|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, August 7, 2006. We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Cicchinelli, Safety Service Director Loudiana, Auditor Hamit, Law Director Stergios, and Engineer Dylewski. 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. Thus giving a roll call vote of 8 present. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Bryan? COUNCILMAN BRYAN I move that we excuse Councilman Townsend, seconded by Councilman Manson. Roll call vote of 8 yes to excuse Councilman Townsend. 2. INVOCATION COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO had Councilman Bryan give the invocation for the evening. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO Chairperson of the Health, Welfare and Building Regulation 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 ORDINANCE NO. 112 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG – We hit upon this a little bit in our work session. But this ordinance really deals with what services will be provided to the Cottrill Annexation. This is also the piece of property that the city has intensions to buy. Most of the things are very general that are normally we also often times have some commitment to the road adjacent or approximately there too. In this situation we’re talking about the westly ½ of the roadway for distance of approximately 349 feet long along the frontage of Kenyon Avenue located approximately 2483 feet south of Wooster Street and Kenyon Avenue. The second item the westly ½ of the roadway for distance of approximately 228 feet along the frontage of Skyland Avenue located approximately 453 feet south of Wooster Street in Skyland Avenue intersection. Also the county commissioners will be having a public hearing on this request and that’s scheduled for September 7th 2006 at 11:00 am. COUNCILMAN MANSON I have one. How far long does Skyland run off of Wooster Road just that one that first section or does it go along the way back along our property the property we’re looking at? COUNCILMAN MANG – Do you have the map Paul? (Yes, does that street cross over the walking path?) Can the City Engineer Keith can you address that question? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Mr. Manson, I believe Skyland as you follow the map down to where the property line is the north property from there to the sewer easement I believe is just a dirt road it’s not paved at this time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Does that answer your question Mr. Manson? The Mayor has his hand up would you… do we have any other questions for the Engineer? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – The if you look at your map the access or what they call flag lot is exactly what that is, is a flag lot. Originally Mr. Cottrill wanted to build a house down in the corner of the upper tract upper portion of the property and that’s why that access flag lot was created that does not really exist. Skyland is where you see above towards Wooster Street and it just basically like Keith says becomes dirt. That really doesn’t exist because the house doesn’t exist that was just the time that he wanted to build a house. Also the map that was provided to you members of council the darkened in portion that’s only half of the property there’s another parcel which is adjacent to that which they are both contiguously one another to be darkened in too. So it’s actually more than just the one portion that’s darkened is half approximately half there’s another half adjacent to it that’s included in the annexation that’s not really a big deal, but just so you know. COUNCILMAN MANG – But we are dealing with the whole parcel right? (Yes) Okay. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 112 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 113 2006 BY: RULES, COURTS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG – Yes, Ordinance No. 113 at our work session Safety Service Director Mr. Loudiana had some concerns regarding this legislation that we had passed several council meetings back. In this piece of legislation that we’re asking is actually coming up on residency requirement I think everybody has the Exhibit A which refers to where an individual holding position in the City of Massillon may reside is basically in the county and to any adjacent county. This was brought to the attention of council through the recent change of address by one of our firefighters who wish to change his residency I believe to Nevada. Mr. Loudiana could we ask you to come to the microphone? Yes, Mr. Loudiana, what does this residence requirement do for us at this point since at this point we don’t have a residence requirement as I understand it? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – Well, it prevents anybody from moving outside of the county or contiguous counties. COUNCILMAN MANG – And what we did when we removed the residency requirement we left it open that they could obviously live any place. (Yes) So this just kind of buttons it up to conform more to or to be exactly to what the state has adopted is that correct? (Correct, which is going to the Supreme Court so) Right who knows. You know when I look at it and I see adjacent counties and I look at some of the counties that are adjacent to us you know we could have people in living in Wayne and be in Wooster, Ohio. I don’t know if our fire department is up to full strength or not, but if in fact it is it still doesn’t matter I recall some of the fires we’re had in the city have been of some consequences that occurred in the wintertime. I don’t know what it takes to drive from Wooster to Massillon, Ohio in snow covered ice. I guess I have a real problem just thinking about let’s say all of our fire personnel I just want to exaggerate the case all decided that they would like to move outside our county and move into an adjacent county at the far end of those counties its quite possible the only fire personnel we would have here in the city any given time would be the ones on duty. Now that’s far fetched I understand that, but the request of the residency change was also far fetched. I don’t think anybody expected someone to come and request a residency change to Nevada. I only throw this out for thoughts and comments. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I would like to ask Mr. Loudiana a question as I read this letter that we got from a Mr. Sherer he stated in here that there was a question that he met with you and realized what was fueling the fire was ignorance. What was meant by that? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – I don’t know. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I mean did you have you met with him since we discussed this at the meeting on Monday. So what was his thought process of writing this three page letter to us? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – I don’t know I didn’t get a copy until about 5 minutes ago. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – So what did you work out with him about him living in Nevada? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – Nothing. I haven’t had time to discuss with the law department. I had sent him a letter explaining to him what my feelings were and that he wanted me to rescind that letter and I said I wouldn’t do it at this time. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Well, as I read thru this I don’t know if any of you had a chance to read thru it I did read thru it in its entirety and it is quite lengthy. I just received it tonight as well so I don’t know if some of you received it before this. But you know he’s challenging us about when the last time he was called in for an emergency fire or the snow and things like that. However, I agree with you Mr. Mang, I thing that we need to have our fire people and our safety people close to us and I think its important to the city to do that and I think that Nevada is a far stretch. COUNCILMAN MANG – Well, you know its if I may we don’t know when emergencies happen when a 911 call comes out, but I think after the 911 call that happened in New York City I think we have to be prepared for anything. Again, it’s far fetched maybe I just think that I’d like to know that everybody who is involved in protecting this city is readily available. So… COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – One last question for Mr. Loudiana and that is are you still adamant that we adopt this? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – Yes, I think we have to have something on the books. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Maier, do you have a question? COUNCILMAN MAIER – Yes, and Mr. Loudiana I would be more than happy to give you a copy of this. Just one sentence in here it says “in the termination letter that I received the safety director even went so far as to claim my own my move seriously jeopardizes my health and safety”. So he indicates in here that he received a termination letter if that’s the case why do we need to act on this then? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – I think it’s pretty obvious. How many more people do you want to do this? How many more people do you want to leave the city or the county? Where this will end up and I did I said in the letter it jeopardized both our citizens and him meaning traveling back and forth. I don’t know how he can travel every two days and work out there and then come back here and expect to fully function on the fire department. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Okay, I’d like to respond to that. Obviously, if he maintains a residents in Massillon, Ohio he could still do exactly what he wanted to do if he intended to work a day and get a couple off go to Vegas two, three times a month. He could still do that, but his residents would be here. What would keep him from doing that? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – That’s not the case he changed his address to Las Vegas. COUNCILMAN MAIER – I understand that, but what would keep him from doing that? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – Well, lying about where he lives. COUNCILMAN MAIER – No, if he says his residency is in Massillon he works in Massillon takes some time off and takes a Kelly day or vacation day, couple days and goes to Vegas two, three times a month. What would preclude him from doing that? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – Probably nothing unless we found out it and then we’d probably press the issue. COUNCILMAN MAIER – But if a man has vacation time he can still do that correct? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – On vacation, sure. COUNCILMAN MAIER – That’s apparently what he was going to have to do anyway. I’m not against the county and surrounding counties believe me I’m just saying that it can be done either way whether his residency here or there. SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – All I know is it’s my responsibility to make sure our safety forces are ready and on duty I can’t have that if somebody is taking two days off and is in Las Vegas. They’re not going to fly back, they won’t answer the phone. Same problem you had somebody brought up Wooster and Akron on a cold, cold snowy night 6 inches of snow and solid ice how long is that guy going to take to get down here? It’s unfortunate the legislators thought that way and had this passed. Hopefully the Supreme Court will see some wisdom, have some wisdom and reverse it. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Okay, also and he does mention in here when Jackson Township had a tornado go thru that our people went out there and you know not all their people responded and that can happen on either side of that. I just think we do have mutual aid agreements too I don’t think that our citizens are in serious jeopardy because… SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – Well, but mutual aid is for help on a fire or situation beyond the control of present force. Now I don’t know how much mutual aid but you have half of your fire department outside of the area they are suppose to be living in. I would think another fire department would say “well, I can’t come and help you, you don’t have anybody there? COUNCILMAN MAIER – Yeah, and he mentioned all that in here and you didn’t get a chance to read it so I can’t go on about that. But like I say I’m not against the county and surrounding counties, I’m just saying that somebody who’s creative could still do what they want to do. And we did have a couple of employee’s couple of years ago that lived outside the court district and no body did anything from the Administration side and it was brought to their attention. SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – That must have been before my time I’m not aware of that. COUNCILMAN MAIER – It was before your time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Okay, are you finished Mr. Maier? (Yes, sir) Mr. Bryan? COUNCILMAN BRYAN Mr. Loudiana, in the firefighters collective bargaining agreement you negotiated a clause that says something to the effect “if the state changes the residency law then they no longer have to abide by the residency law of the City of Massillon” or something to that effect. Can you tell me how that operates now that the state has changed the law? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – Well, I think it was that’s exactly what we did bargain, but we had kind of a side agreement that we wouldn’t do anything and I think everybody that was there will should state this that we wouldn’t do anything until the Supreme Court made a decision. Whether we’re going to keep this law or we’re going to go back to the old reverse it back to the old one. That was why I wanted to keep that ordinance in effect because if the Supreme Court overturns this now we have an ordinances that says they can live anywhere in the county or contiguous counties instead of they have to live in the court district. COUNCILMAN BRYAN If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn it would they be allowed to live anywhere I mean given if we do pass this tonight would they still be allowed to live anywhere? SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – My interpretation and I’m not a lawyer and you’d have to ask Perry is that they have to live in the county where they work on the safety forces or in contiguous counties. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Byran, are you finished? (Yes) Mr. Manson? COUNCILMAN MANSON Yeah, my question is for the law director? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Do we have anymore questions for Mr. Loudiana while he is up here? Thank you Mr. Loudiana, Mr. Stergios? COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, my question is by state law are we allowed to have a residency rule? I guess we didn’t have enough discussion about this originally that was part of my complaint that we did not dig deep enough into this, but I was led to believe that we were removing this residency law to comply what the state’s law was no residency. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - State statute says that except as otherwise provided below no political subdivision shall require any employees to reside in any specific area of the state I’m paraphrasing a bit. Below it says “either by initiative petition or the legislative authority council can adopt a requirement that individuals employed by Massillon as a condition of employment must reside in Stark County or any adjacent county”. So says one thing and then it makes an exception so the law says you can pass an ordinance requiring employees to live in Stark County or adjacent county. COUNCILMAN MANSON So basically what they said is that residency law that we had was too restrictive but here we’re wiping that out but you can still have this residency law if you want? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Yeah, from a practical stand point I don’t know if they were saying it was too restrictive or not they eliminated it. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Mr. Stergios, when this first came to light that this was coming down the road I had cautioned everyone because I had read some of the things in the paper from the big cities challenging this in court to not move to hastily on this to wait until it meandered it way thru the court system. Subsequently I found out that you had changed your position I know every conversation we had leading up to that you’re position was the same as mine caution, don’t act until we find out what’s going to happen in the court system. The night that this all came to a head I was informed that you had changed your position on it and I’m curious as to why you did change your position to allow this open door policy. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - I never changed my position one bit I’ve told everyone here who has asked me that from the get go that we should of never done anything just like Michael just told you. If anyone thought otherwise it was misunderstanding because I never changed. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE See I cast my vote on this because of the assumption or the understanding that you had said that it wouldn’t really matter what we did and now I’m finding out that that was a misunderstanding. So I guess now I need to know what your position is clear and precise and that we need to enact this in an effect to close the doors so to speak for a mass exodus. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - I don’t know if its really my position is to enact this, this is what I talked to the service director when this letter arose and I said “we should pass something to prevent this” just like I said before when you repealed you asked me to draft an ordinance I drafted. Whether I believe we should pass it or not is not up to me and I don’t refuse to draft an ordinance because I don’t like it or think it’s wrong. So Michael and I talked about it and I said “well the state law allows us to do this” put that forward and see what council says. So… COUNCILMAN MCCUNE As I read this document that we basically took this from it seemed to me that it said in there that basically your first responders could be limited even to the county in which they live it wouldn’t have to be of adjoining counties am I correct in that? Is that the way it reads or not? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Ask me that again? COUNCILMAN MCCUNE The way I read that it does not is that it gives the city to require their first responders as part of their employment to live solely and wholly in the county with the cities they are employed by sits I didn’t I’m not a lawyer so I’m asking basically for some clarification on that does it do we have to limit this to adjoining counties or can we limit it to the county itself? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - No, the state law as it stands now says the furtherest we can go is Stark County or any adjacent county. So you know you just can’t limit it to Stark I suppose you can, but then we’re going to be right back in the position we were in with the old ordinance that was repealed. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE That was western Stark County. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Well, what’s the difference you know according to some people either one of them is unenforceable, unconstitutional, whatever that’s why there’s lawsuits in Toledo, Dayton, Columbus, Youngstown, Akron and maybe Cincinnati by now about whether the state can even force us to do such a thing. So I don’t think anyone can say that the ordinance in front of you tonight is not enforceable that is what the legislature has says we can do. The question of whether the legislature can tell us what to do or not is a different issue for a different day as to this residency stuff. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Well, I have no further questions. I’m just kind of confused how we got here and why we got here I guess. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Mr. Stergios, I have a couple of questions about how it’s drafted here Exhibit A. I get to this section c is my first question do you happen to know if that was part of the original or the residency requirement that we repealed? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - I have that copy here I’m almost positive it is, but let me look for one second. Yes, c is identical to the former 165.01 and I know your next question. D technically probably should be changed because that is somewhat conflicts with the county and the adjacent counties. So which is D is also identical to what was in the prior ordinance. COUNCILMAN BRYAN But you see the problem with that says they have to be city residents which… LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Well, that didn’t even work correctly with under the old ordinance because it was court district. So I don’t know if it’s a carry over typo. I mean yeah that’s how the old one read so I’m not sure how that got through all this time. COUNCILMAN BRYAN What with the exception in “e” is only for members of the firefighters association who was hired before November 22 or 25 I mean 1996? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - That’s also from the prior ordinance and as is still contained the fire department collective bargaining agreement so I left it in there because it’s always been in there. COUNCILMAN BRYAN So they have no residency requirement? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - If they employed prior to 1996 and I’m not sure where that was passed in 1997 council added well 1998 council added paragraph “e” to our existing ordinance how or why that came about I couldn’t say other than it must have been something to do with the collective bargaining agreement that was entered into at that time. And it’s still in the current agreement also. COUNCILMAN BRYAN If we pass this ordinance and establish this as our residency do you see any pitfalls in terms of opening ourselves up to legal action from employees? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - I do not believe so however, the issue of the fireman in Las Vegas is an open question I haven’t or we haven’t made a decision as to where he falls in the whole scheme of things since he allegedly has moved still owns a house in Jackson Township maybe he’s been doing this for a long time and no one knew it anyhow. I don’t know, I don’t know where he falls, but other than him I think we’re fine. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Do you think that they could come back and say “well you didn’t have it for a week so you can’t enforce it”? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Yeah, that’s the answer I don’t know not right to stick my neck out on yet because I really haven’t researched that in depth. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Yes, Perry, you know because some council people do get confused easily I’d like to go over this a little bit. (Okay) November 25, 1996 people were hired before that have no residency on the fire department is that correct? (I believe that is correct, yes) Okay, so we’re telling everybody else we’ve got to have a residency except for these bunch of guys over here because that’s what it says there. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - I don’t know why that existed already, but it’s been in place for a while I’m not sure how that come about. COUNCILMAN MAIER – So a good union guy would probably want to restrict the rest of the union except for these guys. Now also on there was another point I was going to make here. When I talked to you prior to this and when we and I asked you to do the wording on the ordinance I, we discussed the fact that the cities that are under litigation are not statutory cities (correct) they’re all charter cities (I’m not sure if they are all are, but I think they all are I haven’t tracked) they are and when we discussed that I said is there a problem with passing this and you told me no. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - If you think I said that you misunderstood me because I’ve never ever said I wanted this ordinance passed. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Well, I didn’t say you said to pass it I said is there a problem with passing it? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - I said you guys its up to you to vote if you to want to pass you told me I don’t see any problem in passing it the Supreme Court’s never going to overturn it anyhow. I said “well what ever you guys want to do” you know if you COUNCILMAN MAIER – And if they do it would be for charter cities not statutory because statutory LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Well, I don’t see it that’s I don’t see a difference in that that’s its an infringement upon our home rule powers for the legislature to tell us what we as a city can do whether we’re a charter or not a charter is not the question. I suppose that’s why they have courts because maybe someone’s going to determine otherwise one way or another and it could be 3, 4, 5 years until it works it way to the Supreme Court. So that’s a question that will and you know its all over the state I mean everybody’s watching it and its going to be a while before we know. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Well, maybe I misinterpreted what you said but you told me that there was I understood you to say there really isn’t a problem whether we pass it or not. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - You know, I don’t want to debate who said what, but I think everybody here most everybody whoever asked me knew what I felt about this and there was no urgency no rush and you guys passed it on second reading. You know you give other things three readings I don’t know why we need to jam this down the pipeline for so. Here we are. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE No, I have no further questions. COUNCILMAN MANSON I guess I have a question about where did this come in as far as good union men and not good union men. COUNCILMAN MAIER – It’s a union issue. COUNCILMAN MANSON Well, I negotiated a lot of contracts with unions and there were a lot of drop deal dates we made you know that certain people were grandfathered in. That’s why I wanted to discuss this a lot more I wanted to understand the history of where this how this developed and why it developed. I truly did not know when we started out if we voted on it as a city I know that many cities have voted on this. That’s why I felt that we were not having adequate discussion that’s why we’re here talking this today. I still believe what we talked about before we should have left the thing we had alone and argued it out ourselves and what we thought was fair for our city. But now that it is changed I totally support this new residency rule proposal and I guess we still have residency. I still object to the state being able to tell me how to run and also I don’t see where listening to the law director where it matters if we statutory or charter city. I can’t see at all what this meant to the argument or the discussion. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – At the time you folks decided to vote on this it probably was wondering why I sat quietly in the corner didn’t really say anything. Sometimes it’s interesting to sit on the sidelines and observe how government works or how sometimes government doesn’t work. I think all of you know how I personally feel about residency. This situation is the reason I feel strongly about residency. We can play games we can change laws, we can advocate that people should be able to live where they want to live. However, when you deal with the safety forces you deal with departments that are very, very close to the hearts of the citizens of this community. It’s not like an economic development director as Mr. Maier basically alluded to that’s what he was talking about living in Lake Township. If you really study the residency situation in this state it has been talked about being changed for the last 5 years. There were various publications Ohio Municipal League laws introduced by legislatures in Columbus trying to change this law to make political points with firefighters and police unions across the state. Finally it passed, finally it passed so when Bob Sanderson worked me I just want to clarify this. Bob Sanderson worked me we basically with his services we had agreed because I thought the law was going to change even sooner than what it did when you negotiate contracts so that’s the issue I think I wanted to clear. But when you negotiate contracts that’s the time to discuss residency and if you look at our contracts police and fire contracts it has residency clauses in it. That’s why it should be a negotiated item by the Administration it should not be changed on a whim or for any other reason that any member of council can think of. You have regulations too and the regulation states that when you put things on the agenda you get our signature for support. This ordinance was ram roaded through without our signature with the Administration. Now in the final analysis you can put on your agenda what you want to put on, but you see when you attempt to deceive or at least that’s how it appears these are the kinds of things that you end up with. An ordinance that allows a fireman folks now lets just lay it all on the table. An ordinance that allows a firefighter to live in Las Vegas how do you think the 32,000 people in this community? They think we’re all nuts. Be serious and then you get this letter from a guy who’s guilty as guilty can be and you know I remained silent but look at the contents of the letter we just get it tonight and if it wasn’t for Mary Beth’s graciousness we still wouldn’t have a copy of it. If you want to play games they’re playing games with the wrong people. There are a lot of errors in this letter you need to be cautious of before you start pointing this as a viable piece of information. Make comments about additional staffing we have a contract they signed that says we have 48 firefighters we have 48 firefighters they want more? Negotiate that, sure they want more, but you also have to live within budgets. But 48 firefighters is the most we’ve ever had. We don’t want to get involved in game playing and I don’t think the citizens of Massillon deserve these games. There was no need to change the original ordinance now if you thought I was going to bite if that was the intention I was going to bite and veto it why should I veto it 8 of the 9 voted for it. So I can count too, but a person that takes an oath of office to protect the citizens of Massillon as a firefighter how can you want to move to Las Vegas I guess I’m just perplexed by that. I am totally perplexed by that and I understand that if somebody looks into a little bit further I understand this is happening all over the place not only Massillon, Ohio. That they are attempting to challenge residency laws all over the countries the idea is well lets say we’ll move to Vegas or we’ll move to New York that’s ridiculous. But you see when laws are tampered with that’s what happens. The bottom line is I want you to be very cautious when you read this letter give us an opportunity to digest the letter and to find the inconsistencies and the untruths and then we’ll be more than happy to respond with the letter or with any information at the next council meeting or where ever you want us to do it at. But I know that there’s definitely are some inconsistencies and I mean there’s things in here that they want to scare you with like suicide punks and things like that. You know negotiations are over they agreed to a contract we have a new 3 year contract. Why all of a sudden we’d want to change the rules after the contract was signed. I guess police and fire departments to me are all employees to be treated the same. But when you talk police and fire you talk very important departments that people of this community want there at their beckon and call living in Vegas doesn’t provide that. So any attempt to justify that I’m sorry I can’t sit idly by and not say anything because there’s no justification in that if you take your job seriously as a firefighter. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Yes, Mr. Mayor, there was a young lady in the tax department that it was also illegally living outside the city at the time and that was also brought to the Administration’s attention. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – She no longer works here. COUNCILMAN MAIER – That’s true, but she did for quite some time. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Whether not discussing personnel Mr. Maier, but at the time it was very difficult to actually determine where she lived. But that issue was settled and she no longer works here. But there were other parts of that situation that really should not be made public. So we don’t really want to get into it. There’s no question that me personally and my Administration favors residency and everybody knows that. I think I didn’t bite and some people were a little surprised I didn’t bite, but that’s okay. There’s a few more surprises coming down the pipe. The whole problem here is that you have a situation Chuck, where this legislation shouldn’t even been introduced. I mean I’m sure you as a councilman you can do what you want, but it was ill advised the idea charter versus non-charter the City of Warren is involved in this I get the Warren Tribune and they’re debating the same issue and I’m not sure they actually have voted yet because my paper is always a few days behind sometimes a week behind I get it in the mail. But they’re debating this same thing as far as what to do and their mayor is perplexed too. But I’m telling you this thing is something that should be held in abidance because if not we’re going to have more serious problems. I don’t think you’re going to have people leaving what prompted I mean massive amounts, but what prompted this when Kipp decided to go to Vegas one other firefighter decided to move to Akron and another firefighter decided to move to Wooster, Wayne County. COUNCILMAN MAIER – But they can do that Mr. Mayor, under their current contract anyways. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, again lets just wait and see. Yes, that’s probably true but there was a cut off period now he said the cut off period was 1996 I’m not really sure of that to read this letter. But there are some irregularities in this letter that I have to go back and look and see. I mean there we had residency rules in our contracts, but he’s saying there wasn’t any prior to 1996 and I don’t buy that. But I don’t want to comment on it unless I’m 100% sure. COUNCILMAN MAIER – And I would like to clarify a couple of other things. There was no attempt to deceive the letter came from the police department not the fire department the letter was passed out to everybody. The police department came up and lobbied their issue and there was no game playing, there was nothing of the sort and I hope you’re not referring to me because I’m not trying to play games or deceive anyone. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, Chuck, I appreciate that, but we just went through negotiations with both groups. Just put yourself in our position we just signed 2 new contracts with both bargaining groups and you get a letter and we’re changing residency. Why wasn’t that discussed at the time what they wanted and I’m sure they did discuss it, but why wasn’t it put it and why wasn’t that brought up before prior to passage of those contracts. We’re under contracts with those 2… COUNCILMAN MAIER – What the police letter stated was they wanted to bring it in compliance with state law and that’s what they asked. Now if we would pass this tonight for the county and surrounding counties it would bring it in compliance with what the state law has allowed us to do which keeps us out of a lawsuit on that issue. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – But in all due respect sir, yeah with tonight’s passage it brings it in what the law says, but why wasn’t that researched before the original law that gives them ability to really live anywhere. COUNCILMAN MAIER – The state law states you can do either. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – I think the state legislature would be inundated if that was the intent of the law. You have the law director basically saying again I’m not a lawyer, but he’s saying that it says county that you work in or adjourning counties because there would be total chaos if they were allowed to live anywhere. (I agree with that) But the law that we passed and that you authored and it didn’t have our support in the first place and that’s why. Well actually we weren’t even asked to sign it. Point is you don’t these are the kinds of things that should be held for negotiations not on a whim whether you feel its justified or not. I mean we could have total chaos if we keep changing these kinds law, why do you have negotiations for that’s why you have contracts. That’s the only thing… COUNCILMAN MAIER – And I have to agree with you there was no conversation, but there’s a lot of times there’s no conversations on other issues between your office and this council. So let’s just let it go at that. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – I think you know that we have an open door policy and that’s why you have that discussion. That’s why you have us asking to sign legislation requests for that dialogue and there’s always dialogue going on. You know my door is open, you’ve been in that door. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, I just don’t I think you and I both agree Chuck we don’t want our citizens at all impacted by this. I think they’re sitting back thinking “oh my gosh, what’s going on down there” I mean. COUNCILMAN MAIER – And the fireman doing that was completely out of line and uncalled for and I think we need to do something to fix that. But the fact is I didn’t think we were doing something out of line prior to that. COUNCILMAN MANSON Well, yes, you said that should be left in negotiations but you do not have a problem if the residents would want to have a referendum on something like that do you? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – No, I think that’s what we should do with this. Of course, that’s only if the court overturns the decision I mean it would be lue if it upholds. COUNCILMAN MANSON I have one last question I guess for the law director. If we have somebody move to Cuyahoga County we pass this legislation? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are there any other questions for the Mayor? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – That keep in mind that some of these communities that are fighting this there were referendums put on the ballot. Akron, for example, 66% of the people wanted residents in and somebody state legislature in Columbus decided you citizens of Akron you don’t count. We’re going down an avenue that I think is very destructive to our form of government. We have citizens voting one way and another level of government saying “ignore that”. So we’ll see how the court that’s why we have courts. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MANSON Yeah, I’d just to know we’re saying adjacent counties right? Now Cuyahoga County is not adjacent if somebody moves to Cuyahoga County they can be terminated right? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are there any final questions for the law director? I have one earlier I think you had mentioned there would possibly need to be some language change in section d. Did you make that suggestion where it currently says “city residents”? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Residents of Stark County or any adjacent county must be residents of Stark… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I would think Mr. Mang mentioned offering an amendment? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Yes, that would be. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Bryan, you have a question for the law director? COUNCILMAN BRYAN Well, I was, yeah that’s what I was getting at. How would he suggest we amend section d? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - I’ll hand it right to Mr. Mang so he can. COUNCILMAN MANG The thing here there’s been a lot of talk about this letter. Believe me I don’t care about this letter the only thing I care about is this residency thing. We get a lot of letters we receive a lot of letters from a lot of people. I don’t know that any letter has ever had this discussion this much in this body. What our main concern right now is the protection of the citizens of this city and believe me I’m very strong, feel very strong you should live in Stark County I feel very strong about that. But this is a step to that and I will be offering an amendment to the residency here as far as new hires go as soon as I’m prompted by the law director. The law director is proposing the wording in d “all new hirers pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements must be a resident of Stark County or any adjacent county within one year from the date of hire? Am I reading that right Perry? (Yes, you are) COUNCILMAN MANG moved for the amendment to Ordinance No. 113 – 2006, seconded by Councilman McCune. Roll call vote of 8 yes to amend Ordinance No. 113 – 2006 COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 113 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 114 2006 BY: RULES, COURTS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Before we get started on this I would like to ask the Law Director if he would come to the microphone again. I’m going to ask Perry what are we presently doing regarding the indigents and how are they being represented and how are we paying for them? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - The situation currently is that and I’ll sort of jump around the issue. This contract would be for residents charged under a city ordinance as opposed to a state code violation. Currently the court for an indigent person will appoint council and pay them according to a set fee schedule out of the I believe that comes out the court’s indigent representation fund. From talking with Judges Elum and Kettler I’m relatively confident that it runs more than a $195.00 a case to appoint council for those indigent people under city ordinance cases. No one’s making a ton of money at it, but it would be cheaper just to pay the public defender $195.00 a case to handle those cases then to appoint private counsel to do so. Public defenders says they are willing to do that for this rate and the court will continue to pay this cost out the indigent and probation funds that the court accumulates by way of fines and so forth. So if anything it will save the court money in its budget it is quote “city money”, but its not really being coming out of the general fund I guess. In a round about way it does, but not it won’t cost us anything if that makes any sense. COUNCILMAN MANG So what you’re saying to me is we don’t really have an ordinance per say relative to this other than it’s been the courts position to do what is presently going on? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Correct there’s nothing in place right now that provides for… COUNCILMAN MANG a limitation LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Correct. COUNCILMAN MANG It’s my intention thank you Perry, it’s my intention to bring this forward and seek passage. So if questions are to be had… COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Ron, do you know is he just made a comment that just kind of struck me a $195.00 for the indigent and that’s all its going to cost now for a public defender. What if they need a lot of help? What if they need more than a $195.00 worth of service what will happen with them then? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - The public defenders agree to accept that amount per case regardless of how much work is involved. So… COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I just want to make sure the indigents will be represented well then for $195.00. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - If you saw the volume that comes thru our court if the public defenders who are down here do a very good job and they do a lot of the state you know a lot of the state code citations so they’re going to be here anyhow so I guess they look at it from a volume perspective and at least they know there’s not a huge number of city ordinance cases that require appointed counsel, but there are some. So I don’t think anybody will be getting short changed. They do a good job. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – This is not for felonies is it? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - No, felonies, I mean they may handle preliminary case here, but it would ultimately go over to the grand jury and it would be out of our court. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 114 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 115 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, we’ve talked about this at the work session it’s just its authorizing Safety Service Director to enter into an agreement with the county to purchase salt for winter for the streets. 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 8 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 115 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 116 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, this is an ordinance replatting for First Energy they want to put a substation along that area there. So we discussed this also at the work session there weren’t any questions then. 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 8 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 116 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 117 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Ordinance No. 117 has 5 sections to it. Section 1 is to appropriate money from the Capital Improvement Fund $38,000 for the Building Department for new computers. We did ask the question at the work session if these would be compliant with Seifert Technology and the answer was yes. On the Capital Improvement list they did ask for $35,000.00 it was budgeted for. But here they are asking for $38,000.00 and there are few things that we have not approved yet on the capital improvement list. So that $3,000.00 is very insignificant. Section 2 is $25,000.00 they would like for us to appropriate from the unappropriate balance of the Solid Waste fund for the rest of the year and is for to cover expenses related to operation of the Solid Waste Department and necessary repairs on garbage trucks. Section 3 they would like to appropriate money from the Muni Motor Vehicle License Fund for the year ending December 31, 2006 which is $5,400.00 into an account entitled storm sewer repairs. There were some damage on Standish and Priscilla NW and that will repair the damage. Section 4 is $500.00 would like to be appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the general fund into an account entitled gas and oil and that is for our Safety Service Director. He is shy about $500.00 for gas and oil and Section 5 is just asking that we pass this as an emergency. We discussed all of these items at the work session. 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 8 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 117 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 118 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This Ordinance No. 118 – 2006 has two sections. The first section is to transfer $400.00 from the Auditor’s supply, materials to Director’s supply and materials. This was due to the fact that they have an employee benefit position and they needed to transfer these funds for supplies and materials and we just didn’t do that at that time. So we discussed this at work session and I try to answer any questions. 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 8 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 118 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NOTHING 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS - NOTHING 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS 1. GAP OFFICE - $55.95 COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move we pay the bills, seconded by Councilman Bryan. Roll call vote of 8 yes to pay the bills. 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY 2006. COPY FILE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move that we accept the Auditor’s report, seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote of 8 yes to accept the auditor’s report. 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER As far as committee reports we will have work sessions next Monday at 5:45pm I would like everyone to look toward September Monday, the 4th is Labor Day so council will meet on Tuesday, September 5th. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY My daughter will be having surgery next Monday it’s an out patient surgery I will do my very best to be here by 5:45pm. COUNCILMAN MAIER Yes, the sheriff’s having a get together and as I stated a couple of years ago I need to be over there because I have a commission with the sheriff’s office on next Monday. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Councilman McCune, you have an audit of our phone system when those gentlemen are going to want to present that? COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Yes, next Monday at 5:45 they will be coming in to give the presentation that Mike and I sat through it’s very informative and I think you’re going to possibly even enjoy. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR ORDINANCE NO. 73 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, this ordinance has been tabled waiting for the money for the sale of I believe it was Out Lot at the Market Place based upon that the receipt of that money we would then in turn use to assist the Polymer Packaging Company in tune of $100,000.00. I guess my question is have we received the money? AUDITOR HAMIT – Check is in the mail. COUNCILMAN MANG Based on that I would move that we table this piece of legislation until our next scheduled meeting which is the 21st, seconded by Councilman Bryan. ORDINANCE NO. 73 – 2006 WAS TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 21ST 2006 BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 86 2006 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, we have been informed that Mr. Rugula’s office that we will not know anything about this application with this grant or whatever down there until I guess the ear mark until Labor Day. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, you understand it will take a vote to bring it back to the agenda? (Yes) Alright. COUNCILMAN MANSON moved to table indefinitely Ordinance No. 86 – 2006, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. ORDINANCE NO. 86 – 2006 WAS TABLED INDEFINITELY BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 91 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG To date I guess I’m still looking to see a copy of a lease that pertains to this property I have a draft from May. Mr. Stergios, would you be so happy… LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS - Table until September 5th would be my suggestion. Mr. Bryan is going to contact the potential developer I think and see where we stand and I will try to do the same, but give us sufficient time I think to know something by then. COUNCILMAN MANG moved to table Ordinance No. 91 – 2006 until September 5th 2006, seconded by Councilman McCune. ORDINANCE NO. 91 – 2006 WAS TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 105 2006 BY: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN BRYAN After consulting with Bill Hamit we feel that the funds are not clearly going to be available yet for this. COUNCILMAN BRYAN moved to table Ordinance No. 105 – 2006 until September 5, 2006, seconded by Councilman Peters. ORDINANCE NO. 105 – 2006 WAS TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 106 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWASY, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, we’ve talked about this very long at the work session also it’s to vacate a public alley located between 3rd Street and Young Street SE running north/south of Highland Avenue. COUNCILMAN MAIER Yes, Mr. Peters, what’s your recommendation on that? COUNCILMAN PETERS I went and looked at this I don’t see any problem and then I talked to Aane and the whatever board that is planning or whatever they all Okayed it too. So there was no problem with this so I think we should do it even though I don’t like to give away our alleys I’m sorry, but that’s fine. COUNCILMAN PETERS moved to bring Ordinance No. 106 – 2006 forward for passage, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. ORDINANCE NO. 106 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES. 15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS – NOTHING. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I would like to bring the Mayor forward he has a few things he would like to discuss. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Going by the Auditor the key word is few. Members of council just so sort of ironic we talk about tonight, but I wanted to bring this up to inform you on a couple of issues. You remember earlier this year we formed a citizens group to review transporting by the City of Massillon. Their report has been completed I do have a letter and I will make sure all of members of council get a copy of this letter. It is dated July 26th I did not get this letter until last Friday, Thursday or Friday. Anyhow, I will read if you want me to what basically what their recommendation is Fire Department Ambulance Transporting Task Force Committee has evaluated the proposal presented to us by the Massillon Fire Department it was well prepared and comprehensive upon such deliberation it is the general consensus of this committee that the Massillon Fire Department is indeed capable of providing EMS transportation services to the citizens of Massillon. They would complete their task with the utmost professionalism benefits include continuity of care for patients and an indirect increase in fire protection by meeting needs by meeting increased manpower requirements to accommodate transport. Therefore our recommendation is that council should proceed and put forth a proposal to allow voters to decide whether they would support an increase income taxes or a fire levy for the additional funds necessary to allow this process to move forward. Let the voters decide, the committee wishes to commend the Massillon Fire Department for its well prepared proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to serve respectfully submitted Rosanne Drew, committee chair. So in essence what the committee is saying is they really do not object to the city transporting however they feel and the third paragraph is sort of the key paragraph because it says “that they only way this could be done is if there was an increase in revenues either through an income increase or a fire levy. So what I would do what I would recommend is its now before you I think we have to discuss it there’s a lot of deliberations and a lot of discussions that’s going to have to go on whether we want to go down that road. But basically their saying “yeah, the fire department can do it, but yeah they need more personnel to accomplish it and we need more money to create this part of the department” so that’s basically in it in a nut shell. I’ll have one more thing and take some questions. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Mr. Mayor, when you say transport are you saying transport from a scene or transports as far as patients that need to go to the hospital I mean what does that include? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – We would have basically instead of having a private company transport through ambulance we would do it ourselves. So you’re talking about the city just providing this as a city service above and beyond what we do now. A lot of times, Mrs. Catazaro-Perry we do go up to the hospital anyhow but we don’t transport unless it’s an extreme, extreme emergency. But if this if we would decide to do that then we’re talking about hiring quite a few additional firefighters and now providing this services as part of our City of Massillon. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY But is this only on an emergency basis or is this for like doctor visits because you can transport like when I worked at the wound center we had ambulance services transporting patients to the wound center everyday throughout the entire day. Will they be doing that or just on an emergency basis? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, I’m sure they would respond if they would call 911 and they would need an ambulance we would respond. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – Is there a report a written report from this committee other than that short letter? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – I don’t believe so I think they just basically discussed it on several months and Mr. Maier was on the committee, Mr. Loudiana was on the committee. So no I don’t think there’s an actual report just a recommendation. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – It refers to a proposal I mean we’re going to have to have that at a very minimum. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Okay, the proposal that they’re referring to is during labor management meetings with the fire department the last three, four years the union has discussed this at very times this part of labor management. That is the proposal we’re talking about they have submitted a proposal to us saying that we should transport that’s the proposal. You can certainly have a copy of it. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – We’re going to have something in writing as to how many firemen are going to be hired and how much its going to cost and how much equipment we’re going to buy and what’s that going to cost and how many runs they think they think they’re going to make and what they’re going to need to bill for and on and on and on before we can make any kind before we can even discuss it. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – That’s why I’m reporting to you tonight just so council knows that they’re done and the citizens committee reported sounds like a good idea, but we need additional dollars to pay for it. It’s as simply as that so I think we’re I mean that’s going to be the driving force here is should we go to a strictly a city response or do we continue the same program that we have now. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I’ll call on Mr. Peters in just a moment my memory from when we were looking at the election cycle during the casino discussion obviously I don’t know how fast the track will go but to make the November election I believe you have to have your issues in by then end of August. So you’re looking probably next February or even much later than that if this would go on a ballot. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – You’re probably right if we decide to go that route I mean we might want to there’s also some things that we should discuss you know we changed we tweaked our EMT service now we have two companies previously we only had one company responding we’re trying some different things. I mean that was a six month trial basis as all of you know and that’s a couple months I think a month and a half its up. So we’re going to being making a recommendation we might even be coming back to you folks for legislation on what to do there. So we’re trying to improve the service I haven’t heard any complaints on the private service that we have. But I do think being fair to our firefighters in negotiations and in labor management they wanted to discuss it. So I said “lets form a citizens committee” we did that we got a report from them in essence nothing may happen, but something might happen. So that’s what we have to discuss, but I agree with Mr. Bryan there’s a multitude of information that you still need, but I wanted to report to you very shortly there after receiving the letter so you know what their recommendation is. COUNCILMAN PETERS The Mayor really just answered my question. I just you know I just couldn’t figure out really why we wanted to get involved in that because we have two ambulance services in this town doing a pretty good job from what I understand. But he answered that questions so. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – One other thing, just real quickly various times you know we like to undertake Capital Improvement projects and I have one that I think we need to look at very carefully. I’m asking for council’s consideration it would be asking just see how you folks feel we have been putting money in a couple of our fire stations as you well know. We have put money in our No. 3 fire station at Kendall and what I’m basically recommending and I want to study this issue I’m going to recommend that we hire John Harris from Harris Day Architectural Firm to look at preliminary plan to construct a new station up in that area. That station was built I believe in 1949 – 1950 so it’s getting quite old. As it turned out the city officials back then picked an excellent location and if you remember the time they picked it there wasn’t a lot of development to the northeast of that area or that site. But as you now can see it’s pretty much grown and the city has expanded to the east and to the north. So the location is excellent I want to say there I think its wise to stay there in talking to the chief he likes the idea. So I’m going to ask council’s participation and agreement to hire Harris Day for about $2,500.00 and he will some of the things we’ll get out of that in determine station requirements a new station requirements meeting with personnel, develop a site sketch showing a placement of a station and any need for additional land if that’s possible. Develop a probable cost of construction and then present the findings to everyone involved. I think we need to pursue that, but we don’t know what the cost will be. But I think we have to look at a new fire station in that part of town. So you’ll be seeing a request come thru it is $2,500.00 but I do want your participation and your support on it. So that’s the recommendation of the Administration and we’re going to proceed quickly with that. .REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO 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