|
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER I d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, September 17, 2007. We have in attendance with us this evening: Safety Service Director Mike Loudiana, Auditor Bill Hamit, Law Director Perry Stergios, and Engineer Keith Dylewski. On the wall to your left are agendas for anyone who wishes to follow the meeting. Also under item #5 on the agenda is where the public can speak on any item that appears on the agenda and then under item #17 is where the public can speak on any item that does not appear on the agenda. I d also like to remind anyone with a cell phone please turn it off or turn it very far down. 1. ROLL CALL Roll call for the evening found the following Council Members present: Tim Bryan, Kathy Catazaro-Perry, Jayne Ferrero, Chuck Maier, Ron Mang, Paul Manson, Dave McCune, Donnie Peters and Tony Townsend. Thus giving a roll call vote of 9 present. 2. INVOCATION COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Gave the invocation for tonight. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – Chairperson of the Health, Welfare & Building Regulations 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 PHIL JONES – I live at 1313 23rd Street SE, for the council members who were not here I was part of the delegation who was opposed to the rezoning of the south side of Lincoln Way East. There was a public hearing held tonight which we were informed that it might be tabled. I’d like to say that I don’t think tabling this is a good idea I think you ought to go ahead and vote on it and Carl can resubmit when he has tenants lined up for the quest of the property in question. I’d also like to say that I have some serious concerns about council’s changing of the rules on the amount of time needed between requests for rezoning and I would just like to say that I don’t remember what year it was maybe Bill Hamit does Massillon City Council changed the rules some years back because of Mr. Oser’s constant request for rezoning on the south side of Lincoln Way East. The feeling of council at the time was that the residents were being harassed in this way by these constant zoning changes. The fees were raised and the amount of time between requests for a certain piece of property were extended to a year. We would like you to continue that protection for us; we don’t think that changing this back and allowing him to come for a piece of property every 6 months is certainly not in our best interest. I would remind you that city council changed the law because of him; why would we change it back now? We’re still in the same situation out there. Thank you. RACHEL JONES – I live at 131 23rd Street SE, Massillon. Phil and Christine are my parents we have been here every year just about since before I was born I’m 22 years old now. We are against it, we’ve always been against it we are going to continue to be against it and I would just like to state that changing the law now and letting Carl come here every 6 months is not going to be easy for anyone. It’s not going to be good for the city, its not going to be good to the tenants who have to live there. I would please ask that you vote against it. KEN ROWE – I’m old would you please have people speak through the microphone so us old folks can here. SCOTT RENZENBRINK – 2027 Lincoln Way East I’d like to echo what I said earlier that I’d like you to bring the rezoning issue up and please vote it down. Let Carl when he gets a tenant a year from now bring it back up for vote. Also on Ordinance No. 99 I’d like to ask you not to change the regulations regarding the time periods for rezoning. Thank you very much. MARISSA RILEY – I live at 129 22nd Street SE and I am also opposed to you bringing it up every 6 months. DALE WALTERHOUSE – I live at 809 16th Street NE and I’m a candidate for ward 3 council. I’d like to again just make a few comments maybe a different side of it but I’ve been in Mr. Oser’s office I’ve listened to how many cars go past on Lincoln Way. I’ve listened to his side of it I’ve canvassed the neighborhood many times I can tell you that the neighbors and I know I don’t have to you that but you know that the neighbors are against it. I’ve driven through the high water in front Autozone when this becomes a commercial property there’ll be lots of cement, water problems will increase we have no storm sewers south of Lincoln Way. It just has to find some place to go so there’ll be more problems and I’m opposed to the rezoning on Lincoln Way. I’d also like to say and I know it doesn’t really have anything to do with this rezoning, but in the newspaper we saw a very nice picture of Autozone and sure we’d all like to have Autozone we’d like to have some new development we’ll welcome that into town. But I’d like to say and call on Mr. Oser publicly how about Frank’s Restaurant its been empty for how many years, how about the old Kroger Store now that was a thrift store for a few years and now its gone but its empty now. The drug store right beside it it’s empty and been empty for many, many years. How about the store located beside Tiger Rags most of the store fronts in Massillon are full. This one and it says Oser right on the front his telephone number has been empty for years. I watched him buy Horseman school tear it down its been empty and vacant for years. Come on Mr. Oser, how about helping the city jump on board and help us use your talents and your knowledge and your money and help the city go forward and develop the properties that you have. Thank you. NICK NYKULAK – I’m here on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors. I’d just like to talk about the PLA that’s going to get a second reading tonight. In front of you I passed out just a little informational booklet I was here if you remember back in March when this issue first came up and we assumed it was tabled but its come up again. The first page of this little booklet that we provided you was basically what ABC considers to be model responsible bidder requirements and ABC would prefer bidder requirements over any sort of PLA that the city would want to enter into. In looking at the ordinance that was proposed the bidder criteria that’s in that ordinance is acceptable except for the fringe benefit contributions because under prevailing wage law which most of these things will be subject to you don’t have to make fringe benefit contributions and that being a factor in determining where somebody’s a qualified bidder should be excluded because you can make payments all in cash without fringe benefits. The next page in this pamphlet are prevailing wage thrush holds inside of the ordinance it wanted to lower the thrush holds down to $15,000.00 and $50,000.00. New construction thrush hold by the Department of Commerce is almost $70,000.00 and $20,000.00 so by reducing those thrush holds down you’re going to make more projects subject to PLA more projects subject to prevailing wages through the implementation of a PLA. Just paging through there’s just a myths and facts section I’m not going to waste your time reading these things off they’re self explanatory. In the back there are newspaper clippings and articles people commenting on the good and bad of PLA’s. Your probably recognize the quotable section in the back and then finally the last page was taken off the census report where it indicates that 20.1% of the work force is unionized today. Which leaves 80% non-union and if 80% is non-union the statistics be union and non-union contractors is more like 15%, 85%. In implementing a PLA you’re going to reduce the amount of bidders who bid on your projects by 85%. I don’t know of any ABC contractor that’s going to want to come in and bid a project that’s subject to a PLA. We pay prevailing wages; we are all for responsible bidder criteria and our contractors are well trained to do this type of work. Of note that I brought in I only have one copy of this I’ll be happy to pass it around Cuyahoga County had a PLA, it had one since 2005 what they call the master PLA they had three upcoming projects that are going to be huge soon $450 million dollar convention center, $140 million dollar juvenile justice center and a $200 million dollar county administration building. They repealed their PLA so I’d be more than happy to pass this around the tab part is them repealing the resolution for a PLA. Cuyahoga County joins other cities such as Toledo, Elyria, Mentor, all who have repealed PLA’s well the county I’m sorry the counties joined other cities who have repealed PLA ordinances that they had in affect. Without rehashing what we’ve discussed before when the PLA issue has come up it’s our position that PLA’s are discriminatory one of the biggest things that the City of Massillon wanted to see was their work force on jobs. I’ve come here with ABC contractors who have been awarded paving contracts in the City of Massillon the last 4 out of 5 years and they’ll be happy to tell you how their business operates and how much money they’ve saved the City of Massillon. It’s unfair to workers we’ve discussed this before these workers that even if a non-union contractor wanted to sign the PLA on a project only basis come in and do the work they’re not going to be able to vest any benefits. They’re not going to be vest their pension benefits; they’re not going to be able to vest their health and welfare benefits. So they’re just paying those monies to union funds and three weeks later, a month later, six months later they’re going to be non-union again with none of those benefits whereas if the job was just subject to prevailing wage they’d receive the benefits from the contractor who they worked for and then they would also receive their cash fringe that made up the difference. So when implementing the PLA having a non-union contractor sign one its reducing those wages that these guys are taking home because all they’re going to get is the base hourly rate with nothing else. They’re not going to vest any fringe benefits and as I said before Mentor, North Royalton, Elyria, North Olmstead and Toledo are just cities that I know of that had PLA’s on the books tried them out and repealed them because they didn’t work. SCOTT OSTER – 9946 Boston Avenue NW in North Canton. I’m vice president of Superior Paving and Materials; we’ve been in business for over 20 years and in that time have done work for the city for the majority of that time period. I put together a letter that I believe all council members have I just wanted to touch on a few of those points and maybe just add a few others. We’re a non-union company and our you know obviously opposed to the PLA ordinance that’s being proposed. We have a majority of our work force is union I mean is local people we have several employees that live within the city limits. As Nick stated 4 out the 5 past 5 years we’ve been low bidder for the City of Massillon’s paving contract. With those projects the different between our bid and the low bid the total over those projects was a savings of over $140,000.00 to the city. We are located just outside of the city limits so it makes us logistically very competitive in this market and virtually the PLA would eliminate us from being able to bid on City of Massillon contracts. The ultimately result of that is going to be higher cost whether it’s us or any other non-union contractors that are unable to bid. The end result is going to higher cost for the city and with the economy and budgets these days I would think the city would stretch their construction dollars as far as possible. As Nick also stated we pay all the projects we do are prevailing wage projects so our employees are compensated the same as what the union counterparts would be. From a quality of work standpoint I think I addressed that in the letter we’re a ODOT pre-qualified contractor, we do work for the State of Ohio on a yearly basis, quality issues that’s not something that’s judged by union or non-union there’s many ways to insure quality projects and I state some of those in our letter where just specifications bidder pre-qualifications things like those to ensure that the city is getting a quality contractor that’s going provide them with a quality product. That’s all I have thank you for your time. RON MCCULLOUGH – I’m council for the East Central Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council. My office address is 4150 Belden Village Street, Canton, Ohio. I would like to take a few minutes and briefly address council as well as respond to some of the claims that have been made by the two gentlemen that proceeded me. I would like council to keep in mind the opening remarks that were made by the ABC representative the first thing that he said before council was ABC would prefer not to have a PLA ordinance in Massillon. That’s not the issue here I don’t think anybody in this room is here to vote on what the ABC prefers. We’re here to do what’s best for the citizens of Massillon that’s the issue. Will a PLA advance the interest of this city and its residents and will it enable this city and its residents to more effectively and efficiently engage in construction projects. That’s the issue it’s not what ABC prefers its what’s best for the city and its residents. As we have shared with council on many occasions in the past we believe there are several factors which militate very strongly in favor of the PLA ordinance. ABC is attempting to suggest to council that by passing this ordinance you’re going to require a project labor agreement a PLA on every construction project that the City of Massillon undertakes. That’s not the case this is an ordinance that authorizes the Mayor if he believes a PLA is appropriate to negotiate the terms of a PLA with the building trades council that’s all it does. If council and the Mayor don’t believe that a PLA is appropriate for a specific project nothing in this ordinance is going to compel council or the Mayor to walk down that path. That’s a decision that you as legislators, law makers have to address and undertake. Secondly, the prevailing wage thrush hold that is referenced in the ordinance is not lower than the thrush hold right now. If you read the ordinance the ordinance says that the prevailing wage thrush hold is adjusted by the legislature every two years and as it is adjusted that is the thrush hold that council may consider in entering into a PLA. So the $15,000.00 reference is right out of the statute that is in the State of Ohio; but it says as adjusted in Chapter 4115 so that thrush hold amount is adjusted upward by annually. It’s not $15,000.00 we understand that has been adjusted since that point and the representative for ABC correctly stated the thrush hold. We understand what that is and your law director would certainly share with you those same conclusions. A contention has been presented to you this evening that if a PLA is entered into with the council then employees who work under the terms of that PLA are going to loose their fringe benefits. That’s not true I submit to you that there’s probably is not one ABC contractor or non-union contractor that provides his or her employees with what is called a divine benefit pension plan. Most of those plans are individual account plans they’re like 401k plans that’s essentially what they are. In most unionize situations there are what we refer to as annuity plans, individual account plans. The same would hold true for those plans as in any private plan; if an employee has a contribution made to that plan the first dollar contributed to that plan is vested. When that employee stops working on that project or subject to a PLA that employee has a right to every dollar in that account. If there’s a contribution made to another pension plan that employee has five years to become vested but as I said I seriously doubt that there are any defined benefit plans that are sponsored by ABC contractors. Those are very, very costly plans to administer and to fund. Secondly, health and welfare plans most of the plans in this county right now that are unionized plans permit immediate vesting for precisely the reason that was shared with you. The council understands that under most circumstances today it’s very attractive to give employees coverage by a health plan immediately. That’s typically what happens and if the employee remains covered by the health plan and receives an advance to gain immediate coverage it’s paid back over a period of time. So there’s going to be no break as far as we can see in coverage. So the fringe benefit argument, the pension argument are simply straw men, they’re red herrings. They’re designed to scare you aware from the possibility of a PLA. We shared with you are many occasions in the past why a PLA makes sense. And again, this is an authorizing ordinance it’s not a requirement; you can’t pass an ordinance that says “there shall be a PLA on every project in Massillon”. I would be the first to concede that that’s illegal you have to have the discretion to do that. What we believe we have presented to you and developed with you is a framework and a system where the City of Massillon can standardize its working conditions, draw upon a pool of qualified efficient construction workers and best undertake the construction projects that Massillon sees fit to undertake. This ordinance is not designed to shut anybody out; anybody who wants to bid on a project where a PLA in this council’s judgment has been deemed appropriate can do so. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Sir, I don’t interrupt you I’ll give you another two or three minutes if you could wrap up please. RON MCCULLOUGH – I’ll be very quick, thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER And then next Monday at our committee sessions we invite you to speak for an hour. RON MCCULLOUGH – I’m not sure I want the whole hour. But one final point a PLA is not going to cost the city anything more. As we’ve said many times in the past the point being prevailing wages are going to be paid and presumably a union contractor or a non-union contractor is going to purchase his supplies and his material and his equipment from the same places. So if the wages are the same and the supplies and the material and the equipment are the same everybody should have the same cost basis when they’re working in the City of Massillon. The PLA enables you to standardize working conditions to prevent any kind of slow downs, work stoppages and similar situations that might impede a construction project. The PLA makes good sense, it makes good economic sense and as I said it at the outset the issue here is what’s best for Massillon and its residents not what’s best for the ABC. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright we’ll move into the introduction of ordinances and resolutions; Mr. Mang, have you a request? 6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS COUNCILMAN MANG Yes, I’d like to move Ordinance No. 52 – 2007 to the first thing on our agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are there any objections to moving item 52 forward? If not we will do so Madame Clerk would you please read the title to Ordinance No. 52? ORDINANCE NO. 52 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Amending Section 1151.02 of the Massillon Code of 1985 rezoning a certain tract of land from RM-1 Multiple Family Residential to B-1 Local Business. Being known as Lots 4332 thru 4339, located on the south side of Lincoln Way East between 22nd Street SE and 23rd Street SE. The applicant is Carl Oser. The applicant proposes a commercial development. The total project site is 1.81 acres. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Before I introduce Mr. Mang to discuss this ordinance I have talked with the law director there has been discussion of tabling this item tonight according to Roberts Rules a motion to table is immediate there is no discussion a vote has to be taken immediately and it’s a simply majority vote. So I guess my suggestion is before you make such a motion you might want to get some discussion because once you make the motion we move to a vote. Mr. Mang? COUNCILMAN MANG Approximately five weeks ago or so at a work session I brought up the fact that at that point that Mr. Oser had contacted me and advised me that the tenants that he had been talking to about occupying the proposed rezoning up on between 22nd and 23rd at that point had they still have the desire to do some things but they indicated that at the present time whether it be economic additions or etc they were not willing to commit themselves to that site. I mentioned that at the work session because I wanted to make it known that this was a possibility. Tonight at the public hearing that we had I expressed this to the audience that Mr. Oser had made that request of me and that I would be making that request of council. I also preceded with the public hearing leaving everyone who was here given the opportunity to speak their thoughts and ideas revolving the rezoning of that parcel of land. In that discussion the discussion that city council would be voting on a piece of legislation that would amend the time elements that an individual could ask for a rezoning. That is true, that piece of legislation that’s on the agenda tonight but it will go through three readings and it must also go through a public hearing. So I didn’t want anyone to think that tonight there’s going to be voting on that particular issue because that will not happen. It’s a type of ordinance that requires public input and that’s why it will be given the three readings and that’s why there will be a public hearing. And that public hearing will be held on October 1st at 6:45 I just wanted to clear that up so that everybody understands that after this issue Ordinance No. 52 is dealt with tonight that you can feel freely to stay or go but I didn’t want you to stay here thinking that there’s going to be there will be discussions I’m sure on that ordinance but as far as asking for a vote that will not take place. Members of council, you know what my desire would be but prior to making that I would never do that without having the input from this body like any motion that I make. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are there any questions or comments, Mr. Manson? COUNCILMAN MANSON Yes, I’d like to comment on it. I personally do not think it’s appropriate for us to table this anymore. I’m not opposed to tabling if there is some good reason to bring more information forward or reasons why we should not act. I don’t believe because Mr. Oser does not have any tenants for this project at this time that this should be tabled. If Mr. Oser doesn’t have any tenants he should go back work on the project and bring forward a new request for rezoning. These people in this neighborhood have been brought down here to a public hearing. I think that we may have set a bad precedent when we tabled this in the first place but we did one time. But now our law director advised us to have a public hearing, we’ve had a public hearing we brought 25, 30 people down here and I think its just time for us to bring this forward and vote on it tonight and not table it. I will be opposing tabling it. COUNCILMAN MANG Only one point of information, that point of information has been that this community development committee has requested developers whomever and whatever when they bring a request for rezoning we’ve asked them not only a site plan but we’ve asked them to name tenants and who was going to fulfill those buildings and we’ve done that pretty religiously. The only time that we have not done this is when we talked about the rezoning downtown and I had some reservations about that and I brought it to this body. I felt that we should always know I don’t care where its at or what it is I think everybody should know what’s going to go there. Now the hindsight to all this is that people who wish to locate their business in x, y, z areas are now becoming hesitant to say who or whom they are. We have a situation that the city council is doing down on the ball fields. It’s not the fact that they are related its only related in the fact that we don’t have an identification and we say “that’s fine” in the ball fields its not going to interfere its like the Market Place no one told the Market Place that we want to know who, who, who. But I’m only saying this I think as a rule any time we have a piece of rezoning a neighborhood zoning the neighbors should know and we should know what’s going in there. Now at the time of the first request as I understand when it went before the planning commission I believe the request dealt with a financial institution or a bank or whatever a lending institution I talked about a wireless and even talked about a coffee shop, okay. To some extent those things were there those people had indicated whatever prior to asking for the tabling last time it was going back and forth when I asked for that table. It was shortly after that, that group that was involved in that decided first of all not to say who they were and that is where we’re at tonight. I’m only giving you an explanation your reasoning’s are whatever fine I just want to go through what we have done this past year or two when it come to rezoning making sure that this body knew and everybody knew what was going to go in there. I’m not saying that to change your vote I’m only doing that to make sure that everybody understands the background of why we’re here, okay? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Are there any other Mr. Manson? COUNCILMAN MANSON Yeah, I’d just like to reply to it. I can understand a lot things that you’re saying there but I believe you made the comment earlier that Mr. Oser says he does not have a tenant right now. COUNCILMAN MANG They’re not…they have not put their name on a piece of paper saying “you rezone it we’ll build”. COUNCILMAN MANSON Well, I think we’ve started a dangerous precedents by leaving this open ended when we have the rezoning requests changes like that unless we have something solid to give to encourage us to table it. It willing really there’s no sense in debating it a lot I just said I oppose it and that’s the reasons. COUNCILMAN MANG moved to table Ordinance No. 52 – 2007 until December 3rd, seconded by Councilman Townsend. Roll call vote of 6 yes, 3 no to table Ordinance No. 52 – 2007. ORDINANCE NO. 52 – 2007 WAS TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 3, 2007 BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 6 YES, 3 NO. FERRERO, MANSON AND MCCUNE VOTED NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We will be handling the PLA agreement next if anyone is leaving thinking that we won’t be talking about that. Mr. Mang, you have another request? COUNCILMAN MANG – Yeah, I’d like to move Ordinance No. 101 – 2007. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Is there any objection to discussing Ordinance No. 101 out of order? If not Madame Clerk please read the title to Ordinance No. 101. ORDINANCE NO. 101 – 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Enacting of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, entitled “Construction Contracts.” To authorize the Mayor to execute a Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) with the East Central Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council (“ECOB & CTC” or “Council”), its successor, or any individual union that is a member of the Council or the Council’s successor, for any Construction Project undertaken by City of Massillon, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN MANG – Since we’ve had an awful lot of interest here tonight regarding this piece of legislation I can tell you that my intent tonight was to do no more than bring it up for its second reading. But that is totally up for discussion I can also say to you that I made some inquire as to what the city presently does, what form it takes place, how they justify what they’re doing I was surprise in some of the commentary that we have had it sounded like and I’m not its in my interpretation as though that it was likely that maybe the city was not evaluating contracts the way they should and maybe they were at fault for doing something out of the ordinary. I thought well you know no one’s asked them per say “what do you do or what don’t you do” so I did last Tuesday I went over and I talked to the city engineering they are working on that to present to us the things they go through in the process of how they work on contracts and the city engineer gave me the opportunity to look at a contract that was just signed for the Cherry Road Project and its quite a lengthy book and I took a little time going though it. It might be something you might want to stop down and take a gander at because there’s a lot of information in there. I think its something most of us don’t see and haven’t seen and I bring that up only to tell you that it was I anticipated to bring forward information so at least we have on one hand what we’re presently doing and if there’s problems with that then everybody can see those its not whether we enter into something or not something I think at first you’ve got to know what you have and look at that and then find the points in there that may not be what we’re looking for or maybe they are I don’t know. But I did want to digest what we have so that’s about where I’m going to leave it as of this moment. Now Dave do you have any comments you’d like to make? COUNCILMAN MCCUNE When we started down this path my intention was not to create a war zone for the unions and the non-union contractors and their representatives. It was simply I contacted the trades folks to get some language that I could chicken pick through to create jobs for Massillon residents and the Western Stark County or the municipal court district, the qualified residents. It was not to create this battleground that we have going on now over a PLA or not a PLA. I have submitted some residency language that I think would fit into whatever we end up. If it’s a PLA, it’s a responsible contractor’s agreement or if it’s currently what we have. That is my only goal; my only goal is to create job opportunities for the qualified residents of Massillon and Western Stark County. If we can and whatever vehicle we can do that with I will be satisfied with. Whether we give this a second reading tonight and work and table it until we get further through the work sessions I don’t know I just want everyone to understand that it was not my intent to create a battleground it was my intent to create a job opportunity for the qualified residents of Massillon. Thank you. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND There’s still many things that I need to learn myself about a PLA and an RCA I think is the correct term. I have spoken in people in Michigan I did speak with someone in Akron the other day because I do believe that did just pass a PLA. I would like to make a motion to table this possibly for the next 30 days or 60 days. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We have a motion to table on the floor is there a second? COUNCILMAN MANSON I’ll second it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Now you know this comes up for third reading, but we now have a motion and a second to table. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – To what date? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER He said for 30 days. I’m going to assume that’s two meetings from now actually three meetings from now. COUNCILMAN MANG – If I can I’d like to get a couple of work sessions in on that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Well, as I discussed earlier motion to table is immediate it requires a vote. COUNCILMAN MANG – With the 30 days clause already in it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER That’s what the motion was and it has been seconded we need a roll to table. Would you please specify in your motion? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND In 60 days what is the next the first council meeting I don’t have my calendar. COUNCILMAN MANG – It would be approximately the 19th if we’re looking at 60 days from September through November 19th. COUNCILMAN MANSON Tony, could I just ask a question? COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER No, I’m sorry the motion has been made to table until November 19th is that correct? (Yes) And it has been seconded we need a roll call vote to table. Roll call vote of 6 yes, 3 no to table Ordinance No. 101 – 2007 until November 19, 2007. ORDINANCE NO. 101 – 2007 WAS TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 19, 2007 BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 6 YES, 3 NO. BRYAN, MANSON AND PETERS VOTED NO. ORDINANCE NO. 107 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY Authorizing and directing 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 with the Ohio Department of Transportation for the replacement and deck widening of STA-21 (Erie Street) Bridge Project, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN PETERS Okay, Ordinance No. 107 is authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety to enter into a contract with the Ohio Department of Transportation for the redecking and widening of the Erie Street Bridge crossing Route 21. We discussed this at the work session and we were all in waiting for a letter from our law director before we decided to put all this forward. So with that I’m going to if there aren’t any questions I’m going to put it forward for its vote tonight because we have that letter. COUNCILMAN BRYAN I just would request that this copy of the letter from our law director stating that he finds that we can appropriate this money later on from that fund. So I’d just like to ask the clerk and the president if we could just make this letter a part of the minutes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We will do that. (Thank you) Now let me ask you to expand on that when you say included as part of the minutes you mean verbatim what the letter says, what do you mean exactly? COUNCILMAN BRYAN Since I don’t usually do minutes I would leave that to your discretion, but I would suggest perhaps that if included in the discussion was referenced to the following letter I don’t know if you can copy a letter into the minutes or if you have to retype it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Alright, I will instruct the Clerk to reprint the letter in the minutes as verbatim. Will that suffice? (Yes, sir) Alright. September 7, 2007 City of Massillon Auditor’s Office RE: Erie Street Bridge Improvements Mr. Hamit: As you have requested I have reviewed the TIF Agreement with Massillon Marketplace with regard to the question of whether funds from this account may be used on the above referenced project, and it has been determined that they may. Both the Service Payment Agreement and Massillon City Ordinance No. 151 – 1999 clearly authorize the expenditure of funds for bridge improvements as stated on the exhibits attached to both of the documents. In you have any questions or need additional information please contact my office at (330) 830-1718 Sincerely, Pericles Stergios COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I also agree with Mr. Bryan that should be attached, but in the service payment agreement if you take the last page it also states the same thing and its actually I don’t know if you have Mr. Bryan but its actually in the agreement and it does state bridge improvement. So… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Can you be specific? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY The very last page of the service payment agreement for the TIF… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Page number? COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY B1. Description of the infrastructure improvements. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Does everyone have that? I don’t have that. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY I was given this by I believe the law director and Mr. Hamit. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We have a standard contract that runs 5 pages. Mr. Law Director? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I believe that Mrs. Catazaro-Perry is referring to the TIF service payment agreement dated October 1, 1999 between the city and Deville THF Massillon which was executed when we did this project and it is not part of the contract that’s with the ordinance but it determines or states how the money can be spent that goes into the TIF. One of the items on the last page which she has is bridge improvements which I think clearly would be covered. What we’re contemplating doing here would be covered under this. So that’s the document she’s referring to. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Another word we’re on legal ground to handle this? LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Right, well, this document is not part of the agreement but I think some of us have looked at it. So… COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER But your letter will be. (Yes, thank you) Is that sufficient Mrs. Catazaro-Perry? (Yes, thank you) COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 107 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 108 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY Vacating a portion of Taylor Street SW, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, as I said at the work session on Monday I like to be thorough on these alleys and streets vacation and I haven’t really got into this very deep. So it’s my intent to give it first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 108 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. ORDINANCE NO. 109 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY Vacating a portion of Sweetleaf Circle NW, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, this here is for a vacation of portion of Sweetleaf Circle and we did discuss this at our work session and all the questions were answered I thought at that time. So if there aren’t any more questions I’m going to put that forward for a vote tonight. 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. 109 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 110 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund, 1201 Street Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, Community Development Block Grant Program Fund and the Economic Development Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Ordinance No. 110 is section 1 we’d like to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the general fund $104,694.97 to an account entitled police comp paid, $60,000.00 to an account entitled fire comp paid, $20,000.00 to an account police overtime, $20,000.00 to an account fire overtime and $2,000.00 to an account entitled regional planning. This is for the city’s annual membership dues to Stark Regional Planning. Section 2 is to appropriate from the street fund $50,000.00 to an account entitled supplies, materials and postage this is for salt. $2,000.00 to an account entitled services and contracts this is for road repairs and storm sewer repair on Kelly Avenue and section 3 is to appropriate from the capital improvement $12,000.00 for fire station roof repairs. Section 4 is to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of community development block grant fund $10,000.00 to an account entitled neighborhood partnership program this is for Massillon Health Foundation for their neighborhood grant program. Section 5, $1,000.00 from the economic development fund and this is to an account entitled services and contracts and this is for the Brickler, Eckler tax increment financing for the Massillon means business. 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. 110 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 111 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the 1419 Market Place Infrastructure Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Ordinance No. 111 – 2007 is to appropriate from the unappropriated balance 1419 Market Place Infrastructure Fund this is our city share its $342,270.00 and we’re going to appropriate that to an account entitled Erie Street Bridge. This is a joint project with ODOT, ODOT will be paying 80% our local funds are 20% and the $342,270.00 is our 20% share. We also have the service agreement here as well as Perry’s letter to support that is possible to do. 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. 111 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. ORDINANCE NO. 112 2007 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE Reducing the appropriation in the 1340 Tax Increment Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2007, and declaring an emergency. COUNCILWOMAN CATAZARO-PERRY Section 1, the appropriation is hereby reduced in the 1340 Tax Increment Fund for the year December 31, 2007 $282.25 will be put into an account entitled dept retirement interest. We do have Mr. Hamit here if you have any questions we can get those answered for you. 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. 112 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 10 2007 BY: STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY A resolution enacted by the City of Massillon, Ohio, hereinafter referred to as the Legislative Authority/Local Public Agency or “LPA”, in the matter of the stated described project. COUNCILMAN PETERS Yes, this is the resolution the final resolution to prepare the legislation for the replace and widening of the Erie Street Bridge. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 10 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. RESOLUTION NO. 11 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE A resolution reversing the decision of the Massillon Zoning Board of Appeals made on August 9, 2007 wherein the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a request for a home occupation permit in an R-3 single family zoned district of the Massillon Zoning Code for the operation of a landscaping company out of the residence at 1345 Burd Avenue NE, in the City of Massillon, Ohio. COUNCILMAN MANG Back in August the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the request for Mr. Skeluk to operate a landscaping business in his home. This gentleman lives at 1345 Burd Avenue NE, and he’s been occupying a landscaping company there. The…I might say its when I say operating I mean the equipment is stored there, landscaping equipment they sharpen, they repair, they work on equipment there, they have a very large building that was put up here a number of years ago and it contains may things that we wouldn’t look for as to be in a residential area. As you recall it’s been some time ago that we had a zoning board of appeals where the zoning board had denied an applicant that applicant was also denied by city council. The applicant pursued it further and that had to do with the beauty salon that was to be operated up on Lincoln Way East and that prevailed. In some of the discussions that the judge when he rendered his decision he eluded to the fact that this body didn’t take the time to investigate it. I’m sure what happened this came before this body and like it is now and this body recalled that a council had spent better than a year listing all the things that would be permissible and those things that would not be permissible in a home operation. It gave me the signal that we had the meeting and we just said “that’s it”. Well, the judge didn’t like that he didn’t like the fact that we apparently didn’t have two or three meetings regarding this. He didn’t take into consideration the time that was spent so I bring this all up to you I have no intentions of pushing this through tonight. I think it does not definitely any shape or form comply to what we would think would be something that would be approved to be in the home and occupied in a residency. I’m telling you its you can go by it was pointed out by members of the zoning board of appeals not only the number of cars that was there. That’s one issue but the real issue is it’s a full everything is there its not like they gather there in the morning to find out where they’re going and leave and go xylem and z and pick up their equipment and that type of thing everything is there. This is what really brought it to the attention to the zoning people they went out and took a look at it it was so flagrant isn’t like some hiding something you know what I mean it was just out there and the fact that there was so many cars I think is what attracted our zoning people to go out and take a look at this thing. So just so you have a background on this its up on 1345 Burd now the individual did tell me that night after we had this thing that he said “you know I’ve gotten away with this for about 6 or 7 years” he said “I think I better go find another place”. Now whether he has or not I don’t know but he did come down and fine an appeal. So for tonight I’m asking for first reading and if you have the time take a drive by and take a look. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Thank you, Mr. Mang, before we leave that the law director has indicated he would like to come forward. LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Just one clarification not to beat a dead horse I guess but the last one Mr. Mang referred to the planning commission granted the application for a home occupation permit and then council overruled the planning commission. So factually it’s a different scenario which I know you knew that I think you just said it the wrong way. So this in any event I think it would be its up to you guys it would be advisable to either have Mr. Saracina come to the committee meeting maybe he will tell you what he found up there if you’re so inclined to invite him. But so that’s all I have to say. RESOLUTION NO. 11 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. RESOLUTION NO. 12 2007 BY: PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE A resolution authorizing all actions necessary to effect a governmental natural gas aggregation program with opt-in provisions pursuant to Article 18.04, Ohio Constitution and authorizing and directing the Director of Public Service and Safety to enter into an agreement with Buckeye Energy Brokers, Inc, for consulting services and any other required services related to natural gas aggregation. COUNCILMAN MCCUNE Yes, we had a presentation at our work session on this and we put it on for first reading. But we have another presentation that will be made by a different entity at our work session next week. So in an effort to make sure that we get the best bang for our buck I’m going to give this first reading tonight. RESOLUTION NO. 12 – 2007 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS 10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A). POLICE CHIEF SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR AUGUST 2007 COPY FILE 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER As far as committee sessions we will meet next Monday, September the 24th at 5:45pm does anyone have anything to report on committees or any resolutions or requests. 12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR – Was already handled. 14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 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 This resolution deals with the various enterprise zone projects that the city has the Massillon Tax Incentive Review Committee met back on August 8th and made their recommendations and they’ve been before this body I wanted to make sure that everybody had an opportunity to look at them, review them that was the purpose in giving it three readings. That along with the fact that Mr. Aane Aaby said that we had 60 days. So tonight it is up for its third and final reading and I’m going to ask you to support Resolution No. 7. COUNCILMAN MANG moved to bring Resolution No. 7 – 2007 forward for its passage, seconded by Councilman McCune. RESOLUTION NO. 7 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. .SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 99 – 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Amending CHAPTER 1137 “CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by amending existing Section 1137.02 (a)(2) “DETAILS OF PROCEDURE” by adding a new Subsection 1137.02(a)(2)(f) and 1137.08(a) “FREQUENCY OF APPLICATIONS” by changing the time requirement for the frequency of applications. COUNCILMAN MANG – Second reading. I’d like council to really take a good look at this piece of legislation you heard some commentary from the folks this evening. But they’re talking about an individual I think if we look at development throughout the city and its conceivable that with the things that are taking place in the market place today that we may have people come to this body looking to make some adventures zoning and whatever and have great intent and great programs and whatever things fall apart. I would hate to think that we might because of time we might lose a project that we are all quite willing to want to see it progress. What we’re seeing here is an area where the people its their desire to have no development of this nature. But we have many areas that we probably have other people who’d be extremely interested in getting whatever zoned properly to get a business into their area. I would hate to see the time elements I’ve heard the Mayor many times that its so competitive in the market place trying to get business to come into the city and I would hate to think whatever point because of time elements that have been suggested or end up being ordinance form has hindered that. So it’s a broad picture tonight what they’re talking and its an issue I’m not denying that but I’m also concerned about other issues that developers I don’t believe that the economy is in such a state right now where people are busting at the seams to spend their money to expand and etc and I would hate to see someone have great plans and draw back and then we say “you know that tough we’ll see in a year” I think it’s a lot for us to consider that’s all. It’s a consideration of what this is about and I asked you to look at it and I’d like to talk about a little bit further in our work session so that there’s nothing hidden where everything’s upfront on the table. If council thinks its fine if council wants to change it whatever council wants to do it’s a thought its an idea there’s some other things in there that’s changed this is not pushing anything through onto you or anything that’s why its going to have a public hearing and the whole nine yards. But I just want to make sure that the nine people here that are going to say yea or nay understand what this is about. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Thank you, Mr. Mang. I have a quick question where these changes generated from council or where these generated at the planning commission? COUNCILMAN MANG – They were generated at the planning commission other than the extent that I had some changes that I ask and I ask that one of the changes for them to look at was the year. But that was approved by the planning commission. COUNCILMAN MAIER – Point of order, Mr. President, I believe you said it was Resolution No. 9 its actually Ordinance No. 99 it doesn’t change the outcome at this point but it just I believe you misread the ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER Very good, Ordinance No. 99. There’s a public hearing on that? COUNCILMAN MANG – Public hearing is October 1 at 6:45pm. ORDINANCE NO. 99 – 2007 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. ORDINANCE NO. 100 – 2007 BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Amending Section 1151.02 of the Massillon Code of 1985 rezoning a certain tract of land from MR-1 Multiple Family Residential, R-T Two Family Residential and R-1 One Family Residential to B-3 General Business. COUNCILMAN MANG – This rezoning request had a little problem getting through the Planning Commission was tabled a couple of times because they didn’t feel the community had enough information about what was being proposed and for those reasons they waited until some of the things that they felt that the individuals should do and he ultimately did those. He had a meeting with the people this regarding First Street and McCadden Avenue there’s about almost 2 acres that’s being requested to be rezoned and some of those are RM-1 Multi Family and some are R-T Two Family and there’s one R-1 One Residential to B-3. This is the area of the Discount Outlet Store which is out on First Street. There’s a public hearing scheduled for this on October 1st at 7:00pm. I’m giving this second reading. ORDINANCE NO. 100 – 2007 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING. ORDINANCE NO. 104 2007 BY: HEALTH, WELFARE & BLD REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Enacting CHAPTER 771 JUNK DEALERS, OF PART SEVEN – BUSINESS REGULATION CODE OF THE CODIFED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MASSILLON. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO We did discuss this at our work session and the gentleman from Warmington Road did come and speak to us and last week we decided that we waive the rules. COUNCILMAN BRYAN – I have a comment. I was sort of the one that brought this ordinance up and I really think its something we need to do. I don’t think it’s the solution to people stealing scrap but I think its something that the City of Massillon can do which may indeed help our law enforcement people to maybe catch up to some of these folks who think its okay to steal. I saw I wanted to bring your attention I don’t how many saw it there’s a little story in the Canton Repository on Sunday. They went to start up a high school football game last Friday night in Colorado and they flipped on the lights because it was getting dark and no lights came on. They had to cancel the game because thieves had stolen the copper wire going up to the lights. Now I figured by God if any where in the world you know where we should outlaw this kind of thing with our love for high school football and what they did to that poor town out there we should all vote yes on this tonight. COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO moved to suspend the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Catazaro-Perry. The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes. ORDINANCE NO. 104 – 2007 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES. 16. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – As you know I’ve said before it’s always nice to come to council give you some good news. We got a communication from Bureau of Workers Comp they’re going to give us a $58,000.00 credit because of our drop in some of our claims our fast recording accidents and several items, other items. So they’re supposed to send that 9/26 then we also have again the $24,000.00 that we should be getting in October. So that will help the coffers just wanted to you that’s good news for a change. 17. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR LOUDIANA – As you know I’ve said before it’s always nice to come to council give you some good news. We got a communication from Bureau of Workers Comp they’re going to give us a $58,000.00 credit because of our drop in some of our claims, our fast recording accidents and several items, other items. So they’re supposed to send that 9/26 then we also have again the $24,000.00 that we should be getting in October. So that will help the coffers just wanted to you that’s good news for a change. 18. ADJOURNMENT COUNCILWOMAN FERRERO – I move that we adjourn, seconded by all.
|
©Copyright 1998 - present City of Massillon.
All Rights Reserved
Designed and Maintained by Imaging
2000 Web Design