|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Tuesday, September 5, 2006. We have in attendance with us this evening: Safety Service Director Loudiana, Auditor Hamit, Community Development Director Aaby, Engineer Dylewski and Treasurer Lambert. 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 MANG gave the invocation for the evening. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILMAN MANG Chairman of the Community Development 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 WILLIAM BADER – 2110 Dwayne Avenue NW, Massillon. I have a list of people who live in my community where the cell tower which is proposed off 20th Street. It says trustees of Perry Township informed us that T-Mobile is trying to get this passed as fast as possible. It was turned down in Perry was appealed to a higher court what the decision will be will affect all of Ohio this was from Perry Trustees. It says health hazard as well as a safety hazard is this company willing to issue compensation checks to all the residents or whatever. Cell phone is not a utility it’s a luxury does not be built in environmental resident. It will affect all wildlife in the area, etc. Why can’t this be built on 241 where there’s no houses around or close to a school so the money can go to the school system where it is needed? At last I would like an environmental impact study done on this. Thank you. CHRIS RICH – 1911 Woodruff Avenue, my biggest concern is the long term health conditions that it’s going to create against us. The destruction of electronics, computers I just talked to a guy the other day that Macedonia Fire Department had one behind their department and it got hit by lightening tore up all the electronics in the place. There is a variance and I don’t see any reason why we should change that its to protect our rights and ourselves and so there’s really no reason to change that just because it’s a light industrial lot in the middle of residential area. So its safety all the way for the citizens. NORIAN RYAN – I’m 345 21st Street NW. I recently moved to that area a few years ago. It’s a quiet residential area and from what I understand from the neighbors that area was rezoned many years ago for an old dairy that apparently was there and its now Brother’s Sausage. That area down there is very small and I can’t see the space small space down there would be adequate enough for the construction of a large cell phone tower in that residential area and I would really hope that you would reconsider this that its are residential area there’s a lot of little kids coming into that area. I know at one time it was an older neighborhood, but new families are moving in and small children are down there and I think it would really definitely be just a safety hazard trying to keep kids off a tower they like to climb. Thank you for your consideration. JERRY BEST – I live on Woodruff Avenue NW. I’m here to voice my opposition for the cell phone tower on 20th Street. I spoke at the meeting last week you were deciding what you would be putting on the agenda. I invited all council members to come to our neighborhood did any of you come? Okay, it seems to me that sometime in the past council approved setback requirements for cell phone towers for safety reasons. What’s being proposed here is well exceeding those requirements you imposed I mean you’re like less than half. So I’d like to ask that common sense prevail and you voice your opposition to this and take it as far as you can go. Thank you. RON GAINAR – I represent T-Mobile and I would like to pass out some information. What I would like to go over is the reasons why we need a site I’ve been receiving calls with possible tower locations in and around Massillon, but I want to show you why we picked this site and why this site is needed and what its going to do to our coverage in the area. I’d also like to show you some Mongols some possible common ground solutions that you might go to if council would like to go down that road to cell sites if you will. I will go through each one page by page. The first map you see is our current coverage in the area what we have here is the green is superior coverage this is coverage for you know for business owners they can use their phones in the basement this is a superior coverage. Yellow if you get coverage in your car, outside the gray and the white is the problem. You can see on Lincoln Way we have a coverage where a problem where the calls are dropped we’ve got bad quality of calls. So that’s why at the center of our sur train the engineer said we need a site our first candidate was Ferris Produce that was our first candidate when looking at the zoning ordinance it was if you go to the next page we tried to stick to industrial the only industrial property is the Brother’s Sausage site and we’ll get to that, that’s page 3. But will a site of 175 foot monocle at the Brother’s Sausage facility you see we get further we get seamless coverage through the area if you’re driving around in a car the green superior coverage it increase and its not perfect coverage we’d like to be at Ferris, but through the site of compromise a little bit this was our first step to compromising and go with the Sausage Brother site. If you go to page 3 you see a circle which is our search area and the arrow pointing to where the site is now located its outside of our area. But we compromised and went to an industrial area. This is the existing towers in the area the industrial land up in this corner we looked at that to see if we could make that work, but we have existing sites on that area and it just doesn’t work for us. We need a site in this location so that’s why we chose the Brothers Sausage. The next page is a typical model this is you have the antennas at the top, you’ve got the wide rack with the antennas. That’s what’s being planned out there. If you go to the next page this is the site at Pepper Pike they (inaudible). The next page this is a cell tower it looks like a flag pole the antennas are housed within before we put the flag on T-Mobile proposed just having the pole you could paint it any color council would deem. The flag makes it look prettier and we would that if we had to, but it does compromise our coverage it blocks a little bit of the signal. But this is something that’s out there we just built this at the Highland Heights its just T-Mobile. Next picture is just another shot of the flag pole and we’ll continue on this is at the base there’s some things we can do at the base of the tower we could put a fence of evergreen just to dress it up. These are things that aren’t in our proposal now, but we would consider. Moving to the law a little bit we don’t feel that we should be in this zoning realm we think that Section 1187.01 talks about microwave towers, CB towers it does not apply to wireless facilities cellular we don’t think we should be the setbacks of that ordinance was meant for wireless facilities. Secondly, as a public utility essential service which we are I sent information into the Clerk with our public utility number. We are a public utility we think this should all be handled outside of zoning and with the building department. So with that being said I’d like to withdraw our application from zoning and I would like to give this to the Clerk. This is a letter which says “Dear Ms. Bailey; This letter is to inform the Massillon City Council and the Massillon Zoning Department that T-Mobile is formally withdrawing its zoning application to construct a cell tower at 308 20th Street NW, Massillon, Ohio. The reason for the withdrawal is that section 1187.01 does not apply to wireless facilities, and secondly, T-Mobile as a public utility/essential service is not subject to zoning in Massillon per section 1189.02 of the Massillon zoning code. This withdrawal of the zoning application is effective immediately.” So I’d like to issue that and we would like this discussion which we’re still open to everything that I talked about today but we would like to do this outside of zoning which we don’t think we should be regulated. So that being said I can answer any questions. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Mr. Gainar, the residents in that area are concerned about health hazards do you have any research that you could give to council about any health hazards. RON GAINAR – Absolutely, we’re talking about 500 watts of power at 170 feet. There’s no health effects all the things in the internet you can find deals with the phone talking into the phone a lot and the phone right next to the ear causing a tumor or something. What we’re proposing is completely safe and I can provide studies to that effect I would be happy to. I’m make a note of that. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY It’s just a concern of the residents and each one that spoke this evening that’s what came out loud and clear to me is their concerned about that safety is the issue for them. RON GAINAR – Right, tower falling I’d like to address that a little bit I heard that back there. We do a foundation design testing the soil, professional engineers design the foundation. Typically, it’s 30 feet down with steel reinforced concrete that tower does not fall hurricanes doesn’t fall. What happens is its designed to (inaudible) on itself it’s not like Hurricane Andrew type gale forces there’s a point about half way or three quarters way up the tower the top of the tower comes down and falls down on the bottom half. It does not fall down on trees and so there’s no houses nearby that won’t fall on. So I just want to make that point. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – Mr. Gainar, since you’ve withdrawn your request for a variance does that also mean that you’ve withdrawn your appeal of the zoning board’s decision? RON GAINAR – Correct, we’d like to take this outside of the zoning because we think the zoning code is clear that it doesn’t apply to us. We’d like to talk to the city councilmen, the mayor, this ward, workshops about possible compromise solutions, but we need a site in this location and we’d like to try to move forward with that. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – I want it to be clear because your letter states you’re withdrawing the zoning application and that application was already turned down by the Zoning Board of Appeals. What we have on our agenda is your appeal of their denial. Are you withdrawing your appeal of their denial? (Correct) Okay. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Bryan, we will be having the law director for some comments prior to moving forward with this resolution. So we’ll have all the legal angles covered. Are you finished with your questioning? COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO Yes, Mr. Gainar, have you made any attempts at all to talk to the people in the neighborhood about the new design that you presented to us this evening like the flag pole design or anything like that? Have you gone out and tried to meet with them or the 6th ward councilman about this? RON GAINAR – No, this is the first they’ve seen it and so like I said even though withdrawing we’re still going to try and proceed with this project taking input from this board and from the councilman. So this is the first to answer your question. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO So by withdrawing your zoning request would that take us out of that mess? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER What he’s saying is that the city ordinance regarding the regulations of cell tower by restricting to a industrial zone and putting setback requirements in their opinion is not valid. Therefore they don’t feel they need to play in that ballpark. They’re going to move forward as a public utility. If I understand you correctly. RON GAINAR – That’s correct, but we don’t want to shove it down anyone’s throat. We try to make as many compromises as possible. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Mr. Gainar, your cell tower whatever form or fashion it might be is going to be 50 feet away from the closest house which is well within our variances. Something that we believe is absolutely unsafe without sure it’s you’re designing it to fall over on itself, but in the best case scenario is that often times isn’t what happens they just go over. I have to represent the people in my ward; the people in my ward have a lot of serious concerns about this as I do. I sure wouldn’t want it in my backyard. Really in all honesty you are shoving it down their throat your intention is to put that cell if I hear you correctly your intention is to go forward with putting that cell tower in that neighborhood when you know that neighborhood doesn’t want it. RON GAINAR – We have an obligation to, we’re required by the FCC to provide better coverage in this area. This tower is going to be infrastructure for wireless internet other things that’s going to be co-locating on the tower. The towers that I presented to you this is a nice community those were nice communities Pepper Pike, Highland Heights these towers are going up in residential areas because there’s not enough industrial areas to provide coverage seamlessly everywhere. These phones are becoming little computers they require more capacity you can’t have towers one end of town you know to cover the center. We have to be create a flag pole such for these types of areas and so this is something we’re seeing more and more. If we’re going to be a technology city, if we’re going to be technology state we have to have the infrastructure and this is part of it. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – You mentioned that you received several calls from people that were willing more than willing to have this tower placed on their land. (Correct) The nearest one I believe is less than a mile away from the site you currently chose. (Correct) Why would that less than a nine tenths or eight tenths of a mile make such a dramatic difference now you have someone who wants it versus our neighborhood that doesn’t want it. (Well, that’s one person) Will you lose that much coverage that its worth the fight that we’re looking at. RON GAINAR – Well, to answer your question yes, it’s got to be in a certain location, but that one person is standing to gain income. So of course they’re going to be for it you know. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – As are the people that are giving you the land to put it on their property. They’re going to gain from it… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. McCune and Mr. Gainar, I’d like to suggest that this is more properly designed for a committee meeting if you have other comments to make please make comments, but lets not get into a long question and answer period. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I would appreciate it if you could come to our work session next week so that we can set down and hash out some of this. RON GAINAR – Absolutely, I’d be happy to if you tell me where and when. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – It’ll be here 5:45pm next Monday and I would anticipate the residents will have several questions for you at that time. RON GAINAR – Great, look forward to it. COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, Mr. Gainar, since you have withdrawn that I don’t want to recommend pushing this from neighborhood to neighborhood, but Mr. Bader brought this up. (A few lines were inaudible) Have you talked to the school system about that by any chance? I mean I agree with him I’d rather see the money going to the schools maybe then anything else. RON GAINAR – Well, no we didn’t. We looked at the code and we saw industrial property we talked to Mr. Aane Aaby he encouraged us to go to industrial. So we looked at the zoning map and the closest industrial property was Brothers Sausage. COUNCILMAN MANSON – Well, maybe it’ll be worth at least exploring it if you’re going to continue exploring. It is within your circle of coverage. RON GAINAR – Many parents are coming out saying they don’t want it near their kids and that kind of stuff. COUNCILMAN MANSON – Maybe the schools will say that too. But still I’m just saying its another thing to take a look at and there is a lot of vacant land there it could maybe be placed far enough away to even though its not industrial maybe it could be far enough away where it wouldn’t be a hazard and the schools may be interested. RON GAINAR – We’d be open to that. COUNCILMAN MANSON – I’d at least take a look at it. RON GAINAR – Sure. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Yes, I might suggest that you would want to set up a neighborhood meeting in order to discuss this with the neighborhoods maybe prior to coming to council because if the neighbors don’t are not interested in any of your suggestions you know it probably not going to pass council anyways. So you might want to, you might want to touch base with the neighbors. At this point it probably won’t be a council issue the way you’re proposing it. RON GAINAR – We’re open to discuss it and I will be at the 5:45pm meeting. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – If you would Mr. Gainar, just for piece of mind I would like for you to really follow up on Paul’s suggestion with the school system and maybe have an answer for us from your company as well as the school district by next Monday if possible. RON GAINAR – I don’t what I’ll do I’ll go to the T-Mobile engineers and I’ll take cornices from the school property and see if it fits their communication needs, objectives. That I can do by next meeting. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Thank you. COUNCILMAN MANG – Yes, Mr. McCune since this piece of legislation is probably be removed tonight from our agenda I would suggest that you have a meeting with the neighbors outside of the council chambers since this is not at this point a council issue. Since they’ve decided to withdraw their application I would suggest that you probably suggest having a neighborhood meeting at a location in the neighborhood. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – I made that offer to Chris Mr. Rich who’s acted as a spokesperson at this time we were basically waiting to see how it was going to wash out here before we did that. So, yeah, I will get with them and see… COUNCILMAN MANG – Because like I say you’re welcome to be here, but the fact that it will not be a council issue at our work session because with the withdrawal it will be interesting as to how Mr. Stergios handles it, but in fact is not an issue with council at this point. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE – Well, I would like to hear what Mr. Gainar has to say next week prior to having a board meeting or neighborhood meeting so that I have all the information prior to council. So, yeah, I think it’s a great idea and I have offered that. TODD KLINGER – I live at 1900 Woodruff. I guess one of my questions is that is there any other type of pole they can use? I know there’s a lot of cell phone companies out there and T-Mobile is the only one with modicums in these areas is there something else that they can use that would go higher up. It would serve the purpose in an area where you wouldn’t have to have it in a residential area. That’s my biggest question. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We don’t have the answer for you here if you talk with him directly I’m sure he could bring you up to speed. DEBBIE TOUSANT – 1904 Woodruff. My thing is I’ve got a cell phone, I’ve got internet on my cell phone I don’t have a problem with it. The problem is out past 32nd Street you get no signal out there or nothing else. BOB AND CAROL CLAPPER – 1825 Auburn and the cell tower actually sets on our lot. One of the properties that was offered to him and it’s a different area and then I beg the differ with him about the health issue I’m a cancer patient for the last 8 years and I’ve read a lot about it and one thing that they mentioned over and over was cell towers. They say there’s the possibility of causing cancer. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, I do have a question of my own. We do have two petitions that were presented to us tonight. One is a typed written, printed petitions 3 pages with 41 signatures and one is hand written with 10 signatures. We would like to identify just for the record who turned these in are those people here tonight? Could you approach the microphone please? Can we just have your name and which petition is yours? SHARON KOPP – The shorter one is mine. WILLIAM BADER – We collected one for the Duane Avenue residents. CHRIS RICH – I turned in the three page petition. 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, you have a request? COUNCILMAN MANG – Yes, I’d like to move Resolution No. 18 to be our first item on our agenda this evening. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER With no objections from council members I will ask that Resolution No. 18 be brought forward and after the Clerk reads the title I’d like to have the law director come forward and offer some direction and guidance, please. RESOLUTION NO. 18 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG – Yes, if I may I’d like to call the law director Mr. Stergios to the microphone please. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Considering the fact that the appeal filed by T-Mobile has been withdrawn technically you have nothing to vote on because the decision of Board of Zoning Appeals denied their request for a variance they are withdrawing their appeal of that decision there’s annuity there’s nothing left. You don’t need to act at all. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Do we just strike Resolution No. 18 from our agenda? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Just strike Resolution No. 18 there’s no better way I can think to do it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, if everyone please simple delete Resolution No. 18. COUNCILMAN MAIER – That would be a point of order, I think because its on the agenda I think we would have to table it or indefinitely table it. I don’t think we can just strike it out there because its already there and its numbered. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Either way it makes no difference there’s nothing to vote on. I mean you can table it indefinitely for procedural aspect as to keeping track of the number, but they withdrew their appeal. So table it indefinitely is fine. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Mang, how you like to proceed? COUNCILMAN MANG – I think I’d liked to go with the withdrawal of Resolution No. 18 considering the fact that the mobile has withdrawn or zoning actually and they’re leaving the zoning rest with the Zoning Board of Appeals which has denied it. They’re not asking for us to go with an appeal. So I request that we remove Resolution No. 18 – 2006 from our agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Based on that request and the law director’s opinion that no council action is required I will instruct everyone to simply strike Resolution No. 18 from the agenda. For the permanent record I’d ask the Clerk to insert a sheet in the record indicating the status of Resolution No. 18 so that there’s not a gap in our record. Mr. Mang, did you have another request for moving any ordinances? COUNCILMAN MANG – No, that was the only request sir. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright. ORDINANCE NO. 131 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG – Yes, this piece of property the city wishes to sell is the former youth center which is located up on Walnut and 15th Street. The city is hopeful that if the property is sold that very likely be turned into new housing. Also the proceeds from this sale would go back to the Community Development Block Grant Program Fund as the property was originally acquired using those funds. I would be remised not in asking council to suspend the rules on this so we can get this forward and have the opportunity to maybe have a sale yet this year. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I have a question of Councilman Townsend I’d like to know Tony what your recommendation on how to vote on this ordinance? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND Well, I’m going to vote yes for the simple fact that it’s just a piece of land that’s sitting there grass is growing, weeds are growing. I think it would look a lot better if we did get some type of housing in that lot. So tonight I will be voting yes. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 131 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 132 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG – Through this project EB Design Company will be consolidating their business operations currently at the following locations. They’re currently leasing a warehouse of 20,000 square foot at 240 6th Street NW and the property 815 Oberlin Road SW which has 40,000 square feet and also 13 employees. EB Design or EB Display is proposing to invest $3,625,000.00 in the construction, equipment and new warehouse assembly building. The company is applying to the city for a 10 year, 75% zone tax exemption on real property and personal property improvements to the site. EB Design is also in their final year of a tax abatement that started in 1996 which will conclude this year. They also inform us that they are going to follow what many the council people like including myself that they’re going to use one of our construction firms Schumacher Construction to build this property. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend. The rules were passed by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 132 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 133 2006 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, this is a request to actually widen an easement that we approved previously. It’s along Hankins Road, west of Valerie and if there’s any questions we have Mr. Aaby here he can answer them. COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Maier. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 133 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 134 2006 BY: HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO We discussed this at the work session last week and it is for replacement of the sidewalk, the stair and the ramp at Massillon Municipal Government Annex at 151 Lincoln Way. As I said that its very much needed. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I would like to bring our auditor Mr. Hamit up just to talk about quickly out of the Capital Improvement Fund where exactly are we going to take this from. AUDITOR HAMIT – You appropriate it out of the unappropriated balance of Capital Improvement. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY And it’s not listed on our plan so are we going to give up the one area that we haven’t touched yet the dump truck, pick up truck? AUDITOR HAMIT – No, it’s from the it was requested from the unappropriated balance that’s there and I signed off for it that $40,000.00 is there. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Thank you. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Manson. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 134 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 135 2006 BY: RULES, COURTS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND Ordinance No. 135 is in relations to the current amendment or relative to OVI offences. I would like to call Law Director Stergios up to just educate us a little bit further on Ordinance No. 135. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I appreciate you guys putting this on at such short notice since I had just gotten my hands on the revisions. But essentially the city ordinances that currently are in effect do not contain provisions against driving under the influence of controlled substances and provisions for testing for being under the influence of heroine, marijuana whatever the case may be. The state legislature amended the state statute with Senate Bill 8 to essentially put those types of provisions into the current driving under the influence law and what this revision of our ordinance does is brings that basically in line with what the state ordinance is so that our city officers can site those offences under the city ordinance which then means more the fine money gets dispersed to the city rather than the state. So since it just came off the presses last week I thought it was best to bring it forward, explain it to you and ask that we put it into effect now so that we can instruct our officers that it’s up to date. COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, Perry, will this require the city to have some additional equipment or can this be done through blood testing is that how it’s acquired? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Yes, for the drug cases it will be a blood or urine test that will go to the Stark County Crime Lab typically which we’re all part of in Stark County. So the turn around time will be relatively quick and there will not be any additional cost involved in it. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Ferrero. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 135 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 136 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS First reading. ORDINANCE NO. 136 – 2006 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 137 2006 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COUNCILMAN PETERS First reading. ORDINANCE NO. 137 – 2006 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 138 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY This ordinance begins with section 1 they’d like us to appropriate from the Municipal Court Capital Improvement Fund $125,000.00 to an account entitled Parking Lot Improvements. Section 2 is from the unappropriated balance of the Community Development Block Grant Fund to an account entitled Target Area Street Improvements that is $100,000.00 and we discussed those streets at our work session last week. I will name them now the streets that will be resurfaced under this contract are 1st Street NE from North Avenue to Cherry Road and Oak Avenue SE from Independence SE to 16th Street SE. The streets being removed from this contact work is 11th Street SW from Main to Tremont and 12th Street SW from Main to Tremont. However, these streets that are listed previously are not eliminated from the city’s total resurfacing program and will be added to the city’s other resurfacing contract. Section 3 is to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the Massillon Municipal Court Probation Fund $23,920.98 into an account entitled Salary – Probation Services and $15,000.00 to an account entitled Services and Contract. The $23,000.00 is for probation fund salary and the $15,000.00 is for parking lot improvements. Section 4 then is to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the Unclaimed Money Fund this amount is $21,813.00 these people did not claim these funds and we have to hold this for 5 years which we have done and now since we have hit that 5 year period we can transfer it to the General Fund. Section 5, they’d like us to appropriate from the General Fund $10,000.00 into an account entitled Travel/Seminar and Schooling. That $10,000.00 is for training for police officers. Then finally in section 6 we’d like to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the Capital Improvement $10,000.00 to an account entitled Lincoln Way Grosvenor Signal Design which was given first reading from streets and highways this evening. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Before I ask for questions I’d like to mention that in section 6 the $10,000.00 for the signal design may be appropriated through this ordinance but it obviously can not be spent until Ordinance No. 136 is passed. 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. 138 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 139 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Ordinance No. 139 – 2006 will allow us to create a fund that we can make our payments on our OPWC loans and also will help with any grants that we will receive in the future or any loans that we will receive in the future. We’re just creating an account just for loan payments. 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. 139 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 16 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG This makes the third consecutive year that the Tax Incentive Review Committee has recommended termination of abatement through the companies continued created job goal. The prior two years council has over rode the TRC recommendation and voted to continue this abatement. I might say I was one for the last two years has urged us to work with this individual. We also sent or Mr. Aane Aaby sent a letter to Mr. Hesston on August 31st reminding him making aware of this decision and making aware that we were holding a council meeting tonight September 5th. Due to the fact that possible or because of the holiday and etc I’d like to give this first reading and see if Mr. Hesston does show up at our next council meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 16 – 2006 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. RESOLUTION NO. 17 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG I think all members of council were given a list of the companies that are in the enterprise zone. The TIRC the Tax Incentive Review Committee must now submit recommendation for continuation, modification or cancellation of each enterprise zone projects to city council. This is a recent change in the state law. In turn, council is now required to take formal action with 60 days to accept, reject or modify all or any of the portions of this recommendation. This report indicates the TRC has recommended a tax abatement be continued for all the city enterprise zone projects except for the following projects which was the HydroThrift Corporation. Based on that and the fact that all council has had an opportunity to review this I’m going to be asking for suspension for suspension of the rules and bring Resolution No. 17 forward for its question of vote. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. RESOLUTION NO. 17 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 19 2006 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Resolution No. 19 – 2006 says that every 5 years we have to place our public monies in different entities. There’s an application process and the applications were listed with all the banks below and you can see all those First Merit, Key Bank, Huntington Bank, Charter Bank, Chase Bank, Fifty-Third Bank and National City Bank. If we could bring the auditor or possibly the treasurer if he’s still here to answer any questions that you may have about this. This is just to utilize these banks for the next five years. Mr. Lambert, this is just a normal process that we do every five years and the banks that we have on here now would you say pretty much have just changed due to a name changes such as Bank One is Huntington Bank, United Bank, Charter One or how does that work? TREASURER LAMBERT – Yes, it’s required by law that we do this every five years. It used to be I think two years but they changed the law to five years. You send out notices to like we did with the first resolution to get they call banks of depository designated First Merit will be our prime depository for the City of Massillon for that period and that don’t mean we can’t do business with these other banks that’s why they’re listed. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I’m just curious how did you come up with First Merit as your primary? TREASURER LAMBERT – Because after all these proposals I felt that was our best that fit the needs of the city. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Is that the one you’ve done business with forever and forever? TREASURER LAMBERT – They’ve done business with them for the last five or six years I think. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – So it just makes it easier then. TREASURER LAMBERT – There wasn’t no other banks that really shot them out of water so to speak. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – So they’re all pretty much the same? TREASURER LAMBERT – Yeah, pretty competitive. COUNCILMAN MANG Just on the first page under or after the deposits under the amount we need to add one more “all” after National City Bank. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Can you say that again? COUNCILMAN MANG We have six alls and we need seven; first page whereas the written application is received as follows right after deposits we have “all” listed behind all the banks other than National City Bank. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. Law Director is that a typo? Consider it a typo. Thank you Mr. Mang. 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. 19 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NOTHING 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS - NOTHING 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS 1. INDEPENDENT - $447.00 COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move we pay the bills, seconded by Councilman Bryan. Roll call vote of 9 yes to pay the bills. 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY PERMIT REPORT FOR AUGUST 2006. COPY FILE COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I move we accept the auditor’s report, seconded by Councilman Bryan. Roll call vote of 9 yes to accept the auditor’s report. 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Committee sessions will be held next Monday, September 11th at 5:45pm. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Mr. McCune or Mr. Mang, do either of you have anything to say regarding the cell tower for next Monday’s work session? COUNCILMAN MANG It would only be the fact that the individual comes back Mr. Gainar comes back from T-Mobile to talk about some changes that could be made that would be beneficial or would be beneficial maybe to the neighborhood. But as I understand the neighbors are going to have a meeting prior to that. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE We won’t have a meeting until after Mr. Gainar comes back with his findings on the school system and what possible change. COUNCILMAN MANG Mr. Gainar won’t be here then next week? COUNCILMAN MCCUNE He said he was coming back next Monday. I think if I could I’m going to talk to Perry tonight after the meeting, but if we could have the law director here just in case there’s some questions after Mr. Gainar updates us on their intentions that would be appreciated. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER You’re talking what next Monday? (Yes) Alright any other resolutions or requests? 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR ORDINANCE NO. 91 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG I’ve been waiting for some time now to be able to view the lease agreement we now have a new lease agreement which I was able to view I didn’t make a copy of it. But I would like to have Mr. Stergios come to the microphone if you may please? Mr. Stergios, how do you feel about this contract for this lease agreement that we now have? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – The provisions of the agreement essentially are relatively similar to what we had before. There were some additions concerning replatting the property that the developer can use the oil and gas or obtain the oil and gas rights and drill possibly or hold those and he will be entitled to the proceeds. So there were some you know that’s probably the only real significant thing now dollar amount wise I don’t have any clue what that would be worth. But the main part remains the same and that is that we will get back all the money that we spent or are spending to buy the maintenance building and will still keep and use the maintenance building for eternity basically until we choose to do something else with it. So from that aspect of it I am satisfied with it. I would note that it is somewhat confusing, but the lease will it will be lease from the city to the Community Improvement Corporation and then will be a lease from the Community Improvement Corporation to the developer. That second lease is the one we made all the changes to the same changes will be made to our lease also it’s just a matter of getting all the typing done. But the you know from I guess from a passage stand point for passing the second one and the first one will mirror that just the names will be different. I know that confuses things, but I’m satisfied with it I think Judge Elum and Judge Kettler are both satisfied I talked with Kenn Kaminski, Park & Rec. Department he’s you know all for it or all on board as we say I think it’s a good deal for everybody. The only risk we run is if the developer for whatever reason decides to back out I think he has until like November 9th and we’ll give him back his deposit. We don’t lose anything really. COUNCILMAN MANG Members of council, one of the reasons that I asked to be able to view the final contract is because often times we have not actually seen the final contract. We left it up to the law director and I have no question about Perry’s capabilities and actually he did design and do this so I have no problem with it after having the opportunity to view it. I did question one thing and that was the gas and oil rights I have a problem about giving those up, but that may be well when you transfer property and sell property that’s one of the things maybe people look for. But I recommend that we accept Ordinance No. 91 and the lease. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are there any other questions for the law director? This lease is 10 to 15 pages so I would suggest if anyone would like to read it see Mr. Mang if you would like a copy we can get you one. COUNCILMAN MANG moved for passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. ORDINANCE NO. 91 – 2006 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 105 2006 BY: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN BRYAN We first got this ordinance quite a while ago we were holding it up because the auditor tells me that without the money coming from this lease agreement that we just passed in Ordinance No. 91 Parks & Rec. wasn’t going to have sufficient funds go ahead and buy these two mowers several tens of thousands of dollars, but what I’d like to do now is table this indefinite I’m not even sure that this price is still available and we can always bring it back off the table or introduce a new ordinance once we have the funds in hand and if we know the price is still good. COUNCILMAN BRYAN moved to table indefinitely Ordinance No. 105 – 2006, seconded by Councilman Peters. ORDINANCE NO. 105 – 2006 WAS TABLED INDEFINITELY BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS – NOTHING. . SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 119 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, this ordinance deals with the Progressive Cadillac Dodge we recently annexed into the city. Now we have to establish a zone for it we’ll have a public hearing on September 18th at 7:00pm. ORDINANCE NO. 119 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. ORDINANCE NO. 120 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, this rezoning request is for the Menard Inc. they’re a home improvement company that purchased approximately 45 acres located on the west side of State Rt 21. There’s approximately 800 feet about 300 foot deep that is still I-2 General Industrial. The rest of the property has been rezoned they would like to rezone this to B-3 General Business public hearing on this is September 18th at 7:10pm. ORDINANCE NO. 120 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. ORDINANCE NO. 121 2006 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, this piece of legislation deals with property that maybe destroyed by means of more than 60% excluding the foundation and may be constructed only in conformity for the provision of the zoning code. The key word here is only with conformity not that does not apply to a residential to a resident in a residential area that may be in an industrial area. If the individual wishes to build their home in that industrial site again they would be permitted to that. The question here is where we have an industrial building in a residential area that is not conforming. That building would not be permitted to be constructed in that zoning it would have to be constructed in an industrial zoning. This will be second reading and the public hearing is at 7:20pm on September 18th. ORDINANCE NO. 121 – 2006 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. .REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA THOMAS WEST – My names is Thomas West and I’m city councilman at Canton City. Today I am here not as a city councilman, but I’m here as a state candidate for the 29th district. Before you I have a little card here that gives you a little bit of facts about where we’re at as a state. I like many of you sitting over here and I found myself several times wanting to jump over here and help out with some of the issues facing your community. But just like you we’re faced with so many problems and so many issues within our community. As you see on the back of our card right now Ohio is in a bad situation. When we look at our state we are at every at the bottom every social economic indicator in the nation that’s a problem. Right now as a city councilman I’m one of the councilman that says “enough is enough” “sick and tired of being sick and tired” similar to Fanny Lou Hayman many years the lady that was beaten, battered and bruised. The lady that says “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired” and I am sick and tired of this mess. So I’m standing before you right now for your support as I go to the state senate and pound away at some of the same issues that you’re facing. Last week I heard something, I read something in the paper and it had Massillon and Canton ranked 198 out of 200 cities in job creation that’s crazy. Right now in the last 12 years we’ve had a one party rule and democrats had no involvement whatsoever to change that. We need democrats at state level to change some things within our state legislature. I’m asking you for your support not only your support here at this council, but I’m asking you to go out in your neighborhoods and your community and tell them what the state is doing. A lot of people don’t know and I found this out this past week when I was at the fair many people was not astute to what is going on in our community. We need some help and I want to say to you now help is on the way. I’ve been a social worker in this community for 17 years I’ve served Stark County well working with children and families. I’ve taught at the University of Akron social work ethics is something that we really need at the state level right now. I’ve done a lot in this community I want to continue you’ve probably heard my name several times from city council and I’ve been pretty aggressive over there in the last three years. But I want to bring resources to this community and I know I can. But I can do that through leadership, education, advocacy and development. I know many people here are connected to our current legislature, but he has been there for 14 years and right now our state looks at our local level and they’ll say to the schools they’ll say “we’re looking for outcomes and if you don’t produce those outcomes what we’re going to do is we’re going to put you on academic watch” and then they start to pull monies by having vouchers schools and voucher systems because you haven’t met outcomes. Well right now they have not met outcomes and who’s holding them accountable? It has to be the local level, it has to be community, it has to be you. I’m asking for each one of you to cast that vote and get out there in your wards and please let people know that its time for change and its time for west and west is the right direction. Thank you. 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMAN MANG 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