MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL
HELD, MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - I‘d like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, May 16, 2011. We have in attendance with us this evening: Mayor Cicchinelli, Bob Cyperski from the Law Department, Auditor Ferrero and Engineer Dylewski. On the wall to your left are agendas for anyone who wishes to follow the meeting. Also under item #5 on the agenda is where the public can speak on any item that appears on the agenda and then under item #17 is where the public can speak on any item that does not appear on the agenda. I‘d also like to remind anyone with a cell phone please turn it off or turn it very far down.
1. ROLL CALL
Roll call for the evening found the following Council Members present: Gary Anderson, Dave Hersher, Paul Manson, Dave McCune, Donnie Peters, Larry Slagle and Tony Townsend.
Thus giving a roll call vote of 7 present.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson, we have two absences.
COUNCILMAN MANSON – I make a motion that we excuse Mr. Mang and Mrs. Catazaro-Perry, seconded by Councilman Slagle.
COUNCILMAN PETERS – Point of order.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Peters?
COUNCILMAN PETERS – Could we separate them?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – If you’d like to make that motion.
COUNCILMAN PETERS – I’d like to make that motion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We need a second the motion dies for the lack of a second.
Roll call vote of 6 yes, 1 no for the excused absences. Peters voted no.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - I will recognize Councilman Larry Slagle for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.
COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Gave the invocation for the evening.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. READING OF THE JOURNAL
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Madame Clerk, are the minutes of the previous meeting transcribed and open for public viewing (Yes, they are) Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? If not the minutes stand approved as written.
5. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO MATTERS ON THE AGENDA
6. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE NO. 66 - 2011 BY: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
Authorizing the Mayor of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to enter into the Recycling Program Grant Agreement with the Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District, and declaring an emergency.
COUNCILMAN HERSHER – This is our annual recycling grant. As I talked about at the work session it looks to be the same agreement that we’ve had every year with base rate of $25.00 a ton when incentives are considered. It looks like everything stays similar to what it was last year in terms of what was recycled then we’re looking at it being about $45.00 per ton with incentives. So knowing that you know we pass this every year and its something that we want to get moving on if there aren’t any questions tonight I would for ask for suspension and passage this evening.
COUNCILMAN HERSHER moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Slagle.
The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 7 yes.
ORDINANCE NO. 66 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES.
ORDINANCE NO. 67 - 2011 BY: RULES, COURTS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE
Amending CHAPTER 509 “DISORDERLY CONDUCT & PEACE DISTURBANCE” of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon, Ohio, by repealing existing Section 509.12(a), “Noise-Making and Noise Amplifying Devices; Variances” and enacting replacement Section 509.12(a) “Noise-Making and Noise Amplifying Devices; Variances”, and declaring an emergency.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Mr. Townsend or Mr. McCune, which of you would like to present?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I can do it. Councilman Donnie Peters had presented this request for legislation at our last work session. So I would defer Ordinance No. 67 over to Councilman Donnie Peters.
COUNCILMAN PETERS – I didn’t this isn’t my ordinance I did this under the direction of our law director because he has been unable to be here. Through some discussion with him he thought it best that we change the wording so that the ordinance has a little bit of bite to it and it can be easily enforced. So we changed the wording of the ordinance that is already which already exists I think it was three words that we changed. So I’m going to ask that if there are any questions I’ll answer them but if there’s not I’m going to also move for suspension.
COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend.
The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 7 yes.
ORDINANCE NO. 67 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES
ORDINANCE NO. 68 - 2011 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE
Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the 1406 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Fund, 1482 OPWC Projects Fund, 2105 Stormwater Utility Fund, 2106 Municipal Motor Vehicle License Fund and the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2011, and declaring an emergency.
COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, we have five parts to this we’ll go through here. First part is for $419,000 prepare legislation to appropriate $419,000 from the unappropriated balance of the 1406 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Fund for the 2011 Wastewater Treatment Bar Screen & Grit Screw Replacement Project. This is a joint project with Stark County in which by previously approved Ordinance 64 – 2011 the county will pay 50% of all projected costs. For the city’s share the construction project will be $209,862 the city received 4 bids and the apparent low bidder is Workman Industrial Services from Kent. Part 2 is for $22,695 total first part is for $20,425 and the second part of that I’m sorry 2 is $20,429 please prepare legislation to appropriate $22,695 from the unappropriated balance of the following accounts: $20,425 from the OPWC projects fund and that’s section 2. Section 3 is $2,270 from the 2105 Stormwater Utility Fund for the Erie Street emergency repair. This appropriation is needed to cover extra costs associated with the completed project. OPWC has increased its grant received by the city and it will continue to fund 90% of this project. Okay, then the next part is for $21,658 this is part of section 4 please prepare legislation to appropriate $21,658 from the unappropriated balance of the 1206 Municipal Motor Vehicle License Plate Fund for a full depth pavement replacement located at the entrance of Jormay Avenue NW. Approximately 110 linear feet of pavement will has failed and is in need of replacement. Next part of this is $1,291.50 please prepare legislation to appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the 1206 Municipal Motor Vehicle License Fund to the Motor Vehicle License Audits. The recently completed audits found that $30,799 was erroneously allocated to other entities and will be returned to the city. The last part is for $5,080 please appropriate from the unappropriated balance of the Local Law Enforcement Trust Fund 1215 into supplies account 1215.305. These funds will be used to purchase bullet proof vests for new officers. Any questions we’ll try to answer them if not we’ll be moving to waive the rules.
COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Hersher.
The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 7 yes.
ORDINANCE NO. 68 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES.
ORDINANCE NO. 69 - 2011 BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE
Reducing the appropriations in the Community Partnership Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2011, and declaring an emergency.
COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, this is for a total of $65,793.82 please prepare an ordinance to reduce the appropriation in the Community Partnership Fund 1228 in the following accounts for the fiscal year 2011: $56,000 in the salary Community Partnership, $6,649 in the PERS Community Partnership, $821 in Medicare Community Partnership, $1,043 supplies and materials and $600 in equipment and this is for a this is being reduced because of a grant that is expiring for the law department the law director had.
COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Hersher.
The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 7 yes.
ORDINANCE NO. 69 – 2011 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 7 YES.
RESOLUTION NO. 5 - 2011 BY: RULES, COURTS AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE
Temporarily suspending Council Rule 8.1 for the purpose of adopting a summer schedule for June, July and August of 2011.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Mr. Townsend or Mr. McCune?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I’ll go with it. Resolution No. 5 is just merely I know its stated that it’s a summer schedule but its just merely combining our work sessions and council meetings. The work sessions will start at 6:00 as they do already, council meetings will begin at 7:30 as they do already. We talked about it last week this is a repeat from last year if there’s any questions we can discuss them but if there aren’t I would like to move Resolution No. 5 forward for a vote.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Mr. Anderson?
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – Yes, I don’t know I thought about this since last week and I’ve yet to figure out what good this does for the decision making process and keep everything straight like I said last week. I kind of felt that this promotes a Chinese fire drill more than it does anything else. If somebody can explain to me what the benefit the real benefit this is to either city council or the people of the City of Massillon that we go to this type of schedule I’d like to hear it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are you asking anyone in particular?
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – Generally if anybody would like to bring anything forward that would put a positive spin on this opposed to what I feel it really is.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Any other comments? Mr. Manson?
COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, I don’t think there’s anything positive or negative if you like it Mr. Anderson vote for it if you don’t vote against it. Simple as that we’ve discussed it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Any other comments? Mr. Townsend?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I guess the way I see it Councilman Anderson is that we have two work sessions in a month with the revision that we’re having here on the summer schedule we still have two work sessions in a month. There’s really no difference we’re going to meet either the second or the first or fourth Monday for work session or the first or the third Monday for council meeting. But now we’re just going to meet for the work sessions on the first and third Mondays. So it’s not we’re not you know eliminating any hours or any times spent. You know work is still going to be done work sessions are still being held along with the council meetings. So that’s it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Mr. Peters, is your hand up?
COUNCILMAN PETERS – Yeah, I’ll direct this at Councilman Anderson. You know as another councilman tried to explain to me a couple years ago and I argued with him in depth about it. You know if anyone within reasonable thinking thinks that our job is only done on four Mondays a month they’re nuts. Okay, our job is not going to stop by being off those two Mondays and moving them to two other Mondays. I mean I know for one my phone never stops ringing I never stop doing what I’m supposed to be doing to help the city and do my job. It’s not based on the number of meetings and what we’re trying to do because the ordinances seems and the things that we do seem to go down in the summer we find ourselves and we’ve this in the past over the six years that I’ve been on council. In the summer months we drive down here on a Monday night for a work session and we have two transfers in the finance department for finance and we get in our cars and we drive home. Gas is almost $4.00 a gallon you know it costs electricity in the City Hall for us to be here you know all we’re trying to do is just is alleviate those two nights to make it a little easier on everyone else. Also its summer vacation time different councilmen would like to take vacations and maybe miss that you know they can schedule a vacation on those Mondays that we’re off. I frankly don’t care I have never missed a council meeting in the 5 ½ years that I’ve been on council. If you don’t want to vote for it I will be here I don’t have a problem with being here this is to make things go a little easier during the summer. You know and to ease up things its not going to like Mr. Manson said its not a disadvantage to the city and its not an advantage for the city other than the fact that you know we will save a little bit of energy you know with the lights and so forth. But that’s just that’s kind of far fetched. But what I’m saying is its just a mere thing for convenience so I frankly don’t care one way or the other you know if you don’t want to come to those and you don’t want to come to that conclusion I’ll be here on the four Mondays like I always am. I don’t care. So I’m just trying to shed some light on why we’re doing it because of the light schedules and its often a waste of time. I’ve heard arguments from other places where council should take every opportunity to meet whenever they can to discuss the budget and the finances and all that stuff that’s not going to stop either. If something needs to be done or something needs to be signed I’m certain that every person in this room and every councilman in this room would be here on a Monday night to discuss something if something urgent came up. I have no doubt in my mind. So nobody is being slighted here including the citizens of Massillon we are doing our job all we are doing is moving a meeting date to another day. That’s the only thing we are doing we’re not taking any time off we’re still putting in the time. I’ve stressed this the last two years and the first year I was against this so you know and it took another councilman to try to explain this to me the rationing of it all so I was right where you were. I didn’t agree with it I thought it I thought the citizens elected us to do a job and that councilman said to me you’re very naïve if you think you’re not doing your job by being here on two Mondays. I didn’t have any kind words for that but I’m telling you that he’s right. Okay and I mean I couldn’t agree with him more you know after thinking about it and knowing what we do all year long. We’re still not chances are if we’re not here in a meeting we’re going to be doing something else that involves the city or council. That’s all I have to say. Sorry I drug that out so long.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Mr. Slagle?
COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – I totally agree with Mr. Peters in everything he said the only suggestion I make is that we really should be doing this much earlier for each year because I think we all do like to take some time in the summer and when we do it this late most of us who taking time in the summer probably have already scheduled that week knowing that we’d have to sacrifice one of the meetings. It’s turns out maybe now it might be two meetings. So I think we ought to do this probably in August for next year so its all said and done. So…
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Mr. Anderson?
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – Just a comment I’m not going to do a five minute deal here. Last year was the first year that I was involved in this type of summer schedule. To be quite honest about it maybe they weren’t run correctly but I felt that every time I got up from one of those sessions that it was like I said before a Chinese fire drill. People did not know what they were doing every thing was very confused kind of thrown together at the last minute and to the last meeting that we had I was approached by either three or four people that said we ain’t never going to do this again. Good Lord what a mess that’s the only point that I want to make that I felt that it was very confusing, very difficult to keep track of everything. I didn’t know what we were supposed to do I thought it was supposed to be a little bit more together everybody have all the stuff together. That’s all I have to say about it.
The rules were not suspended by a roll call vote of 6 yes, 1 no. Anderson voted no.
RESOLUTION NO. 5 – 2011 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
LETTER FROM OHIO DIVISION OF LIQUOR CONTROL REGARDING A TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE FROM INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES INC DBA DISCOUNT OUTLET 1070 FIRST ST NE MASSILLON OHIO 44646 TO AMHERST T N A LTD DBA AMHERST T N A 921 AMHERST RD NE MASSILLON OHIO 44646
9. BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS
10. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
A). POLICE CHIEF SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL 2011 B COPY FILE
B). TREASURER SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL 2011 B COPY FILE
C). FIRE CHIEF SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL 2011 – COPY FILE
D). INCOME TAX DEPT SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL 2011 – COPY FILE
E). WASTE DEPT SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL 2011 – COPY FILE
F). MAYOR SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL 2011.
G). LAW DIRECTOR’S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010
H). HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We have numerous reports from city officials all of which we will put on file. We started sending those out by email is there anyone who is not getting these reports? Alright, we’ll assume everyone is getting them.
11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Works sessions will be held on Tuesday, May 31st at 6:00pm. Is there any councilmen who has a report, request or anything of interest? Mr. Anderson?
12. RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there any councilmen who has a report, request or anything of interest? Mr. Anderson?
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – I have an ordinance that I would like to present please.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Can you describe your ordinance please? Are you referring to a committee what are you planning to do with it?
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – Refer it to a committee please?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Okay, and what committee?
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – Probably finance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – You decide.
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON – Finance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We will refer it this ordinance to the finance committee. So Madame Clerk, please make sure we get copies and indicate where that come from and where its going. Is there anything else?
13. CALL OF THE CALENDAR – RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES FROM MAY 2, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 56 B 2011 BY: RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE
Amending Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT of Ordinance No. 127 – 1997 by repealing Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WASTEWATER TREATMENT DEPARTMENT and the SOLIDE WASTE DEPARMENT, and enacting a new Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES - INOCME TAX, WASTEWATER TREAMENT DEPARTMENT and the SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT, in the City of Massillon, Ohio, and declaring an emergency.
ORDINANCE NO. 56 – 2011 WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.
ORDINANCE NO. 57 B 2011 BY: RULES, COURTS & CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE
Amending Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE of Ordinance No. 127 – 1997 by repealing Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE, and enacting a new Section 2(D) OCCUPATION LIST OF CLASS TITLES – MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE, in the City of Massillon, Ohio, and declaring an emergency.
ORDINANCE NO. 57 – 2011 WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Alright under item 13 we have two items here for Call of the Calendar neither of which should be here. There are several reasons for that. First of all, Call of the Calendar is for items for instance that there were tabled or postponed to a specific date those would come back up. Any report from a committee that was supposed to come back at a certain time would show up here. Reconsideration of a vote is something that is permissible at the next regular meeting. If the motion is made by someone who voted in the majority. Item # Ordinance No. 56 there were 4 members who voted no Anderson, Catazaro-Perry, Peters and Townsend none of those 4 made by law bring forth a motion to reconsider. Someone who voted for it can do that but not someone who voted against it. The second item is Ordinance No. 57 which passed unanimously so therefore everybody was on the prevailing side. Anybody who wants to can go ahead and make a motion. But again these are not items that should be on the agenda these are items that should come up as a motion during the meeting. So at this point I will open up the floor for questions. Mr. Peters?
COUNCILMAN PETERS – I know its unusual but I’m totally confused. Okay, but when I voted no am I correct that it was they were reversed?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I have no idea we had a presentation by the chairman of the committee Mrs. Catazaro-Perry.
COUNCILMAN PETERS – Right and they were done…
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I heard tonight that she got them mixed up and was speaking about one ordinance when she was referring to another.
COUNCILMAN PETERS – Well, I know but that’s how votes are made. I mean they’re made on while they’re explained and you when you vote yes or no on something is how it was explained I mean that….
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I can’t disagree but the fact is Ordinance No. 56 passed 5 to 4. The 4 people who voted no can not make a motion to reconsider whatever your understanding of the ordinance itself there’s no remedy there by the people who voted against it.
COUNCILMAN PETERS – I’ll just keep my mouth shut because I can’t say nothing anyways.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Townsend, are you familiar with whatever the mix up was by Mrs. Catazaro-Perry?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – To my understanding when Ordinance No. 56 was read she made reference to Ordinance No. 57. To my understanding 56 is supposed to be hiring Linda McGill, Linda but instead she mentioned that it was changing codes or sections with Linda’s I guess making Colleen department head. Then when she went to Ordinance No. 57 she brought she mentioned let me go back. 56 she mentioned the sections 20S said this ordinance is to replace Linda McGill who was at a 20S with Colleen who is now the department head with an 18S she has been in place and this is just to make it official. Now she made that reference with 57…
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Was there anyone in council raise their hand and suggested perhaps she was referring to the wrong ordinance did anyone correct her?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – No one.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Did no one know did no one understand what she was saying?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – No.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Again the language of the ordinance is what it is whatever the explanation is that could be right, wrong or indifferent. Apparently it was wrong and indifferent. Let me ask you this what is the result of passing these the way you thought that they were presented?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Well, my vote no was for bringing back Linda McGill. I just don’t believe in double dipping that’s just…
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Here again my suggestion has been that we discuss the class title and the specific job not individuals. Because every time you make these changes you’re changing the class the title the class and it should have no reference at all to the individuals. You know whether its Linda McGill or anybody else she might leave in a month. So I’ve always advocated and I suggested this to Mrs. Catazaro-Perry that you keep the names out of it and keep the personalities out. Because you are working with the job classification itself. So in your case you would be voting against an individual.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – No, well yes if whoever it may be.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – The ordinance doesn’t mention an individual at all.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Okay.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – And should not. Do you agree with that?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I agree.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Because we’re not handling, hiring or influencing one person we’re dealing with the classification.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – But its good to know.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – But again I’m willing to refer this to the law director but as far as anything tonight. Mr. Cyperski, it seems like every time you’re here we have one of these fun things for you. Do you understand the jest of what’s going on? (I think I do) Do you agree first of all that reconsideration motion can not be made by someone in the minority?
BOB CYPERSKI – Yes, I would agree that is correct that it has to be someone who is not in the minority.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – So again, Mr. Slagle?
COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – How did these even get on the agenda?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Well, they are printed I asked our Clerk that and we discussed the fact that it should not have been on there. She took direction from well we’ll let her answer why are these are on there?
COUNCIL CLERK BAILEY – Kathy and Tony had directed that they were going to reconsider them at the committee meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – So neither one of them had the authority to reconsider or to just place this on the agenda with a phone call. They were within their rights to discuss it at the meeting but not to ask the Clerk to put it on. Do you understand?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Well, let me say I was told that there was an error that the first one should have been the second one; second one should have been the first one. So she just wanted to put them back on to correct that and so I went along with her. Sure if you want to correct it, correct it but my position also is that they’re both of them passed. So I think its pretty much a done deal. Either way it still going to possibly be the same vote they’re both going to pass. So why bother with it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I would say that as you say even if they were flip flopped Ordinance No. 57 which received a unanimous vote everyone thought they were voting on 56. So 56 would have passed anyway 57 3 of the 4 people who voted for no are here tonight and if they voted no and the others voted yes as you say it would still be in effect. So my suggestion would be that we take a lesson from this that we understand what the ordinances are so that the presenter if they are in effect discussing the wrong ordinance someone on council should be able to pick that up. Mr. Peters?
COUNCILMAN PETERS – I’m going to the auditor and I do you want to come up Jayne. Because this at the direction of…
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Alright, Mr. Peters for the record is calling up the Auditor Jayne Ferrero.
COUNCILMAN PETERS – This was brought this was supposed to be brought back up Mrs. Ferrero can correct me at the direction of Perry Stergios. Because he felt that to make this clear I’ll let Jayne talk.
AUDITOR FERRERO – The reason it was questioned was because of the way the vote went whether or not we could bring Linda back or she had to wait 30 days. The way they voted when they voted for Colleen and it was the 4 to 4 vote then she was in that supervisory position which was on the grid that was passed out to everybody. So she had to wait 30 days to get her permanent increase. When I spoke to the law director about it he explained to me that it doesn’t matter what kind of discussion takes place on the floor the vote is the legal its legal and binding. So and he said it didn’t matter to him way or the other whether they brought it back up for reconsideration or not I just wanted them to know that they when they presented it and they gave names that they were incorrect.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Was any of this in writing or reduced to memo form any thing like that?
AUDITOR FERRERO – Well, the only thing that is in writing is what the minutes are of the meeting. You mean between Perry and I?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Well, yeah in terms of getting this back on the agenda.
AUDITOR FERRERO – No, it would have to be up for reconsideration by someone who voted yes or someone who was absent that day of the meeting that’s what I was told.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Well, what you’re indicating though it makes a difference in terms of when the ordinance becomes effective.
AUDITOR FERRERO – Well, already its already been two weeks so its futile. The person who took the part time job the consultant job is already back to work.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – So bottom line is that neither of these should have been on the agenda under Call of the Calendar. If anyone on the prevailing side would like to make a motion to reconsider we’ll entertain that at this time. Ordinance No. 56, 57. Alright we’ve dispensed with those.
14. THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
16. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
17. REMARKS OF DELEGATIONS AND CITIZENS TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
LYNN REGALLIS – 1397 Tylers Mill Lane. I would like to address all the honorable members of the City Council and the Mayor the honorable Mayor. My following remarks as well as some petitions of signatures from Abbey Glen are signatures of protest being in response to our recent knowledge of the Paquelet, Arnold; Lynch Funeral Home has plans to build a crematorium attached to that property on Wales Rd right across from our Abbey Glen Condominium properties in the very near future. These are some of the points that I would like to make. Some selected members of the boards of Pebbles Chase and Abbey Glen allotments have recently met with Mr. Paquelet and members of his building committee and apparently gave their nod of approval to his project after hearing explanations, emission, size and so forth. However at least in Abbey Glen none of this information was shared. Nor were the residents given an option to give an opinion once they had that information. These petitions represent at least the majority of our residents that we were able to get in this very short time. It may be a funeral homes legal right to build a crematorium but the more prudent funeral homes in this county has built their facilities away from close by residential properties. Mr. Paquelet has no way of guaranteeing to anyone that the property values of either allotment will not be affected negatively no matter how lovely he paint the picture. We’ve now been told to expect emission smells no stronger than gas grills or lawnmowers emissions. But where and who have really tested this in our type of setting. Has Mr. Paquelet spent a day at a crematorium facility on a very busy day for a full day with heavy cloud cover, humidity and varying winds? Ohio has lots of those witnessed these few weeks. I can also not be moved by the additional marketing feature of creating space for grieving families to view the cremation process which he is currently planning to market. I would like to see those statistics if that is one of the reasons being used to have this crematorium so accessible. In conclusion at the very least I think this project should be slowed down until all condo members have had a chance to be fully informed by the respective boards not by Mr. Paquelet and his marketing whatever it would be that he would plan to schmooze us with us and had a chance to voice their opinions. This is not a simple matter such as changing the style of a roof or repairing some of the roofing which is what the board often makes decisions about. Thank you for your attention.
GLENN DUMOULIN – I represent the Paquelet Funeral Home I’m a Massillon resident 810 Sandy Avenue NE. I do have two letters from both condo associations that were eluded to earlier giving their approval. We gave an open invitation to the condo associations 5 people did come to those meetings and I do have all the studies and information for that which I will be glad to share with all the condo members at any time they would like. Our goal in doing this since 43% of Massillon is now choosing cremation is to provide cremation with confidence. That is when a person or a family contacts us for the cremation process that person never leaves our care as they do right now. Right now we are taking them to an industrial park over in Canton and although I have great confidence in the person that runs that place they do leave our care for 24 hour to 48 hour period of time. This will never happen with a crematorium in our place. In addressing the matter of what the condo association people will see they will see the same thing they are seeing right now. The crematorium will be inside the building the fascia of the back of the building will be extended out toward the light post that is out there again I can’t go on to explain the emission testing of that I’m not an expert on that but we do have somebody who would do that if the condo association people any or all of them would like to meet its an open invitation. Thank you.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Dumoulin, may I ask a quick question? How is the city involved in zoning or permitting procedures?
GLENN DUMOULIN – I called the contractor today Schumacher Construction Company and they said the building permit has been issued and they’re picking it up. That’s all I just called them to make sure that was done.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – But the zoning there’s no issue with zoning?
GLENN DUMOULIN – As far as I we understand there’s no issue with zoning when it was zoned for the funeral home it was zoned for a crematorium.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – And apparently whatever the application process was for the building permit those conditions have been met? (Correct) Thank you.
MARY LONGHEIER – I’m on that board and we didn’t even have a 24 hour notice that they were having that meeting to explain this to us. Only two people from our board knew about it and went so they did not get the approval of the board.
COUNCILMAN SLAGLE - I move that we adjourn, seconded by all.
MARY BETH BAILEY, CLERK,
GLENN E. GAMBER, PRESIDENT