|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, August 20, 2007. We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Francis Cicchinelli, Auditor Bill Hamit, Law Director Perry Stergios, Engineer Keith Dylewski and Community Development Director Aane Aaby. On the wall to your left are agendas for anyone who wishes to follow the meeting. Also under item #5 on the agenda is where the public can speak on any item that appears on the agenda and then under item #17 is where the public can speak on any item that does not appear on the agenda. I d also like to remind anyone with a cell phone please turn it off or turn it very far down. 1. ROLL CALL Roll call for the evening found the following Council Members present: 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 – Gave the invocation for tonight. 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 SCOTT GRABER – I live at 1218 Tremont Avenue SW in the city. Mr. President, your Honor, members of council, city officers, fellow citizens I rise today in opposition to the proposed sale of Genshaft Park to this Visconsi Company, Limited of Cleveland, Ohio for the purpose of its redevelopment into a retail shopping facility. In regards to this proposal the mayor has said and I quote “that the city should not look a gift horse in the mouth” and I agree that we should not do that. However, please indulge me just for a minute while I try to talk horse sense. First, I do not believe that we can even consider accepting this gift horse unless and until we have had the opportunity to see if at very least that it is a horse. As it now stands this reported gift horse maybe a horse we already have or a lame horse or a cow or a dog. We just don’t know. We only know that it’s said to be a horse. Second, this horse you are proposing we trade Genshaft Park was actually a gift horse almost 25 years ago and left for us to do with what we will. So in actuality this is a gift horse for gift horse deal I suppose. We did not look the gift horse in the mouth then but as a result of accepting that gift horse a great and proud old horse we had and that we loved Agathon Field was left abandoned later led away and sold and shot igonousily which we never bargained for and we want to make certain that no other horses are going to be sacrificed or abused nor oxes gored for that matter in order to make room for this new gift horse. I still miss that old horse the Agathon and having given up much in the getting of the Genshaft gift horse then we must be careful not to barter it away too cheaply today. Third, it has not been made completely clear to many people that we even need a new horse in the form of another retail shopping facility at that location at this time. Four, we have a sick horse one that it is said chronically bleeds red ink called the Legends Golf Course. Is there any medicine in this proposal that can help us to cure that horse or will we only be able to put a band aid on it to try to stem the flow of red ink or cover it up temporarily but not cure it. Fifth, we have hungry horses already in our old but beautiful stable the downtown area. Some old horses and some new who’s owners have staked their lives and livelihoods on maintaining these horses for the good of the citizens of Massillon and who have been doing so along trusting that the leadership of the city will finds to keep a good supply of feed available. Will this new big gift horse just steal away the feed these old horses downtown depend on? Sixth, we have a lost horse the Lincoln Phase III horse wandered away years ago and has not been seen since. Something went wrong and the horse was let out of the barn. I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to straighten the mess out. Perhaps the city council should get that horse back in the barn so we can find out how much that horse play has cost the city before we go charging like the light brigade head long into some other horse misadventure. Wasn’t that hockey team area Lincoln Phase III deal also practically a gift horse? Seven, the Mayor wants to convince other local horse owners to bring their new born fouls into our stable in this mom and pop business incentive proposal and is only offering a handful of oats #20,000.00 for this purpose. Will this new gift horse trade bring more oats for these fouls to sustain themselves with until they grow strong enough to survive or will it just trample the yearlings under its hooves in a stampede away from the downtown? Last, but least, Mr. President, I don’t claim to know the answers to the questions I’ve proposed today and I trust that city council will take the time necessary and exercise full due diligence to find the answers for us the citizens who after all own the horse the Mayor proposes to barter away. There’s no hurry to make a decision on this it is not an emergency suffice to say and with all due respect to the Mayor for this Visconsi Company Limited and city council that we the citizens merely want to make sure that the sum and total of this proposal is a good horse one that we can live with and ride and be proud to leave our children and our grandchildren for that’s what we must all ultimately do. We want to make sure that this gift horse that the Mayor does not want us to look too closely is not just actually a pig with a lot of lipstick on it or a Trojan horse it looks good on the outside but causes more harm than good. And certainly not just a big pile of horse manure fixed up and made to look like a horse. We already have an odor problem right next door to where this new horse wants to live. We don’t think we want to add to it then that would be a horse of a completely different color and I thank you for your attention LUCILLE ALBERT – I live at 434 5th Street SW and I would just like to speak concerning Ordinance No. 69. I would just like to go on record as saying that I am very opposed to the passage of this parking ban. I don’t think this is a privilege of being misused by most people. I can see if its junk cars sitting there then I think something should be done about it. But I feel many of our privileges as homeowners are being taken away from us and I’m opposed to the passage of this ordinance. VICKI WAYMAN – I live at 881 Princehorn Circle NW in Massillon. I just have a few things to say about the parking ban that I’m also opposed to it. I was born and raised here and lived here most of my life. In all my comings and goings I have never even noticed if people park in their front yards let alone a glaring problem with people parking in the making an eyesore of the neighborhood. I can understand people also not wanting junk cars parked for months and years in the front yard, but occasional parking in a person’s front yard should be their own business. They bought the property in the City of Massillon not in a subdivision where there’s so many rules. People that live in places like Lake Avenue, Amherst Road, Wildreth those people don’t have any places else to park. They park in their driveways and if they have guests come to visit maybe the guests have to park a block away and walk down to their house no mater what the whether, no matter what they’re age. As it was in school and as it at work and everyday if a few people are causing a major problem why is the answer always to punish everyone instead of confronting the offenders and making them stop what it is they’re doing that’s offensive. As far as the junk cars too I would be very surprised if there isn’t already an ordinance in effect stating they can’t have junk cars and they have to have license plates and they can only park there for so long. As far as being able to park for special occasions how is this ever going to be monitored a special occasion can mean different things to different people. I don’t go to the Massillon football games but I’m expecting that part of front yard parking will then become a special occasion. What if I consider out of town guests getting together with family on holidays or kids coming home from college on special occasions. I don’t feel citizens of Massillon should be bothered if receiving a ticket to go down to city hall and explain what their special occasion is; it’s their own personal business. I don’t like the idea of having to debate with someone who will be put in charge of deciding whether my reasoning is going to be permissible or acceptable in their opinion. I saw that changes were made that it’s permissible to park in the front yard when washing your car. What about if you want to sell a car by a private sale? I think people should be able to do that also. I don’t see how the law can be enforced I heard this morning that there are Massillon residents who need help with gang activity this is a growing concern and I think our police department should be used for people’s protection not to enforce some people’s ideas of what they believe will make their yards look better. Our police departments needs to concentrate on people committing crimes not parking violations. This law would open a can of worms for if a person doesn’t like their neighbor this would be one more thing that they can call the police to complain about. I thank you for your attention and I hope you consider my opinion. RAY MYERS – We have to park on Janice taking somebody’s parking place they don’t appreciate it. I have walked every street practically in Massillon and I’ve never seen that many cars that you would need to pass an ordinance for no parking in yard. We park in our yard maybe when I have out-state people come maybe 3 times a year. My daughter on her way home from the hospital what’s left of it she stops by somebody’s in the parking place she parks in the yard. You can not tell where she has parked and we’ve done it for 20 years. So we’re not making ruts that’s about all I’ve got to say and I thank you for listening. 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, we’ll move towards the introduction of ordinances and resolutions, Mrs. Ferrero since there is great interest in this do you have any objections to moving that forward? COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – None. ORDINANCE NO. 69 2007 BY: HEALTH, WELFARE & BLD REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Amending CHAPTER 351 “PARKING GENERALLY” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, Ohio, and enacting a new Subsection 351.21 “FRONT YARD PARKING” and 351.22 “OFF-STREET PARKING IN RSIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OR ANY PARCELS USED FOR DWELLING PURPOSES” of the CHAPTER 351 ‘PARKING GENERALLY”, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO As everyone knows we’ve talked about this forever my intention is to bring Ordinance No. 69 forward for a vote. I do want to thank the citizens that came forward tonight and it is my intent to support your wishes this evening. So with no further ado I would like to bring Ordinance No. 69 forward for a vote. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO moved to bring Ordinance No. 69 – 2007 for a vote, seconded by Councilman Manson. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We’re now open for discussion let me start over at the right, Mr. Mang or anyone else who would like to raise your hand. Mrs. Catazaro-Perry? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I will be supporting this parking ban this evening many, many residents in the Wellman area I did have emails to support it. I did have a phone call from Mr. McCune’s ward asking me to support it and I had one person call me and ask me not to support besides the people who came this evening. So because I’ve had many more yes’s to support the ban I will be supporting it this evening. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Peters, you had your hand up? COUNCILMAN PETERS Is that when I should… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I would prefer right now if you’d like to make remarks we have a motion to come back to you, Mr. McCune? COUNCILMAN PETERS No, I have no remarks at this time. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Yeah, I have a prepared statement I would like to read for the record. Instead of typing the lengthy statement it has been included for the record as presented to the Council Clerk. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Thank you, Mr. McCune. Mr. Peters, I believe you have an amendment to offer? COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, I’d like to make a motion that we amend Ordinance No. 69 – 2007 with the changes each one of you have a copy of. COUNCILMAN PETERS made a motion to amend Ordinance No. 69 – 2007, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER You should all have an amended version of Ordinance No. 69, does everyone have that? Who does not please raise your hand? COUNCILMAN MANSON I have two. No, I have two different ones. I got one the other night and I got a different one today. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, Mr. Peters, which version are we working with? Would you please identify it? How can we tell which is the correct one? Alright, if everyone would look at the first page under section 3 the operative ordinance I believe the amendment “this ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law” From what I’m hearing from the Clerk is correct if there’s any language in there regarding emergency passage then that is incorrect please put that to the bottom of your pile. Now does everyone have this copy? Mr. Manson, do you have this one? (Yes) Mr. McCune, do you have it? (Yes, I do sir) Okay, we have a motion and a second is there any discussion? Mr. Peters, we’ll start with you. COUNCILMAN PETERS No, I’ll just answer any questions about the amendment if there are any. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Is there any other comments, questions or discussions regarding the items to be amended? Mr. Manson? COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, first of all, what do we do with the first ordinance? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER The first ordinance had a motion, had a second, we now have an amendment offered for Ordinance No. 69; we will discuss and vote on Ordinance No. 69. If the amendment’s passed then that becomes the amendment that we will vote on later. COUNCILMAN MANSON Okay, Yeah, I have plenty I’d like to say. We started off on this thing I pointed out to Mr. Peters that the initial language that we got from our law director was pretty good language. Awfully strong, but it was pretty good very clear cut, pretty tough if you really have a serious problem in town. Obviously we do not have a serious problem in town or we would have acted on this a lot sooner than we have now. In fact we have a very minor problem and we’re talking about using big guns to handle this very minor problem. Now I’ve advocated from the very beginning that this thing should be handled through code enforcement. We have newspaper articles from the Mayor saying that he didn’t think that he thought maybe the police should be running around enforcing this. We have the chief of police that came in and made his case that he didn’t believe that the police should do it. What I quite honestly believe is it’s our job along with the administration to decide how we enforce ordinances. I think using police is way over the top on this. I had a very good experience not a good a experience it was a problem that I had to get into this week, but it was a good experience within a department here in Massillon with the health department. I had a complaint in Mr. McCune’s ward about some trash and possible garbage and stuff like that and I was told there was nothing being done about it. Well, quite to the contrary our health department went out there investigated it sent a letter some people feel that all we are is a bunch of letter writers, but I don’t feel you know that these things are a big problem we need to enforce them with guns or tickets or anything. They went out they looked at it they made person contact with the people in the house they also sent them a letter that they had to correct their problem within 10 days. They said they would correct it sooner, if they don’t do that then after 10 days they’ll get another letter in 6 days telling them in much nastier way to take care of their problem. Then after that they will receive a registered letter and they can be taken to court. Ms. Argent told me that they have only had one case that they have had to take to court. My whole thing about this since we have started talking about it this should be coming under the building department and the code enforcement. This is private property it’s not our streets downtown, its not handicap parking places, its not parking across alleys. Mr. Myers, is a case that I use Mr. Myers lives on a very shall lot on Lake Street he has a problem if you go through some of the older neighborhoods in Massillon this can be a problem and my investigations into it and I’ve spent a lot of time in it. In most cases they are nothing more than short term problems because maybe a family situation has changed like maybe a younger child is starting to drive and temporarily they don’t have enough room for all the cars. Now I don’t believe people should be going out issuing tickets. Code enforcement can handle this we wrote a bunch of feel good exceptions into this thing. This is bothering me you know it comes up Mr. Myer was the one that pointed it out about around the stadium how are you going to handle that. Now all of a sudden we have exceptions for that what about Mr. Myers exception if he has family function over a weekend. I had a neighbor that had a party for his mother and somebody else had out-of-state people from Michigan in for 2 days there was 12 cars in his driveway and his yard. Did not hurt one thing actually kept traffic off of our street didn’t hurt at all. I’m concerned for those kinds of people we have abstinence people those people can be dealt with. There is no reason that we can’t deal with those kinds of people, but in case like this I’m very concerned about it and I will be voting no against it unless we change this thing to code enforcement. The initial problem was brought to us thru Mr. Peters from the safety service director and from the code enforcement officer. Where has the code enforcement officer been since we started talking about this? Has he come in and told us he just can’t handle it. Why haven’t we talked to him? I feel we do have the right to regulate our private property in town, but I don’t believe it should be done through the police. I’ve enough of that kind of stuff I’ve also had good experience dealing with the building department they’ve intervened in some commercial properties that there were some problems on and leveled them out. That’s not what the police are for that’s what the code enforcement officer, the building department, the health department is they’re there to try to work problems out and work with people. I’m for working with the people I’m voting no on this ordinance if somebody wants to bring it back someday and talk about it through code enforcement fine, but this is way over the top. This having police enforce this is ridiculous as the original $100.00 fine was maybe more ridiculous. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Any other comments? We have a motion on floor to amend Ordinance No. 69 as per the sheet that we all have, Madame Clerk would you please call the role? ORDINANCE NO. 69 – 2007 WAS AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 6 YES, 3 NO. FERRERO, MANSON AND MCCUNE VOTED NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, the ordinance has been amended that puts it back to first reading. This is now the operative document Mrs. Ferrero would you like to make a motion to suspend the rules and bring this forward or would you rather have Mr. Peters do it? COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Well, there is no emergency language with it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I understand that. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Well, how can waive the rule without any emergency language? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We still have to treat it as three readings and we have to treat it to suspend the rule. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Donnie can. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, Mr. Peters would you make your motion please? COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend. The rules were not suspended vote was 6 yes, 3 no. Ferrero, Manson and McCune voted no. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, the rules have not been suspended therefore we can not have a vote on the amended version. We now back to the original ordinance as introduced by Mrs. Ferrero. Alright we given it first reading then Ordinance. No. 69 as amended has received first reading. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Don’t look at me you’re as shocked as I am. ORDINANCE NO. 91 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to advertise for and receive sealed bids and enter into a contract, upon award and approval of the Board of Control, with the lowest and best bidder for the 2007 Target Neighborhood Street Program in the City of Massillon, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN MANG I believe you all have the resurfacing list the area that we’re talking about that will be covered under the Community Development Block Grant Program is the area marked “2007 Target Area Neighborhood Street Resurfacing.” You’ll notice there’s three streets that are on this piece of legislation. Any comments or questions if not the chairman will be asking for suspension and passage so this can happen. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 91 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 92 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to enter into a purchase agreement for the sale of the Genshaft Park land owned by the City and not needed for any municipal purpose in the City of Massillon, Stark County, Ohio, to Visconsi Land Company, Ltd, said purchase agreement to ultimately be assigned the Massillon Community Improvement Corporation (CIC), and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN MANG First reading. ORDINANCE NO. 92 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 93 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to advertise for and receive sealed bids and enter into a contract, upon award and approval of the Board of Control, with the lowest and best bidder for the 2007 Street Resurfacing Project in the City of Massillon, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN PETERS We discussed the streets and so forth at Monday’s work session. There are 16 streets on the list that were picked by the engineer’s office and the state if there aren’t questions I’m going to move that we… COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I brought this to the attention of council last week at the work session. On that list it says Harcrest is in ward 3 and I believe its in ward 4. Just a typo. 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. 93 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 94 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the 1401 Income Tax Capital Improvement Fund, 1201 Street Construction Fund, Wastewater Treatment Fund, Law Enforcement Trust Fund and the Summer Concert Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Did you just read Ordinance No. 94, Mary Beth? Could you repeat that ordinance you just read? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Ordinance No. 94. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Thank you, I just wanted to make sure I’m on the same one. Section 1 in Ordinance No. 94 – 2007 is to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the Income Tax Fund $250,000.00 for the street resurfacing that we just approved from streets and highways. $15,000.00 is to go to the department of the police for renovations and $6,600.00 will go to infrastructure repair. This is the cost of replacing the brick pavers in Duncan Plaza. Section 2, we’d like to appropriated from the unappropriated balance of 1201 Street Construction Fund $60,000.00 for street resurfacing and $2,000.00 for storm sewer repairs and those storm sewer repairs will be on Erie Street S where a storm sewer collapsed. Section 3, we’d like to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the Wastewater Treatment Fund $45,000.00 to an account entitled services and contracts. This is for damages to 5 houses where the sewers backed up into the houses. $25,000.00 to an account entitled services and contracts and that is for legal fees for the law firm of Bricker and Eckler for the Kokosing Construction claim or suit. Section 4, is to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the Law Enforcement Fund $15,000.00 to an account entitled furtherance of justice, $6.000.00 will go to special investigation, $5,000.00 for a new engineer for a ford from a seizure that the police department encountered and $4,000.00 informants. Section 5, we’re appropriating from the unappropriated balance of the Summer Concert Fund $8,000.00 to an account entitled services and contracts and that’s for our summer concerts. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 94 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 95 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the 1201 Street Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY In section 1 of Ordinance No. 95 – 2007 they’d like us to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the 1201 Street Fund. It’s an advance $125,000.00 this is for the Cherry Road project. We will be receiving a grant from the Stark County Commissioners but we have not received that yet. So we are advancing to this account. 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. 95 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 96 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making a transfer in the 2007 appropriation of the 1201 Street Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Section 1, we are going to transfer from the Street Fund to the Municipal Road Fund $125,000.00. Again, for the same project the Cherry Road project. 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. 96 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 97 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the 1409 Municipal Road Fund and the 1201 Street Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY In section 1 we’re going to appropriate from the 1401 Municipal Road Fund $125,000.00 for the Cherry Road project. In section 2 we’re going to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of 1201 Street Fund $82,048.60 for the Cherry Road project. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I have a question for the city engineer. Mr. Dylewski, on the Cherry Road project, Cherry Road NW project could you describe for us what the project entails. ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Sure. We’re going to do a gutter grind on the corners and we’re going to do a 3 inch overlay of asphalt with reinforcing fabric. It’s also going to include some quite a bit of the concrete base repair; we’re going to utilize the existing concrete for the base, some manhole rehabs. That’s pretty much it there. COUNCILMAN BRYAN When do you expect this get underway? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Contractor’s ready to sign the contract; so… COUNCILMAN BRYAN It’s already been bid? ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Yes, so as soon as this passes and Board of Control approves it then we can start signing the contracts. COUNCILMAN BRYAN With this reinforcing and the way you’ve designed it, it should hold up with all the heavy truck traffic that it gets. ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Yes, like I said we’re doing quite a bit of the base repair and that’s the most important part you know especially down at the bottom of the hill there before the bridge. COUNCILMAN BRYAN Thank you very much. ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – Sure. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 97 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 7 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE A Resolution adopting the decision of the Tax Incentive Review Committee made on August 8, 2007 wherein they recommended that those certain Enterprise Zone Agreements listed on the attached exhibit “A” be continued, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN MANG Members of council, do you have a list of the Enterprise Zone Agreements? Everybody has that list, okay, as it was stated the Tax Incentive Review Committee met on August 8th and review all the Enterprise Zones and they came back with a recommendation that we have which is to continue all the ones that you have a copy of. The…Aane Aaby, the Community Development Director stated earlier at our work session we have 60 days to look at this. I think I’m going to ask council to take the time and review some of these to make sure that it’s a commitment by the body not just a commitment by the committee. I’m not second guessing the committee I just want to make sure that council is on the same page. So for that purpose we’ll this a first reading. RESOLUTION NO. 7 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. RESOLUTION NO. 8 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE A Resolution providing for the submitting to the electors of the City of Massillon at a General Election on November 6, 2007, the question of the approval of the issue of a replacement of a one (1) mill operating levy to provide funding for the Massillon Museum which is operated by the Massillon Museum Inc., a non-profit corporation, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY We jumped through some hoops to get this done and I appreciate everyone’s efforts. This is section 1 there shall be submitted to the electors of the City of Massillon at a General Election on November 6th. We’d like to question of the approval of issues providing for the replacement levy of the tax in the amount of one (1) mill for each $100.00 elevation for five (5) years from 2008 to 2012. This is will be $.10 for each $100.00 evaluation it will generate approximately $589,000.00 and we need to pass this as an emergency this evening so that it can be returned to the Board of Elections. 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. 8 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS LETTER FROM OHIO DIVISION OF LIQUOR CONTROL REGARDING A TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LI8CENSE FROM JOHN J MACEYAK DBA WEST PARK TAVERN 1017 6TH ST SW 1ST FL & BSMT MASSILLON, OHIO 44646 TO RUSSELL G SNYDER DBA WEST PARK TAVERN 1017 6TH ST SW 1ST FL & BSMT MASSILLON OHIO 44646 LETTER FROM OHIO DIVISION OF LIQUOR CONTROL REGARDING A NEW LIQUOR LICENSE TO DAV CHAPTER 0038 DBA DAV CHAPTER 0038 821 ERIE ST S MASSILLON OHIO 44646 COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Thank you, Mr. Peters, Mr. Townsend, you both have your copies (Yes) alright thank you. 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS 1. INDEPENDENT - $180.69 COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move that we pay the bill, seconded by Councilman Bryan. Roll call vote of 9 yes to pay the bill. 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). POLICE CHIEF SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY 2007. COPY FILE COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright with no objections we’ll invite the mayor forward. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – As all of you know we’re always trying to find ways to improve departments and streamline government and improve financial position of our city departments. A couple of weeks ago a proposal was given to you concerning the selling of Genshaft Park which we certainly are in favor of because it does position the Parks and Rec. Department in a really sound financial position. Another city entity that we want to look at and I propose and this is just very preliminary so it’s just earlier on the developmental process. But if you look at our Legends Golf Course and we can argue for many years if it whether it was a sound investment or not. The ironic part of all of this is when this proposal was first discussed back in 1993, 1994 some council members came to the administration and said “we have this land down here and maybe we should build a golf course” my initial reaction was really negative. The more we got into it and the more they showed me that maybe my initial feelings and thoughts were wrong. Once we started looking at additional housing development opportunities in this area and this region then I really was convinced that it was a sound investment to get into. Remember not everyone has the same recreational activities. Some people like to golf, some people like to play tennis, some people like to play basketball, some people like to work out at rec. centers or whatever. So how I viewed it was it just another opportunity to have recreational activities here in Massillon. So we bought into the idea of building a 18 hole golf course and I certainly feel that it was a sound investment. The first phase opened in 1995 as we all know, then there was a proposal to build a second phase an extra 9 holes which opened in 2002. There’s no question in a lot of our minds that was a mistake and I think I have said that many times publicly and I think I have to say it again publicly that it was a mistake I think some of the strong golf enthusiasts just got a little overzealous. What we’re attempting to do is trying to at least look at alternatives in reducing the debt that is there to pay off this course. So what we would like to sort of investigate is a sort of a somewhat reconfiguration of the golf course, but the main part of this would be selling about 52 acres of the golf course for housing. The great thing about our engineering department is that they have the ability to actually show a development. So when you see a proposal it’s not just a sketch it really shows the lots and the roadways and everything else. So you can actually see what we’re talking about doing and that’s what Keith is trying to get fired up here. So I think that as soon as he; are you ready? Not quite, anyhow what we’re proposing is to sell around 52 acres through a competitive bidding process. We have and it’s actually this is sort of on the southwest part of the golf course right off of Nave. Additional housing would be of course constructed there we have done a little homework some due diligence in that we have talked to some developers as what they think the potential would be. As all of you know the housing market in Stark County and Ohio and this region of the country it certainly isn’t as hot as it was in the ‘90’s and earlier this decade. But it might also be the time to at least begin discussions on it because of that reason. We do think that the housing which has always been a pretty hot commodity in here Massillon will of course rebound with the rest of the region hopefully in ’08, but probably in ’09. So what we’re proposing to do is to show you what a potential development could look like it would also entail very small reorganizing of existing holes. So it would not be a total revamping of that part of the course. As you know with 27 holes what we tried to do when we looked at this originally was to try to reduce it to 18. So we looked at this site that we’re proposing to sell and a site along Richville Drive in the newer section of it. As we looked into that what we found out the homes that have been built there that have homes on the golf course if we were sell the land the golf course would cease to exist. So we did not want to open up that can of worms and we did not want to expose the city to any liability from the residents in that area and/or the developer. So we sort of backed away from that, but our original goal was to reduce it to 18 acres or 18 holes. What we’ve done it appears that it can be reduced to around 22 or 21 holes depending on what the final configuration would be. So as soon as we get this thing booted up then you’ll see what we’re talking about. I believe it allows for around 78 single family housing lots and I think we should test the waters competitively bid it and review the bids and decide what we want to do. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Would you like to take questions now or wait till after you’re…? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Well, seeing that we’re having a little bit of a problem with booting this 21st century equipment, yes, I think… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I will open for question now, Mr. McCune? COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Are we leaving the original 18 intact or are we going to tamper with that? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – I think there’ll be some alteration but not too many, too much because we are reducing it back to 18. So I think the good thing about this area is that can be you can reconfigure a couple of the holes without too much cost already in that particular area as well of course you’re giving up some holes as we reconfigure it. So there is some change but not a lot of change that would constitute a lot of expense. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I would be hesitant to mess I played a lot of golf there when it was an 18 hole course, beautiful course, was one of the best courses in the state probably. I would be real hesitant to touch that original 18. The third 9 that you added was the albatross that basically killed the golden goose. You can probably eliminate all of those without anybody raising a red flag at all. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – But again the problem with that Mr. McCune is that some of the holes are already in a new allotment and if you take those holes away and sell that part off then people that have homes that sit on golf courses on the golf course part won’t have that luxury and they bought that house or built that house with that idea. So we sort of evaluated this whole thing it will be reduced what it will do and this is where we like to get into a little bit further and like I said this is preliminary. It would take whatever we get for the land and we’re not going to give this land away. But we will then take that those dollars and reduce our debt which in checking with our bond council it is legal. I have a letter from them stating that we can do what we’re proposing to do. It would crack that nut and at least would make a dent into the debt which is what we’re attempting to do here. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I would suggest I don’t know what you would do with 3 extra holes I mean there would be no real way to apply them to around the golf. There may be a better use for that area than for 3 holes of golf. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – And we’re talking about that, that’s a great point what I wanted to tell you is the holes will still be there. We can maybe do with that on Richville Drive maybe a par 3, we might also want to make that exclusively for like a training for children, for new golfers or whatever the case might be. So what I’m telling is the holes will still be there and the golf course will still be there but it will probably be reused as something else. So we’ve done some, we’ve done a lot of our homework trying to restore as closely as it looked like previously, but when you’ve already made the changes sometimes it hard to do that. But I think we’re taking something and we’re trying to make a good situation as much as we can out of something that we had no idea it was going to go this way. The extra 9 holes was one issue, then of course the bad weather and the ironic part is we were sold on the idea that and the final buck rests with the elected officials and I’m not trying to blame anybody but when they proposed it they said that you know that you’re play would increase and you’re revenues would increase. Well, the only thing that really increased was the debt and cost just as much for the extra 9 than it did for the original 18. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Yes, Mr. Mayor, now on the debt up there. How much recoup would we get on an estimated basis I realize we’re not in we haven’t really looked at solid figures. Would we recoup 25, 50% of the debt or you know do you have any idea? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – How much we would get you mean from a developer for the land? (Correct) We don’t I mean we don’t want to play our hand we know what real estate is going for. Now keep in mind, this isn’t retail or industrial, commercial redevelopment this is residential development. So it’s considerable less than what we’re getting at potentially at Genshaft Park. But we have ideas of what; we’re going to what we’re going to end up doing if council gives us the authorization to sell the property like I said we’re going to competitively bid it. We talked to some developers but we’re going to put a minimum per acre on the bid so right away they know that if they’re thinking of “I’m getting for a song” that’s not going to happen. We do that all the time when we competitively bid the land we do put a minimum on it. So I would rather not play our hand I think we have an idea of what we would like to get in a minimum and that would substantially lower the debt. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Okay, on a quick follow up question. I had some people call me on this issue do we did we ever do we still have the dog down there to chase the geese away. I had some golfers call me about the geese droppings situation at the golf course. Do we know if we still have the dog down there? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Yes, we still have the dog maybe some of you don’t know there have been some personnel changes there. The dog was living with one of the individuals that are no longer working there and we have to competitively bid that dog or sell that dog if they want to keep that dog. The dog is about 7 years old and quite honestly the dog is sort of a little too bit domesticated so he sort of lost his enthusiasm. He still does what he’s supposed to do but maybe not to the extent that we had thought he was trained to do. So… COUNCILMAN MAIER – When you get a little older that happens. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – But, yeah, he’s still there and he does still live with that family so we have to deal with that legally and that’s being done. So yeah, he’s still around. (Thank you) Yeah, it works. What you’re looking at now over here this is Nave right here so that roadway to the south is Nave. So what you can see is a proposal to sell about 52 acres its in the multi colored proposal it extends out to Nave Road with some good size lots adjacent to Nave and then heads in a northerly direction and some pretty outstanding and exclusive lots. It’s about 78 all together. No, we don’t have any handouts. Any if any members of council would like to have anything like that just let us know we can get you some handouts. But this is just a proposal and remember that if we end up selling the 52 acres in tact a lot of developers will tweak it and change it around. But this gives you an idea what can happen and it would provide us with a substantial increase in revenues and pay that debt down which all of us really, really want to do without impacting the course that much. Any questions if you do want any types if you want handouts if you want any copies if you large copies of this just let us know and we’ll get you that. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Mr. Mayor, in the upper right hand corner there’s another colored section what does that… MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Mrs. Ferrero, that is the section that we looked remember I said we looked at a parcel up off of Richville Drive. So originally when the engineering department did this I said “take 9 holes away, eliminate 9 holes” and they took about 5 of them down here and probably 4 of them up there. But we aren’t going to do that because of the fore mentioned that stays the way it is. There is potential though for some private development there’s a parcel that’s vacant that someone could buy and could extend the roadway that’s already existing. But I don’t know if that’s possible, we’ve told some of the developers that we’ve met with that was a possibility, but the city would not be involved with selling any land in the Augusta Lake area so I’ll make that clear. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mayor just wanted to know what your schedule is and since it involves the Legends that would suggest the Park & Rec. Committee since it involves selling of property that would involve Community Development. What are your plans? MAYOR CICCHINELLI – What I would like to do is at least present to council a proposal to lets define the area and make sure that’s what we want to do. Then we’ll competitively bid it and then the Parks & Rec. Director would have been here tonight Mr. Kaminski had some family issues come up at the last moment or he would have been here. They know what’s going on of course and their board will have to take some action but city council’s the final action that’s necessary. So what I would do is propose selling it but we will come up with the criteria and you’ll know ahead of time what the minimum bid is and we’ll go from there. So we want to do this ASAP because we do have some note issues and bond issues to consider in November. But whether we can make that deadline I don’t know. But you know you have to advertise it for 5 consecutive weeks this is already the middle of August nothing can be considered until September. So we’ll wait and see how quickly we can move and we aren’t going to rush this thing thru. But if we do it and it comes back with ridiculous proposals or no proposals then but we’ll just move on. But I think its something that we need to look at we’re trying to find ways constantly of refining and improving our recreational facilities as well as the financial stability of our department parks and rec. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I noticed and Paul noticed as well is that two of the holes are the signature holes for that course that you’re going to be eliminating. I guess my question would be would it be possible to get the original course designer to come in and help us tweak this course? Because he did a heck of a job with that course we had one of the best courses in the country as public course. MAYOR CICCHINELLI – Yeah, we will look at we’d love to have city council’s input there’s time to discuss all of that. I would be more than happy to look at any alternatives. I’m not sure we want to go back to that individual that design because he also designed the extra 9. What we want to look at is what’s best for the city now move forward and we’re constantly thinking on ways to do that. We will come next step will be legislation we’ll talk in greater detail but I wanted to let council know first. 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright that was all of our reports from city officials. As far as committee meetings we will meet next Monday, August 27th starting at 5:45pm. I’ll remind everyone again due to Labor Day our next council meeting will be Tuesday, September 4th. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILMAN PETERS – Yes, I have a resolution I guess request I’d like to read if I could. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I’m not sure what you’re asking us? Anything we need to vote on? COUNCILMAN PETERS – Well, for the record we can vote on it, yeah. How’s that sound? How about if I read it then you decide. “Whereas, the Organizers, Coaches, Umpires, Spectators, Volunteers, and especially the Players, in the Special Olympics Softball tournament held at Genshaft Park on Saturday, August 18, 2007, exhibited the utmost in sportsmanship, camaraderie, team spirit, and friendship, and Whereas, the Players, in particular, gave their best efforts on every single play, and exhibited a remarkably high level of skill and desire to be the best they could be, and a willingness to overcome adversity in order to accomplish that goal, Therefore be it Resolved, that the City Council of Massillon Ohio hereby Commends and Congratulates, with the highest Praise, the Organizers, Coaches, Spectators, Umpires and other Volunteers, and especially the Players, for the outstanding example of high skill, sportsmanship, team spirit, camaraderie, and friendship that they exhibited in the Special Olympics Softball Tournament held at Genshaft Park, in the City of Massillon, on August 18, 2007” COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, what I will suggest is that we you make a motion we’ll treat this as Resolution No. 9, we’ll need a second on that, we’ll take a vote and then if you will leave that with the Clerk we can let the paperwork catch and have an ordinance to present to the sponsors. Is there any objection to that procedure? Alright, Mr. Peters will you make a motion for Resolution No. 9? COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. RESOLUTION NO. 9 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS .SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 16. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS .REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Before I recognize Mr. Bryan, Mr. McCune, I’d like to suggest that you and I and Mr. Bryan and the Council Clerk meet in the conference room for just a moment afterwards to address your earlier comments. This is a public meeting anyone who would like to sit in is invited to do so. Mr. Bryan? 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