the hearing. It is our intention to move as swiftly as possible to get the rest of that area rezoned and we are working on that as we speak along with the Planning Commission and that I fully support this zoning change and look forward to the development of that area. 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. 82 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. COUNCILMAN MAIER Seeing the interest in Ordinance No. 96 I would also like to bring it forward if possible. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are there any objections to bringing Ordinance No. 96 forward for consideration? If not we will now discuss Ordinance No. 96, Madame Clerk. ORDINANCE NO. 96 2006 BY: POLICE AND FIRE COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MAIER moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 7 yes, 2 no. Manson and McCune voted no. COUNCILMAN MAIER –.I would like to bring Ordinance No. 96 forward for its passage, COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Would you like to have any discussion? COUNCILMAN MAIER –.Yes, Mr. McCune? COUNCILMAN MCCUNE At our work session Safety Service Director Loudiana along with I believe Mr. Stergios cautioned us against passing this at this time because of it being in the court system and if we had officers leave the court district we would then be forced to bring them back into the court district which would create a lot of undue stress as the officer pointed out. I would like to suggest that we adhere to those suggestions by our leadership and that we table this until it meanders its way through the court system. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, I pretty much feel the same way. I oppose this primarily because I don’t like the state telling us what we have to do. I would prefer that we hammer this out here on our own over some time with some discussion. So that’s why I opposed bringing it forward. COUNCILMAN MANG – I guess I understand where Dave and Paul are coming from, but we already have it in the fire contract. It would seem it would only be right that if our fire contract states that it’s permissible by the state it would be permissible in the City of Massillon. I also have questions too with you Paul as to the effect of the state telling us what we have to do. That is a big part of it my concern I guess is that we didn’t think a whole lot about it when we approved the fire department ordinance. For those reasons I hope that someone doesn’t happen to move and for whatever reason this thing would happen to bounce and they’d have to move back in. But I will support this ordinance. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I just wanted to make a comment and I made the same comment at our work session. My father was a Canton police officer and we grew up in Perry Township and it was wonderful for him to get away from the City of Canton where he arrested people possibly got in an altercation with a prisoner that they cuffed. So I am in full support of this I think it’s wonderful for officers if they chose to live on a farm or in the country or in another city or town that it is a positive thing. Officers have so much stress my father had a heartache at the age of 39 as an officer. So I am in full support of this I think if you can find a place here in the city that’s wonderful if you want to live in the country that’s wonderful too. I really truly support this Chuck so I because I lived it and I would just like to tell the officers in the audience I do understand as a policeman’s daughter. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I too am in total support of this ordinance. I do believe that you people should be allowed to choose how many miles you drive to work and be considerate your family members as well. So I will be in full support of this and I’m hoping that you all realize the consequences if the state says you have to move back into the city. So but I will support you fully. COUNCILMAN PETERS I’d just like to say that I’m in full support of this also. Being that state law super cedes any city law anyways it really doesn’t matter. So I think that it’s kind of like a point that we might as well go along with the same way the state law is written and if that changes then would have to change along with the state law anyways. But I’m in full support of it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Maier is chairman I’ll let you make the last comment we’ll start with second round with Mr. McCune. COUNCILMAN MAIER –. I did a little research on this, this week. The cities that are currently in lawsuit with this are charter cities we are not a charter city. I talked to the Law Director and he said it really is not a problem if we pass this. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Well I guess that takes care of my concern. My concern is as I stated and I would caution the fire department from making any quick moves outside of the court district for fear that they may have to come back in. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, how is the fire department exactly how does that cover what’s the ordinance that covers that? COUNCILMAN MAIER –.Could I call the chief up, fire chief that is. I believe you have the section of contract that refers to that I don’t have my copy with me. FIRE CHIEF LAYNE – Yeah, Article 49 residency Section 3 states that “any time the state adopts a residency law that conflicts with this article state residency law shall super cede the more restrictive requirement of section 1 of this article. COUNCILMAN MANSON So that’s contractual it’s not an ordinance. I thought Mr. Mang said that it was an ordinance. COUNCILMAN MAIER –.Well but we accepted their contract yes. COUNCILMAN MANG – But that was an ordinance though because it dealt with pay. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER You accepted the contract by ordinance and that item is in the contract. Mr. Manson are you finished? COUNCILMAN MANSON I wish we had a lot more time to discuss this. Right now, yes. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This question is for Chief Layne. Chief, do you have a time restriction for anyone that doesn’t live in the city to return for a fire or is it just as soon as possible? FIRE CHIEF LAYNE – As soon as possible, but in section 2 of the residency any employee hired before November 25, 1996 has no residency requirement. We have a couple of people live in Akron the farthest west is in Dalton. So if they get called they get in as soon as they can hadn’t been a problem. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Lastly and finally I just want to say that a police officer and his family could be eating dinner up in Cleveland and there could be an emergency you know it doesn’t really matter where you live it’s what you’re doing at the time that you’re needed and I’m sure that they would respond as quickly as possible to get back to the city in a timely fashion. So again, I support the ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Manson, this would be your third time to make comments. COUNCILMAN MANSON Well, I had questions… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I know our council rules are Mr. Manson, our council rules are that you’re allowed two opportunities to speak on an ordinance and after that you know perhaps as you say there should have been more discussion, but that’s the way the rules are set up. Is there anyone who would like to speak a second time? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND I would like to say something for the first time. I would like to agree with Officer Muntean it does kind of widen the recruitment territory I believe there was an article in the paper a while back that stated there was a low number of minorities working for the force and I think if we I support this because it broadens that recruitment base so we can possible get more minorities and when I mention more minorities and I’m not just saying African Americans I’m speaking of women, Latinos and etc. So I am in support of this ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Manson, I was going to let you speak for the third time, but I wanted to make sure everybody else had the chance. So… COUNCILMAN MANSON Well, they’re referring back to a 96 ordinance is that what you pulled out or something? (Yes) I’d like to know a little bit more of the history was this negotiated in at the request of the safety service people or was it a request of council, was it a request of the Mayor. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I’ll refer those questions to Councilman Maier. COUNCILMAN MAIER –.It was back when it was changed to the court district the fraternal order of police was behind that at that time that’s the background on that one. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Maier, in section 1 deletes Section 165.01 is that the Law Director’s language… COUNCILMAN MAIER –.That’s the Law Director’s wording, sir. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Okay, 165.01 speaks about employees generally residency rule Section A indicates that all persons with positions in the city service shall be residents of the muni court district within 12 months. Section B all persons now holding positions shall continue to maintain their primary residents in the court district. Section 3 any employee who fails to comply with this section shall be discharged. Section D is from June of 97 all new hires pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement must be city residents with one year hire. Then ordinance in January of 98 this section shall not be applicable to members of Local 251 of the International Association of Firefighters. So that entire selection regarding residency will be deleted and apparently nothing will take its place is that correct? COUNCILMAN MAIER – That’s correct. I’d like to make a motion that we vote on Ordinance No. 96 bring it forward for a vote, seconded by Councilman Peters. COUNCILMAN MANSON I’m voting no because I feel we haven’t had much discussion. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Well, with Chuck’s dealing with the Safety Service Director and finding that’s no reason not to go forward with this at this time it seems ironic after our discussions last week I’ll support it. ORDINANCE NO. 96 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES, 1 NO. MANSON VOTED NO. ORDINANCE NO. 103 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, we discussed this at the work session and I’m still in the same spot as I was before other than Paul Manson did help in the fact that he thought this property lied west of the patrol barracks and probably to the north of the patrol barracks. I see the Mayor is here, Mayor would you come to the microphone and help me here. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Do you want me to tell you where it’s at? (Yes, if you would) Okay, this is a part of the West Brook Estates Allotment it’s just the phase 3. If you its actually west of the patrol barracks the entrance to it. We have two allotments well more than two, but 2 allotments that actually come off of Lincoln Way, Friendship Acres and West Brook Estates and as we go north off of Lincoln Way it’s that Lanedale and Lanedale goes up the first portion is Friendship and then it runs into what they call West Brook Estates. This is just the third phase of an already existing allotment so its north of the patrol barracks so it’s just an addition to the existing allotment. It happens all the time usually this allotment has the potential of 265 single family lots so it’s one of the large ones. They’ll probably be maybe 3 to 4 other additions or phases depending on how many they add. This is normal to do anywhere between 25 and 35 lots in each phase. So its just I mean this is normal procedure eventually they’ll all connect and you have we have two more allotments on that far west side West Brook West which enters off of 93 or Manchester Road and Sippo Reserves which is now being constructed and that’s to the north that enters off of 93 or Manchester Road. So there’s a lot of development going on out there. So this is just another phase of an already existing allotment. I hope I answered your question. COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, Mr. Mayor, you have. Thank you. Paul I would say you did a good job last time you pegged it our concern was it we knew that it didn’t front on the highway and it was to the north and back of the state patrol barracks. 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. 103 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 104 2006 BY: HEALTH, WELFARE & BUILDING REGULATIONS COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO This is just a simple redoing of some numbers. We’re going to change section f and g to reflect 509.14 instead of 509.13; just a real change in the section numbers. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO moved to suspend the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 104– 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 105 2006 BY: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN BRYAN first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 105 – 2006 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 106 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS First reading. ORDINANCE NO. 106 – 2006 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 107 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, we talked about this at our work session. This is just a change in language in section 3A of the agreement between the City of Massillon, Ohio and Perry Township. COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 107 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 108 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Section 1 is to appropriate from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund $15,000.00 and that is for this law enforcement simulator. The chief is here if you have any questions. Section 2 is $12,052.00 we’re going to appropriate that from Parks and Rec. for capital purchases. Let me back up to my notes that is going to be for the Quantum Fitness Corporation for the Healthy Ohioans Grant. Section 3 is $5,020.05 and that is for the equipment for communication for the fire department, $850.00 is for the floor scrubber and we’re going to take section 3 out of Capital Improvement Fund. 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. 108 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 12 2006 BY: HEALTH, WELFARE & BUILDING REGULATIONS COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO The Stark County Board of Commissioner, Stark County EMA has completed a county wide natural hazard mitigation plan. This plan must be completed and adopted according to the State of Ohio and the federal government. There is no cost to us at all and this is a requirement and it is necessary in order for our citizens to receive federal grants through FEMA. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Manson. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. RESOLUTION NO. 12 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 13 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I did a lot of work on this wish list today. I did want to point out I don’t know if other council members took time to really look at it and the new council members may have not had last year’s wish list. However, in the police and fire in the disability in pension from the budget this year and last year’s wish list it’s off about $287,000.00. Also in the firemen’s salaries and I know they’re getting a raise next year, but from our budget compared to this wish list its up $655,000.00. Also in the fire department it is the same and I know that this is just a working document, but I do want to point out that these differences because they are significant differences. Accumulated sick leave is increased $75,000.00 and also for the street lighting which I hope we will address soon with the work session. The street lighting is also up $66,000.00. For the street department salary from the wish list versus our budget this year it’s up $122,000.00. Last year we did not budget in the approved budget for summer concert fund this year in the wish list $95,000.00 is put in there; it was not put in the wish list last year. Just some things that you can look at and as we approach the budget process we’ll be working closely with this wish list I’m sure the Mayor will be getting us a budget I would hope in October as we had requested in previous years. The city sewer department has $44,000.00 increase so these are its nothing to really be concerned about I just wanted to point these out. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 13 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NOTHING 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS .BATES PRINTING - $147.41 COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move we pay the bill, seconded by Councilman Peters Roll call vote of 9 yes to pay the bill. 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE 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 Next committee meeting will be Monday, July 10th at 5:45pm. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE I will be on vacation. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – I think there’s going to be a number of people on vacation. Can we have a show of hands of those who believe that they will be here for the next meeting? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER There will be 6 here. The appropriate chairman, please make sure that other people on your committee can fill in for you. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILMAN MANG St. John’s Lutheran Church invites you to a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed construction of the Rite Aid drug store on the portion of the church property. Representative from the developer will be there to answer any questions you may have regarding the building, the zoning change and proposed use. The meeting will held at 7pm on July 6th in their church sanctuary and the church is located 1900 Wales Road NE. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, is there any legislation with this have they gone to the Planning Commission… COUNCILMAN MANG I think at this point it’s in the neighborhood. I don’t know if they have done anything else. The Mayor is shaking his head that they have apparently its in processing. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I have three; I’m going to be the curmudgeon tonight. One is the practice and this is not aimed at anybody because this has been many times. But the practice of moving things up on the agenda doesn’t exist in our rules as far as I know. Mainly, we do it as a courtesy for people in the audience and I certainly can understand that. However, there is no faculty for it in our rules that I’m aware of and it could be used to change the order of the vote. Which has occurred to me I don’t think its ever been used for that purpose, but on occasion it’s occurred to me that it could be used to change the order of the vote thereby making it easier for say the last person to vote to make up their mind which way he’s going to vote. I’d like you all to consider whether or not we should continue to allow it and maybe you can get back to me on that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, I can get back to you now. Yes, it is in the rules. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Okay, you can show it to me then. I could not find it. Also I did not also in our rules that when we vote we vote yes or no and not make a comment just reminding council of that. Once again, not pointed at anybody, anybody could of you know could have done the same. I think it’s in our rules that when we vote we vote yes or no. Also I noticed there’s nobody here from the law department tonight normally if Perry can’t be here he’ll send a representative and I was kind of disappointed that we didn’t have anybody here from the law department if a legal question arose that we could not ask it. So then I’m done being the crab for the night. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, are there any other comments; if you’ll give me just a moment please. Alright Mr. Bryan, under council rules, rule #62 “the presiding officer may at any time permit a member to introduce an ordinance or resolution or motion out of the regular order provided not more than two members object. So the procedure we’ve been following in the past we used to vote on this, my reading was that this was something the president could do at the request of a member whenever that request has been made I’ve always asked if anyone objected so far no one has. Would you agree? (Yes, I stand correct.) As far as editorial comments with the vote I think that comes with being a politician and I don’t know what you’re going to do about. The third one with the law department so noted; there should be someone here from the law department. 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR – NOTHING ORDINANCE NO. 73 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Ordinance No. 73 has had three readings. At the last meeting we tabled it until 7/3 which is tonight. The reason being is that at the last meeting the $100,000.00 that is to be agreed to get Polymer Packaging has not been received yet by the city for sale of some property. So my questions to the auditor have we received the $100,000.00 (No, sir) to the best of my knowledge this doesn’t really hold up what they’re doing. The only thing is to me it’s like you’re authorizing its okay to pay the bill which you don’t have any money for. I don’t think we’re holding up anybody up are we Mayor? We’re not alright then. COUNCILMAN MANG moved to table Ordinance No. 73 – 2006 until July 17th 2006, seconded by Councilman McCune. ORDINANCE NO. 73 – 2006 WAS TABLED UNTIL JULY 17, 2006 BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS – ALREADY DEALT WITH. 15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 86 2006 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANSON It is my intention to give this second reading. I will remind everybody that I’ve asked before if you have questions pertaining to the pump station get them in to the Engineer or myself. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I did do exactly what Keith had suggested and that’s go to USGD.gov. I did ask a question either on the website you can ask questions. I did get a response that I do not understand and I’m hoping to give every member of council what I received and also hopefully Keith can maybe look at this prior to our voting on this and help explain it. I did want to make a comment though I guess in Brecksville they had a 100 year storm and everybody was mad at the Mayor and City Council and you know we’re not planning for a 100 year storm. So I think that its just like a tornado it was a fluke for Brecksville, but its something to think about because you know we’re asked to plan for a 50 year storm and Brecksville just had one the other day a 100 year storm and that they said on the television it was 4 inches within an hour was termed a 100 year storm; so something for council to think about. ORDINANCE NO. 86 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. ORDINANCE NO. 91 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG At the last meeting we discussed with Perry a little bit about the lease agreement. I’m still looking at possible A and a possible B in the drafting. I had requested that we get a lease before us so council could vote on the actual lease and we still don’t have that. So we’ll be giving it second reading. ORDINANCE NO. 91 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. 17. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA CATHY ENDLICH – I live at 561 Carver Street NW. I’m here about the traffic light that they want to take out at Grosvenor and Lincoln Way. Please keep our traffic light there are a lot of times during the day when it’s too hard to get out of that village. We have a lot of senior citizens in our village that don’t drive as fast and do not take the chances that a lot of younger people do trying to get out onto Lincoln Way. I took pictures of the blind spot at Lincoln Way and trying to get out of there. If you parked back where you’re supposed to be to get out there’s a lot of blind spots there to the right to see if there’s anything is coming. You have get into the intersection in order to see if there’s anything coming from the right to get out of the village. When we did not have the light there when they were testing it we did have a couple of accidents there. I would like to prevent the accidents and I would like to see me any of my great nieces and nephews that I have in my car quite often when I pull out onto Lincoln Way that I don’t worry about them getting hit. Going through the park roads and up 17th Street it’s more of a nuisance than its worth. It’s not really an answer and if you try to go down 18th or 19th Street the cars park on both sides of the roads there. A lot of times it’s very hard to get through those streets just to get down to Lincoln Way because they’re parked side by side going across the street. That’s not an answer to it we have a lot of people at bank, we have a lot of people in the shopping center. Bordner’s shopping center parking lot is one of those that if you want to teach your child to drive you go to Bordner’s parking lot because there’s a lot of weird drivers in there. That’s not the answer cutting through that to get to a light. If council would like I could get a petition and I will bet I can get more than you people require for the amount to sign the petition. Because everyone that I’ve talked to personally about this that lives in the village and that lives outside of the village believe we need our stop light. They feel very strongly like I do and this is something I feel very strongly about I came the last time it was up. I rest my opinion on the traffic light and that again and I’m hoping you guys will do what the previous council voted and that was to keep our traffic light. Because we do need it I mean like I said there’s a lot of times during the day that you can’t get out it, there’s times when you can, but you can’t wait 2 or 3 times during the day that you can get out of there easily without a traffic light compared to the times of the day that you can not get out of there safely without a traffic light. Thank you very much. 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMAN BRYAN 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