MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL
HELD, MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER B I=d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, March 5, 2012.  We have a number of city officials with us this evening Mayor Catazaro-Perry, Safety Service Director Maier, Budget Director Koher, Engineer Dylewski, Auditor Ferrero and Law Director Stergios.  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.  We obviously are not used to having this many people in attendance and we certainly appreciate it and wish it could be like this every week. 

1.  ROLL CALL

Roll call for the evening found the following Council Members present:  Milan Chovan Sarita Cunningham-Hedderly, Nancy Halter, Ed Lewis, Paul Manson, Andrea Scassa, Larry Slagle and Tony Townsend.

Thus giving a roll call vote of 8 present.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mrs. Halter, we need a motion from you.

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I’d like to move that we excuse Mr. Peters until he arrives, seconded by Councilman Manson.

Roll call vote of 7 yes, 1 no.  Townsend voted no.

2. INVOCATION

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN B Gave the invocation for tonight.  

3.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Chairman of the Police and Fire Committee led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance.  

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – For the record we’ll note that Councilman Peters is now in attendance. 

4.  READING OF THE JOURNAL

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Madame Clerk, are the minutes of the previous meeting transcribed and open for public viewing?  (Yes, they are)  Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes?  If not the minutes stand approved as written.  We do have one item to add to our agenda this evening under item 10c the Mayor’s remarks and presentation.  Is there any objection to adding that to the agenda; if not please mark that down as 10c.    

5.  REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS ON THE AGENDA

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We are at Item 5 we invite you forward to make your comments.  You can come to the microphone give your name and address make your comments.  We don’t have a time limit per say but we do roughly look at about a three minute period.  If you can finish it up in three minutes that’s great if you’re starting to run a little over I’ll give you a gentle nudge asking you to finish.  If you get up and eight people have already said what you would like to say please don’t say it all again just tell us that you agree with what they’ve said.  We don’t want anyone to not have an opportunity so at this point the first one who would like to come forward.  Then after that whoever feels like following just please get up and make your comments. 

JOHN KURTZMAN – I’m a resident of the city live in 10th Street NE in Massillon.  I have two letters that express the constituents of this city with regard to Ordinance No. 13 – 2012.  But in the essence of time Mr. President I will only read part of the letters I will then submit them to the Clerk for the council to review at their leisure.  The first letter is from John Holbert, 448 Ford Street NE, Massillon.  He says: 

Dear Council:
I’ve been a lifelong resident of our great city.  I don’t think it is either fair or morally right for the city to charge me more in taxes than my neighbors pay.  This is essentially double taxation. 

JOHN KURTZMAN – The second letter that I have again it’s a long letter.  This is from Vick and Danielle Grimm, 1026 24th Street SW, Massillon, Ohio.  Again I will only read portions of it.

We support our city council in making the right decision on Ordinance No. 13 please vote no and find a solution to paying the city’s bills that doesn’t single out just one third of the taxpayers.  We fully support Councilman Paul Manson’s proposal to raise everyone’s taxes from 1.8 to 2% should it be placed on the ballot in November.  It is our hometown and we take pride in the City of Massillon.

JOHN KURTZMAN – I submit to this council that they follow also the sentiments of Tom Bonk as set forth in the Independent on February 27th, 2012.  I would have no problem is the city wants to put a tax increase on the ballot.  I would not only be in favor of it but I would help out with getting it passed any way I could.  Thank you.

MICHELLE SINAY – I live on Jenny Circle in Massillon.  I’m here today to speak out against the proposed 50% cut in the tax credit that people who live in Massillon but work outside the city would get.  I would love to work in the City of Massillon but unfortunately good jobs are few and far between and sometimes people are forced to work in a city that they don’t call home.  I already pay a city income tax I pay 2% to the City of Canton and if this 50% cut in the tax credit is approved I will then be paying 2.9% city income tax which is 1.1% more than the lucky people that live and work in Massillon would be paying.  There are a lot of negatives about working outside the city.  First I pay a higher income tax already, I drive farther to work, more gas and I pay for parking just to name a few.  In may place of employment a wage freeze for the fourth year now I pay towards my health care which has been increasing in the last couple of years as well as a furlough day that we were forced to take.  We are a two income family at our household and my husband does pay 1.8% income tax to Massillon.  As I am sure a lot of families in Massillon do.  So for the record we are not getting a free ride for city services.  We support Massillon’s stores and businesses we should not have to shoulder the burden alone to help the city get out of their financial situation.  This way this does not seem the fairest way to get more income.  I love the city and to take a quote from a sign that hung in a local business for years “Massillon a great place to live, work and play”.  If this passes I’m not sure how we could promote a great place to live to new residents wanting to raise families in Massillon but have to work outside the city.  There would need to be a disclaimer great place to live but only if you’re lucky enough to get a job in the city.  Thank you for your time.

JIM CONLEY - I live on Dunbarden in Jackson Township I work for the City of Massillon for the Massillon Municipal Court.  As I understand the three basic arguments for keeping the 100% credit they are fairness, don’t balance the budget on the backs of people who work in Canton and when I say Canton I’m including Canal Fulton and Minerva and etc, and number three that there might be an impact on housing in the city.  I disagree with all of those arguments.  Why should people pay two income taxes if you live in a township which a lot of folks do and work in the city we’re already paying two taxes.  My 1.8% income tax pays for Massillon’s fire, police, parks and roads.  The additional millage that I pay in Jackson Township for my real estate taxes pays for Jackson parks, fire, roads and police.  I have no problem with that.  Where I live and where I work I chose to do that and with choice comes consequences.  Those consequences are that I’m supporting police and fire, parks and roads in both Massillon and Jackson.  I’m okay with that.  Where you live is a personal choice.  Right now the people who live in Massillon but work in other cities support services where they work but not where they live I understand some people with two incomes do.  But by and large I think that’s the case.  Don’t balance the budget on the backs of people who work outside the city I agree with that argument.  I think everyone needs to contribute.  It is proposed that the city eliminate the education stipend which is $1,800.00 for city workers with college degrees and pay 15% towards health care costs.  These would cost me personally about $4,000.00 I support both of them.  I’m willing to contribute $4,000.00 toward this crisis.  I think the folks who live in Canton who make arbitrarily $50,000 a year would have to pay an additional .08% of 1% as I understand things or about $400.00.  I’m asking that they be wiling to contribute 10% of what I’m willing to contribute.  The third is the impact on the housing I just don’t buy it simply nobody is going to decide to live in Massillon or live or move out of Massillon based on a $400.00 incremental tax increase.  I just don’t think the argument flies.  I think council needs to rethink some of those who are thinking against this.  Thank you.

BOB YUND – I live at 1315 Lennox Avenue NE.  I won’t repeat what was just said but I certainly agree with what was just said.  Sometimes its very difficult to make hard decisions and when we’re talking about taxes everybody hates taxes.  I hate taxes as well unfortunately the biggest tax burden we have we have little voice regard to what that is.  Our local tax is the best bang for the buck.  Police officers, firemen, street workers and we have the opportunity to have a voice in that regard.  Some of you are holding out on making this decision to repeal this because you want to see more cuts I think department heads, city administration has taken the right step and deep cuts have already occurred and more are on the way.  I would not hold off on this decision based upon that I think that there’s good faith there that will continue.  We have a gentleman that’s looking at every single dollar and I’m sure he will not leave any stone unturned.  You might say most of you know me personally or as a business friend and I live and I work in Massillon but my wife does not.  50% of our family income comes from my wife’s profession and 80% of that income comes from outside of the city.  So this will significantly impact me and I am more thank happy to contribute that to the city I love and I appreciate your service and your sacrifice no matter what you decide tonight somebody’s not going to like it.  But that’s the way it is do the right thing not the popular thing.   Thank you.

JOHN OATS – I live on Burd Avenue.  What the one gentleman said about living in a township and working in the city is true.  The difference is you get to vote on township issues which is all we’re asking for.  I mean put it on the ballot people like myself will support it we’re not going to like it if you impose it on me. 

SUZI JACKSON – I’m here as a citizen of Massillon live on Main Avenue W.  When the county’s sales tax was being talked about it was presented in a way that we needed that money to help ensure that there’s enough deputies in the sheriff’s department.  That we would be able to keep the criminals in the jail that we needed that to help keep the county safe.  I think that same argument applies to the City of Massillon.  We need to have a tax credit more importantly we need to have the entire plan that the mayor has put before you.  It is not just a tax credit there’s already been a lot of cuts put into it.  I’ve heard a lot of council people saying in the paper that they want to see deeper cuts.  Well lets call it what it is you want to see layoffs and there will be layoffs.  There’s already a cut in pay, there’s cut in some benefits.  There’s no problem with having to pay our health insurance.  Its just that the past administration never even bothered to negotiate that.  I don’t think you’re going to find anyone that really objects to that.  But what we do need to do besides cut is to generate revenue and we have to generate revenue in 2012.  It is nice to put it on the ballot but that won’t be until November and it won’t become effective until 2013.  We have a 2 year plan no one is going to call any council person to say hey take money out of my pocket.  I’m not really saying that but what I am saying is you’re going to take money out of my pocket regardless.  Lets see some results it’s a two year plan its built into the ordinance when the tax credit ends March 31st 2014.  It won’t go beyond that.  The mayor has given you this two year plan its multi-faceted it is not just select one group of the community.  It hits hard to the people who work here but we’re willing to do that because in two years we know it can turn around.  Your failure to take action on this tonight means not two years it means four to five years if we’re lucky.  It has to start now this is the most transparent that the finances of this city has ever been.  We thank the mayor for that.  But lets all take a good hard look at where we are.  There are things that needs to be done they need to be done now you need to accept the full plan all of it together.  I hope you give it serious consideration.  Layoffs will be there it’s the degree of them how massive they are will be on your heads.  Thank you.

DAVID MALEY – I live at 7949 Harden St NW in Jackson.  My wife actually works in the City of Massillon.  Let me say I know these are difficult times for the City of Massillon when you’re dealing with budget shortfalls.  It’s very difficult I mean basically you have two choices increase revenue or decrease expenditures.  The fairness question comes into question with regard to those issues.  Let me say in my personal opinion I don’t think necessarily its fair that my wife who works in the City of Massillon pays income tax but yet an individual that obviously lives in the city does not and may work in Canton.  I think that’s an inadequately situation even though it’s a difficult situation you guys are in I think the fact that you’re looking at a 50% credit reduction in the credit over a two year period should be palpable to those people that are faced with paying those taxes.  But in any case I think that the credit some reduction in the credit should be looked at hard by this council.  On the budget itself let me say that I’m not a novice to budgeting I’ve been in government over twenty years in different capacities.  But I did have the opportunity to serve in the Ohio House for ten years and when I was there I served on two budgets state budget conference committees for the state budget in the early ‘90’s.  So I understand the difficult choices this council and the mayor face.  The mayor is faced with obviously a very difficult scenario when she became mayor.  I think she’s looked at all the alternatives and I want to commend her and her staff for what they’ve done with regards to putting these proposals forward before the council.  Now its up to the council whether they want to reject them, accept them, amend them or do something completely different as part of the budget process.  All I can say is on behalf of the I guess the citizens of Massillon is that I would hope that politics stay out of this process because I think the future of the city is depending on these negotiations.  I would ask the council to work with the mayor and the mayor to work with the council to do what’s right for the citizens of Massillon to move the city forward in a positive way.  I thank you for your time. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I’d like to thank everyone who spoke we appreciate you coming here letting council know what your feelings are.  Earlier as I looked around I didn’t have my 88 cent Marcs glasses on and I couldn’t pick out all of the city officials are here.  For the record we have the Mayor Catazaro-Perry, Safety Service Director George Maier, the Budget Director Ken Koher, Fire Chief Tom Burgasser, Community Development Director Ted Herncane, Engineer Keith Dylewski, Park & Rec. Superintendent Kenn Kaminski, Auditor Jayne Ferrero, Law Director Perry Stergios, the acting Police Chief Captain Joe Herrick, Building Superintendent Bill Kraft and Joe Berens from the Street Department, Tony Ulrich from the Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Looking at our agenda and our audience does anyone on council have a problem if we move the mayor’s presentation up to this point in time?  If not that would be suggestion and Madame Mayor if you would like to come forward.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY – What a great night we have this evening.  This is a very special evening because we are going to recognize for the first time under our administration the new administration members of the community that helped out with a circumstance of a fire on January 14th, 2012 as well as members of our police and fire department that had a significant roll in keeping our residents in the Lincoln Apartments safe.  Many of those residents at the Lincoln Apartments are were medically fragile.  Several had walkers many had trouble with not being able to get out of the apartments with their shoes on.  So it was a very, very compassionate evening of the city coming together with our city services, our city employees to keep our residents safe.  So tonight we’d like to acknowledge and recognize them for a wonderful deed and I know for our police and fire this is something that you do everyday this is your job.  But this circumstance could have been much worse and you all acted with wonderful integrity and compassion and with your critical thinking you pulled those people out of that building so that no one was injured.  We truly had zero injuries that evening as far as our residents and we did have some of our police officers that needed to be treated at the emergency room.  So we’d like to first of all bring up I don’t know if Pastor Barry Carter is here, Rick Mirenzi, Gary Hiles, Dr. Anthony Perry, Rada Smiley, Matt Sweeney from the American Red Cross, Captain Kevin Zanders and Tawny Cowen-Zanders from the Salvation Army.  What I would like to tell you is that what we’ve done is we’ve rebranded the city to be the City of Champions.  We’ve done that for several reasons 1, yes, of course our sports team, but secondly for people like our heroes that we had in the police and fire department and in our community members.  We rebranded the city for our wonderful businesses that have been here for a 100 years, 75 years, 50 years our residents and our employees.  So tonight they will receive an accommodation from the mayor’s office and it reads:

The Mayor’s Office would like to comment you on your fantastic efforts in responding to offer your assistance when the fire took place on Saturday, January 14, 2012 at the Lincoln High Rise Apartments.

Your efforts were definitely appreciated by the residents of the apartments and the community.  You performed like a champion in our City of Champions and are truly worthy of this recognition of your actions.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY – Now you will receive a commendation this evening and I would like you to know that we personally I personally paid for t-shirts I want you to know they did not come from city dollars because we don’t have city dollars to spend on something like this.  But we wanted you to have a City of Champions t-shirt and we wanted to thank you.  You may take your seats.  Thank you we appreciate you being here.  The next group of people we’d like to recognize this evening is our wonderful Massillon Police Department.  If I could just have you come through the gate and come on up here Mr. Maier will help you with your accommodations Officer Nicolas Antonides, Officer Joshua Barabasch, Officer Jolina Boyer-Solinger, Officer Michael Maier, Officer Jeffrey Masters, Officer John Mitchell, Sergeant Brian Muntean, Sergeant Kenneth Smith, Officer Jessica Wilson.  I’d just like to read the citation of Merit:

On Saturday, January 14th, 2012 the City of Champions were called upon to respond to a local emergency at 815 Lincoln Way East for a fire at the Lincoln High Rise Apartment Building.

Without hesitation or delay you along with our safety forces responded to the emergency only to find the building on fire and heavily consumed with smoke.  The scene was chaotic with most of the residents attempting to flee the building for their safety.  Our Champion Police and Fire Departments took immediate action to knock down the fire and to safely extricate the victims from the building and out of harms way.  Many of the residents were elderly, medically frail and some physically unable to assist themselves in leaving the building and required special assistance from our safety forces. 

Your swift and heroic actions on the evening of January 14, 2012 placing yourself in immediate danger to assist others contributed to the safety resolution to this emergency and prevented serious injury and or death to the victims of this tragic incident.  You performed like a champion in our City of Champions and are truly worthy of meritorious recognition for your actions.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY – Okay, thank you so much for coming tonight.  We’d like to bring up our Fire Department and we’re going to bring them up in two groups because there were actually lets try to bring them all up and we’ll just make it go all the around the circle.  Firefighter James Anderson, Captain Richard Annen, Firefighter Scott Borojecvich, Chief Thomas Burgasser, Captain David Conley, Firefighter James Coughlin, Firefighter Richard Davis, Firefighter Aaron Flynt, Captain Charles Ganoe, Captain Matthew Heck, Captain Shawn McDermott, Firefighter Patrick Perkowski, Captain Patrick Rhodes, Firefighter Christopher Schweier, Captain Donald Smith, Firefighter Brian Sponseller, Firefighter Chad Tharp, Firefighter Virgil Thompson, Firefighter Tammy Wagner, Firefighter Brian Weber, Firefighter David Wood.  As you’re coming up again I’m going to read:

Without hesitation or delay you along with our safety forces responded to the emergency only to find the building on fire and heavily consumed with smoke.  The scene was chaotic with most of the residents attempting to flee the building for their safety.  Our Champion Police and Fire Departments took immediate action to knock down the fire and to safely extricate the victims from the building and out of harms way.  Many of the residents were elderly, medically frail and some physically unable to assist themselves in leaving the building and required special assistance from our safety forces. 

Your swift and heroic actions on the evening of January 14, 2012 placing yourself in immediate danger to assist others contributed to the safety resolution to this emergency and prevented serious injury and or death to the victims of this tragic incident.  You performed like a champion in our City of Champions and are truly worthy of meritorious recognition for your actions.

FIRE CHIEF BURGASSER – If I might just take a minute to thank all of you on behalf of the fire department on behalf of the police department behalf of all of the agencies Jackson and Perry Townships who could not be here and especially on behalf of the residents we really appreciated their efforts that night to be displaced.  Thank you.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY – Kenn, would you like to come up.  We have one last accommodation and this one I think we all can truly appreciate because it had to do with two four year olds and heroic efforts by Liann Cox. 

 

The Mayor’s Office would like to commend you on your heroic efforts in responding to saving two active drowning victims.  Without hesitation or delay you responded to the emergency to save two children within a week. 

Your immediate critical thinking and expertise contributed to the safe resolution to both of these emergencies.  You performed like a champion in our City of Champions and are truly worthy of this recognition for your actions.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We appreciate the presentation and everyone on council obviously seconds all of the fine words that were meant from the heart.  The citizens of the community depend on folks like you and they’ve got very good public servants.  So again thank you very much.

6.  INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We will now move into the introduction of ordinances and resolutions.  Mrs. Halter?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I’d like to move Ordinance No. 13 – 2012 forward so that these people that came tonight for that particular ordinance may leave if they’d like to.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there any objection to moving that item forward?  Madame Clerk, would you please read the title to Ordinance No. 13 – 2012?

ORDINANCE NO. 13 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE

Amending Section 181.15 “CREDIT FOR TAX PAID TO ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY” of CHAPTER 181 “INCOME TAX” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by enacting a new Section 181.15 “CREDIT FOR TAX PAID TO ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY” of said CHAPTER 181 “INCOME TAX”, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – Before we proceed I have a few comments that I would like to make.  That is that I want to make the citizens and the city employees before we vote on this ordinance.  The situation that we find the city in today is not the fault of the citizens that live here that work outside of the city.  It’s not the fault of the citizens that work inside the city or those that are retired.  The city employees that I see may share some of the fault are some elected officials and some department heads.  Last year when the chief financial officer which is the auditor warned city council that she had a pile of bills on her desk and no money was coming in to pay them it fell on deaf ears.  The former administration did not nothing to adjust the former city council did not nothing to adjust and apparently department heads also did nothing to adjust.  They continued to spend money that could not have been in their budgets to spend.  It has been said that someone told the city department heads not to turn in their bills until January 2012 quote “because there’s no money to pay them anyway”.  So here we are short of funds and last years bills to pay.  Who should pay I’m sorry to say that I feel that we should start with the city employees including elected officials before we ask the citizens to pay anymore.  The citizens have suffered enough with horrible roads, barrels over the storm sewers, houses and buildings in disrepair.  Yes, the city income tax will have to be raised soon.  But first we have to be sure that we’re getting the best bang for our buck with our city departments and our city employees.  As I see it there will be no raises until we have money to pay them.  There will be less benefits there will be cuts in pay and cuts in hours.  We all have to work this out together.  This council is made up of five new council people and four former council people that were elected to turn things around.  The citizens have put their faith in us to do what needs to be done.  Thank you.  With that I would like to bring Ordinance No. 13 – 2012 forward for a vote. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there a second?  Seconded by Councilman Manson.  It have been properly moved and seconded.  Is there any discussion on the ordinance Mr. Slagle?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Yeah this is the ordinance obviously that many people are here for.  You know the tax credit has been discussed virtually the entire time I’ve been here.  In 2004 it was discussed with that citizen’s panel I disagree with Councilwoman Halter a bit.  I think previous councils did recognize the problem we attempted to do what we could as a council to do but unfortunately some things you can set and if the administration doesn’t make sure that the budgets that have been set are followed there’s not much we could have done about that.  My vote tonight though is going to be actually based upon the fact that if I’m going to ask my employees in the city to sacrifice by paying 15% of their health coverage which will amount to more that $450.00 for virtually every employee that we could govern with this legislation that comes later tonight.  I think that asking the tax payers that live in the city but pay taxes outside the city can also be asked to sacrifice.  It’s unfortunately that we have been brought to this point but at the same time I think that we should also be addressing this on statewide basis.  Because once cities start no longer giving 100% tax credit like we’re suggesting we’re going to do tonight then every city is going to do that.  Because they’re all going to cannibalize from each other.  I think at some point that should be limited because I don’t think it is fair that you would be paying 100% in the city in which you work and also paying the city in which you live.  I think that when you work in a city then perhaps that should be adjusted if you do not live in that city.  But unfortunately that something that we as a council can not address tonight.  We can only address the problem that we have before us.  We’ve taken steps the whole time I’ve been on council every thing has been dealt with by cutting and trying to limit expense whenever we could.  Until we got this administration some of the issues that always had to be addressed because our budgets were almost always 90% employee wages and contracts that we couldn’t get out have finally been addressed.  Up until then I was not in favor of reducing the tax credit because if we were not willing as a council to make our employees ask them to sacrifice by paying more then I didn’t think we could ask our taxpayer base to sacrifice by having their tax credit reduced from 100%.  I like the fact that it’s a two year and I would tell anyone if I’m on council again in two years from now and if a tax increase is passed as I suggest it should be passed because our tax rate in Massillon is low.  We should also address that tax credit or the council should address the tax credit at that point too.  They may want to reduce it based upon the finances that could be brought in.  So I will be voting yes on this ordinance. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Lewis?

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – You know being a new member to the council I find it somewhat disheartening to have to address such an issue when I sat in these same chambers last year and watched on two occasions near the end of the year our council had an opportunity to place a topic such as this on the ballot but decided not to went as far as pulling names off of legislation and refusing to discuss and now their inaction is requiring me to take desperate action.  I don’t appreciate that but at the same time there’s nothing we can do about the past the one thing I do want to notice is I’ve heard time and time again people say well no one’s going to move out just because we do this.  That does not make it right just because you hold the citizenry prisoner in their city does not mean you have the right to tax them as you please.  We all know these are tough economic times and people can not just get up and move just because they do not like $400.00 but $400.00 is a lot to some families.  I spoke to a woman today who works part time she’s unable to find work in Massillon but to support her family she works part time in Canton.  Should we punish her because there are no jobs in Massillon or should we grab a hold of the spirit of this law which states that you are taxed by where you work and generate new business and more jobs?  In doing so we will regain that tax when we start using our authority and not voting or allowing the citizenry to vote then we start saying that we don’t care about the economic growth we don’t care about new business in the city we will simply tax those who chose to live here and love this town.  I will be voting no because I think this is a punishment on the people and instead we need to focus on bringing new business and that way people like myself and people that work outside of the city can make a true choice and that is a choice to work in Massillon the city they love. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, I don’t have a speech but there’s just a few things I’d like to point out.  My problem with this like Mr. Slagle talked about goes back to like 2004 on that study I was on that study committee.  I made my mind up a long time ago that we needed a tax increase we have been on a steady decline or a collision between our expenses and our revenue.  Revenue has not grown fast enough to keep pace with our expenses.  This and I’ve discussed these two issues many times the tax credit and just a general increase in the city income tax and I came to my conclusion a long time ago it has nothing to do with either administration here.  The past administration advocated for reducing the tax credit it never came before us but they did advocate for that.  I have a problem in that what we’re doing here to me is a short term fix.  You’re talking about something like $2.5 million over two years its going to come out of 33% of our people $2.5 million dollars.  I for one believe we need a permanent tax increase not just a temporary fix for this thing.  The county had a similar situation and the commissioners imposed a sale tax on the people and there was a referendum to repeal that.  You know it took them a long time to get their credibility back they had to do a lot things a lot things that we’ve been talking about and hearing about here tonight.  They worked hard on that and they put it on the ballot last fall I’m sure they would like to have had a quick fix.  But they put it on the ballot last fall and there people saying that had no chance and you know what it passed with flying colors.  Because they did their job and people did make sacrifices so at this point in time I will be voting no on this tax credit. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Any other council member who would like to make a comment or ask a question? 

ORDINANCE NO. 13 – 2013 WAS DEFEATED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 NO, 1 YES.  SLAGLE VOTED YES.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Ordinance No. 13 is defeated.  At this time if you would like to leave we’ll hold up for a just a moment and allow you to exit quietly.  If you’d like to stick around for the rest of the meeting we certainly do invite you to do that.  While we’re waiting for the last few people to file out we do have another item for the agenda if I could have your attention please.  We have Ordinance No. 140 which was submitted the finance committee we’ll need to amend the agenda to add that.  I’d like to ask the chairman of the committee has your committee properly signed that request?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – That for environmental.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I’m sorry.  Ordinance No. 28 – 2012 which I don’t see it doesn’t look like an ordinance it looks like a spreadsheet and up in the corner it says Ordinance No. 28 – 2012.  If you would jot the date down underneath that March 5th, 2012.  So Mrs. Halter has your committee properly signed off on this?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – We have told Mary Beth we didn’t actually sign it would you like it signed?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Alright, have you approved it verbally?  (Yes)  Alright and the other members of the finance committee you approved this?  We’re just establishing that the finance committee did indeed endorse this.  (Yes)  Alright, very good.  Madame Clerk, such as it is would you read the title to Ordinance No. 28 – 2012?  I’m sorry what we’re doing is adding this?  We need a roll call vote to approve adding this to the agenda.

Roll call vote of 7 yes, 2 no to add Ordinance No. 28 – 2012 to the agenda.  Peters and Townsend voted no.

ORDINANCE NO. 23 - 2012                      BY:   STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY

Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to sign the Consent Legislation with the Ohio Department of Transportation for the STA Various Culverts Project, PID 92947, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND –  Ordinance No. 23 is just a project conducted by ODOT.  ODOT just simply needs this body to give their approval so they can begin the work on the culverts that are located by Tuscarawas River and US 30.  Mr. Dylewski was here last week he explained more in depth.  I don’t think were any questions about it because there was one most important statement that was made there’s no cost to the city.  If anyone has any questions pertaining to this I can call Mr. Dylewski up and he can answer those questions.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND 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. 23 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 24 - 2012                      BY:   STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY

Amending CHAPTER 1188 “SIGNS” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by creating SubSection 1188.04 (e) “Vertical Neighborhood Association Banners Permitted”, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – First reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 24 – 2012 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 25 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE  

Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the 1406 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Fund and the 1202 State Highway Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2012, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – This will be used this $5,000 or $10,750 will be used to purchase a flight 4640 mixer pump that will be installed at the sludge blending tank at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.  This is going to be taken out of the Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Fund.  The second section is for $5,000 and that’s going to be used for there’s a pole out at the Oakwood Square Plaza off Lincoln Way East.  There’s an existing traffic signal span wire located there and it’s connected to a pole owned by First Energy and they would that removed.  So that’s what the $5,000 is for.  If there’s any questions we can get them answered for you otherwise I’ll be bringing that forward for a vote tonight.    

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Slagle.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 9 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 25 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 26 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the EMS Capital Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2012, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – This is this money is being used for what is called turnout gear replacement equipment for the fire department.  Its coats and pants that they wear this will be coming out of the EMS Capital Fund not the General Fund.  Right now their balance in that is $54,000 and this will use $28,000 of that.  If there’s any questions we’ll get them answered otherwise I’ll bring that forward for a vote tonight.

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER 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. 26 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 27 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Reducing the appropriations in the General Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2012, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – This is an ordinance reducing the appropriations from Judge Elum.  He’s reducing $30,000 from an account entitled Muni Court Staff Salary, $15,000 from an account entitled Muni Court Services and Contracts, $4,200 from an account entitled Muni Court Staff PERS, $435 from an account entitled Muni Court Staff Medicare, $2,000 from an account entitled Bailiff Supplies and Materials and $2,000 from an account entitled Bailiff Gas and Oil.  If there aren’t any questions we’ll bring this forward for a vote tonight. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Ms. Scassa?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – We’ve been this is the first time we’ve received legislation from the courts asking to reduce their appropriations.  I guess I would have a little bit of hesitation passing this tonight considering we don’t have a budget put in place we’ve been given different budgets with different cuts and I believe at the committee meeting it was brought up about their particular line items.  If these legislations were a part of that I don’t know I’m looking at Ordinance No. 28 that is in front of me what I looked at earlier today I have some different figures.  So I guess I want to be comfortable suspending the rules tonight to reduce their appropriation until we know exactly what we maybe appropriating.  That’s my feeling on the matter. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Lewis?

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – I guess the point of confusion that I’m kind of in the same league as Andrea or Ms. Scassa I’m sorry is that this states December 31, 2012 when that budget hasn’t even passed.  Currently we’re operating under a budget that ends at the end of the month correct?  So I guess if I can get some clarification on this so I know exactly how this affects. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mrs. Halter, do you have a response to that?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I was going to ask if the auditor could answer their questions for them.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Certainly Madame Auditor would you please go to a microphone.  Mr. Lewis, your question?

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – I guess if you could just clarify to me the wording here its talking about the reducing of appropriations for the general fund for the end of this year when I guess I thought we were in a budget that ended at the end of this month.  The wording doesn’t seem to line up that’s all.

AUDITOR FERRERO – Actually when the courts decided that they wanted to reduce their appropriations you’re absolutely right.  The way you explained it Ms. Scassa that it will come right off of the top of their appropriations.  So they submitted it a little bit too early as far as I’m concerned.  But that’s up to council whether or not you want to pass it but once their budget is passed then those line items will be reduced by the amount of the reductions that they had asked for.  So depending on what kind of budget that you pass you’re absolutely correct that’s how it’s going to be affected. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Chovan?

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Just to make sure I understand this.  It was my understanding that towards the end of December of 2011 there was a budget from the courts that was approved and a court order was attached to it.  I mean is that what this money is coming from money that was left over or…

AUDITOR FERRERO – No, we always start new.  Every year started new with a brand new budget.  They don’t have leftover funds.

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – So just to make sure that everybody understands because I’m having trouble with it…

AUDITOR FERRERO – What I’m saying is that when they ask for a reductions once you pass a budget then the reductions that they’re asking for like for example under their bailiff line then those reductions will take place once the budget is passed.  Right now we’re operating on a temporary budget as you know. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – So are you saying by accepting this or agreeing to do this that we’re in essence reducing the courts budget?

AUDITOR FERRERO – That’s what I’m saying.  So I would my suggestion in our one budget meeting I said I think that the courts didn’t realize that by doing these reductions ahead of time that it is going to affect their budget.  So I suggested that and Ms. Scassa was there when I said that.  So council can do what they want to do but that’s really how it works.

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – I’m thinking that the intent of the court is to give something back not permanently but that it reflects their budget overall.  I think they’re looking at maybe this was something that they think they had in excess.  That’s my I’m asking I mean I don’t quite understand that fund.

AUDITOR FERRERO – Well, I can’t read the courts minds but that would be my assumption. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – So then if we pass this then we’re in essence trying to reduce a budget that they think is already established.

AUDITOR FERRERO – That’s correct.  I would suggest that you wait until after the budget is passed.  That would be my recommendation if it’s worth anything. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – I just wanted to suggest the same thing first reading and let’s get more information. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mrs. Halter, may I ask a question?  (Yes)  Do you have the legislation request as part of your packet?  (Yes)  What was the date on that and who made the request?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – January the well no that’s Jayne’s signature.  It was signed by Judge Elum and then the mayor and the auditor signed it on February well one’s dated January 15th and the other one is dated February 15th. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is that correct or are you suggesting that that’s incorrect that there’s a month difference in the signatures?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – That’s what that’s the way they’re dated. 

AUDITOR FERRERO – We sign them when we get them.  So then the mayor and I both sign them.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any other questions?  Mrs. Halter?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – We’re going to give this first reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 27 – 2012 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 28 – 2012                     BY:  FINANCE COMMITTEE

This is the budget for 2012

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – first reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 28 – 2012 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING.

7.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.  PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS

9.  BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS

10.  REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS

A). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY PERMIT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2012 B COPY FILE
B). AUDITOR SUBMITS MOHTLY REPORTS FOR FEBRUARY 2012 B COPY FILE

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We have several reports from city officials the mayor’s monthly report which we will file.  The auditor’s report we will need a motion to accept Mrs. Halter. 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I move that we accept the auditor’s report, seconded by Councilman Slagle.

Roll call vote of 9 yes to accept the auditor’s report for February 2012.

11.  REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any reports of committees or resolutions or requests of council members?  Mrs. Halter?

12.  RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I would like to report that there will be a finance committee regular finance committee meeting on Monday, March 12th to discuss the 2012 budget. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – I’m sorry Mrs. Halter when was that?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – The day of the work session.

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Okay, not a different time same time?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – Right, that we have to announce our meetings.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – is there anyone else?

13.  CALL OF THE CALENDAR

14.  THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 7 - 2012                        BY:   ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE

Amending CHAPTER 920 “EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, Ohio, by repealing existing Section 920.08(a) “Monitoring the Permit for Compliance” and enacting replacement Section 920.08(a) “Monitoring the Permit for Compliance” and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – This piece of legislation is simply taking 920.08(a) and getting it in line with the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio EPA and it will take effect immediately.  It seems to me to be pretty much just maintenance and something we should do to fall into compliance with the other authorities in the state.  With that if there’s no discussion I would say we bring it forward for a vote.

COUNCILMAN LEWIS moved to bring Ordinance No. 7 – 2012 forward for passage, seconded by Councilman Peters.

ORDINANCE No. 7 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 9 - 2012                        BY:   RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE

Amending Ordinance No. 185 – 2006 by creating SubSection (F) of Article XVII Section 1 on the attachment hereto, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – This is the ordinance requiring city employees to pay 15% or contribute 15% to their health care.  We’re up for third reading tonight as I said at last week’s work session you know vote for it vote against it.  I think this is something that’s very important I think that this piece of legislation that our citizens want to see passed based on all the conversations I’ve had with people.  I know there’s a lingering question from last week about the clerk of courts or the courts.  I’ve spoke with the clerk of court and he did put in writing that he would be on board and has discussed this with his employees.  As to the timeframe his response was as soon as council passes this and the rest of the city falls in line.  So he obviously couldn’t give an exact date but again you know he put it in writing.  I think that goes a lot to be said to his intent and it’s something that he’s made his employees aware of.  So as I’ve asked you guys any other questions give to me I don’t know if anyone had any other questions if they needed answered tonight.  I think its pretty straight forward.  I don’t have to make a motion to suspend the rules tonight I’m just bringing it forward and like I said vote for it vote against it but it needs to be addressed. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is that your motion?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – That’s my motion.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We need a second.  Mr. Chovan.  Any comments or discussions please.   Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, this is something I kind of pushed to take our time moving through a little bit because it is such a serious thing.  It’s something that I’m sure none of us want to do.  I will be supporting it.  It would be nice if we could have everybody participating in this in a very short time.  I’m not talking about a day or a week or a month or something like that.  But we do have 250 employees approximately that are covered by health care.  I don’t know exactly how many this will cover right now.  Maybe 80 I’m not sure but I think its time we have to take this step. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else?  We have a motion and a second roll call please.

ORDINANCE NO. 9 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 10 - 2012                      BY:   RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE

Amending Ordinance No. 185 – 2006 by suspending any and all step increases in pay based upon years of service with the City as contained in the schedules attached thereto, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – Again this is the ordinance freezing step increases.  It’s pretty self explanatory again not an easy decision to make as it does affect our employees.  The previous ordinance affected our employees but again based on situation that we’re at financially I feel that this is important to bring forward.  Again show our constituents that we are trying to take care of our in house matters and get things back in order.  But with that being said again third reading I’d be bringing this forward for its passage.  That’s my motion.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Seconded by Mr. Chovan.  Any comments?  Mr. Slagle?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Yeah, I just want to say that in both these ordinances I don’t like the fact that we’re asking our employees to make greater sacrifices than we just ask some of our citizens to make on a tax credit.  Frankly, I don’t understand the difference our employees that are going to be asked some of them to pay up to $2,500 a year for health costs probably have the same problems Mr. Lewis just mentioned on the tax credit.  Meaning that they’re going to hard time coming up with this money too.  I vote for both of these because I happen to think that everyone should pay something towards their healthcare.  But as everyone knows I happen to believe the government should be paying it should be a single payer system in our country and we wouldn’t be faced with these difficulties nor a lot of the political decisions that are being made on these issues.  But I will say publicly if I see this as a public attack on the public employees sector or in the unions in any way I’ll start opposing these legislations.  I think we need control over the cost but if I see anything that looks like an attack on unions or the public sector employees then I will start opposing them for that sole purpose. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else?  We have a motion and a second roll call please.

ORDINANCE NO. 10 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Let me explain part of my confusion here is original agenda I have doesn’t have 140 on it.  But I do have a 140 here and now I see I have three new pages tonight.  So sorry about that you all.

ORDINANCE NO. 14 - 2012                      BY:  ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE

Amending CHAPTER 943 “STORMWATER UTILITY” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, Ohio, by repealing existing Section 943.04 “Stormwater Fee” and enacting replacement Section 943.04 “Stormwater Fee”, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Yes, this is legislation that we spoke about however there were a few questions at the last committee meeting or work session. So with that I will give that second reading.   

ORDINANCE NO. 14 – 2012 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 17 - 2012                      BY:  RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE

Amending CHAPTER 121 “COUNCIL” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by enacting a new Section 121.02(a) Rule 1 “Organization”, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – Second reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 17 – 2012 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 18 - 2012                      BY:  RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE

Amending CHAPTER 121 “COUNCIL” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, by enacting a new Section 121.02(r) Rule 71 “Unclassified Rules”, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – Second reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 18 – 2012 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 19 - 2012                      BY:  STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & SAFETY COMMITTEE

Vacating a portion of State Avenue NW, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Second reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 19 – 2012 WAS GIVEN SECOND READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 22 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE

Authorizing the Auditor to pay various 2011 bills that have been received and that will be received by her office between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2012, out of the 2012 appropriations within the various departments of the City of Massillon, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – We discussed this at our last couple of meetings our work sessions.  I believe that everybody has had their questions answered on what these bills are and what needs to be paid.  Right now they are all in the rears and I know the auditor would like this passed tonight.  So I would like to bring it forward for a vote if you have any questions the auditor is here if you want to ask her. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there questions?  Mrs. Halter?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER 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. 22 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 9 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 140 - 2011                    BY:   ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE

Repealing Section 965.09 “Collection Rates” of CHAPTER 965 “GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, and enacting a new Section 965.09 “Collection Rates” of CHAPTER 965 “GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION”, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – This is being brought forth to be amended again.  I promise you I’m not trying to draw this out we’re just trying to make sure the language is proper.  We spoke at the last meeting about putting in the capital fund.  So this is amending this piece to put the 94/6 split in there.  We also have an issue where the it was presented by the mayor’s administration to have the commercial rates go up by the $2.25 as well.  From what I see the current ordinance states that commercial rates may possibly be dictated by the safety service director.  So I need to do more research there’s a lot more we need to do to figure that out.  Also I plan on proposing at our next work session that a separate legislation handle the licensing fee since it’s a different section of the ordinance. 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS moved to amend Ordinance No. 140 – 2011 Section (j) to show that on April 1, 2012 we will begin the 96% to operating costs and 4% to the capital improvement fund. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Now just to make sure you are going to make a motion to amend and then you’ll take it back to first reading and your plan then to give it first reading and take it back to committee?  (Yes)  Alright, we have a motion to amend Ordinance No. 140 – 2011 seconded by Councilman Manson.  Are there any comments or questions or discussion?  Roll call vote to amend please.

ORDINANCE NO. 140 – 2011 WAS AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES, 1 NO.  PETERS VOTED NO.

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – First reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 140 – 2011 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING.

17.  REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

GAIL DANZY – 1400 Gibson Avenue, Massillon.  First I’d like to thank I don’t know if its Mr. Chovan but the issue that I brought forth last week about the police it has been taken care of.  My question tonight though is the reason that I believe the police reports were given negatively for Sinclair Village is because of the crime that surrounds our area.  That crime actually comes from some subdivisions that the city supported for new home ownership.  I wonder does anyone check to make sure that they’re living up to what they told the city they would do since this the city has put money into that subdivision.  Because I found out from the state that its not really homeownership that they’re renting.  I’m not against Section 8 or any of that I myself have been on welfare I want to make that very clear.  Because every time I get up to speak against something that’s going on with public assistance people seem to think I’m just this little arrogant person.  So I want to make it very clear that in my past I have been on public assistance.  But did better and now I’m where I am now which isn’t all that great but I’m not against people getting public assistance if that’s the need.  But my question is the mayor was told that this was homeownership there’s was big articles in the paper about how the city was increasing the homeownership.  In deed this is not necessarily a homeownership because I got this from the state from the Ohio Department of Development that it is indeed rental property.  So my question is for somebody to look into this and find out if they are indeed living up to the expectations that the city had for this to a homeownership development.  Again, I believe that some of the police reports that came against Sinclair Village was not for Sinclair Village but for the surrounding areas.  Thank you.

RENEE BOGUE – Just to let the high school students know thank you for your presence.  I’m going to be talking about drilling on the Legends our golf course.  Last year I along with several other residents and TASK presented information on slick water horizontal hydraulic drilling.  Although I oppose this type of drilling that would put Massillon’s family’s health and safety at risk I am pro job.  I would like to see Massillon attract green jobs.  At that time council was asked to ban slick water horizontal hydraulic drilling.  This would ban fracking on any property that the city controls, owns, leases or maintains and that would include roads and right-of-ways.  Plain Township and Hartville currently have passed bans.  Although this proposed lease is non-drilling I am extremely concerned that it could be sold to a company that will drill and  I am extremely that it will not be conventional drilling.  If drilling occurs on city property I would request that a public hearing be scheduled both as an opportunity to understand various sides of the drilling issue and the impact on this community’s health and safety.  Massillon families need to understand what is being proposed and its long term consequences.  As stated in the Independent the mayor’s budget quote “includes about $420,000 of additional revenue in the 2012 from mineral rights leases” where is that money come from?  If drilling occurs what type of drilling is proposed for the golf course?  Is the drilling of an old well or will this be a conventional well into the sandstone formation or is this a new well into a shale formation.  If the lease is for a conventional well does the lease allow for the well to be fracked horizontally at a later time?  Is the drilling company a shell company that is set up by a much larger gas and oil company that’s limiting its assets and liabilities should there be litigation.  Does the lease allow for the transferring of this well to yet another company?  If the city would allow drilling would the city be liable for contamination of any wells in this area.  Will the city pay for the continued air monitoring of this well?  Loopholes in the Clean Air Act at the federal level allow corporations to get around basic protections for the public.  If we allow fracking we’ll expose citizens we will be exposed to dozens of hazardous air pollutants including methanol, hydrogen chloride, ultra fine sand and volatile organic compounds.  In addition there will be air pollutions from truck traffic and the drilling operation itself.  This can lead to cancer, strokes, heart problems, asthma and more.  Stark County right now has been documented to have poor air quality.  Drilling will make our poor air quality worse.  All gas wells will rust and leak and as gas wells age the cement casing shrinks allowing the well bar to be well bore to be a perfect condoned for methane that will pollute ground water.  More information can be found at the TASK Ohio.org website that’s TASK.  Do the residents in this area understand that this well will devalue their homes possibly making it difficult to sell or insure their homes.  I recommend that the mayor, the council and the families of Massillon consult the TASK Ohio.org website and click on resources to have a greater understanding of the severity of this issue.  This is a turning point for our community do we want to become a polluted industrial zone or do we want to keep and attract families.  The mayor and council bear tremendous responsibility and accountability.  I urge the mayor and council to protect Massillon’s families and I will be emailing this to council and if possible by the next council meeting if these questions if we could have some answers on these questions.  Because although the Independent did do an article on it there still needs to be there’s still so many more questions that need to be answered concerning this.  Thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Alright, two things first of all send it to everybody that’s fine.  But Ms. Cunningham-Hedderly is chairman of the public utilities committee so she would be the one directly responsible.  Then you may want to check with the mayor to find out who in her administration might have specific answers to those questions.

RENEE BOGUE – Thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Thank you.

CINDY BRATTON -I have a grand plan I think it would be great.  I make a motion that you don’t pay the bond on the Legends Golf Course so a view for a few will continue.  That’s all I have to say.  Thanks a lot. 

18.  ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN  – I move that we adjourn, seconded by all.

 

_________________________
MARY BETH BAILEY, CLERK,

______________________________
GLENN E. GAMBER, PRESIDENT

 

©Copyright 1998 - present City of Massillon. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Maintained by Imaging 2000 Web Design