MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL
HELD, MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2012 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER B I'd like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, August 6, 2012.  We have a number of city officials with us this evening Mayor Catazaro-Perry, Safety Service Director Maier, Chief Building Official Kraft, Auditor Jayne Ferrero, Pat Pentello and Debbie Bonk from the auditor’s office, Law Director Stergios, Engineer Dylewski, Income Tax/Solid Waste Supervisor and Budget Director Koher, Health Department Commissioner Argent, Housing Director Lewis, Street Director Berens, Community Development Director Herncane and Tony Ulrich from the Wastewater Treatment Plant.  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:  Milan Chovan, Nancy Halter, Ed Lewis, Paul Manson, Donnie Peters, Andrea Scassa, Larry Slagle and Tony Townsend.

Thus giving a roll call vote of 8 present.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER We do have an absence Mrs. Cunningham-Hedderly was in a minor auto accident this afternoon.  She’s home resting and recuperating with no serious injuries of any type.  Mr. Peters, we do need a motion to excuse her please.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I’d like to make a motion that we excuse Sarita Cunningham-Hedderly from tonight’s meeting.  Seconded by Councilman Slagle.

Councilwoman Cunningham-Hedderly was excused from tonight’s meeting by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

2. INVOCATION

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER At this point in the absence of Mrs. Cunningham-Hedderly I’ll call on Mrs. Halter for the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER  B Gave the invocation for tonight.  

3.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – Chairperson of the Health, Welfare and Building Regulations Committee led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance.  

4.  READING OF THE JOURNAL

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER - Madame Clerk, are the minutes of the previous meeting transcribed and open for public viewing?  (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

ERIC WOHLWEND – I’m from Clear Sky Realty.  I live at 5844 Dueber Avenue, East Sparta, Ohio.  I am a national professional housing provider as well as a real estate agent and also a certified property manager candidate.  In fact I’m the only candidate in the Stark County area.  I manage hundreds of different residential properties all over, Stark, Summit and Mahoning Counties and a good number of them are here in your city.  Right now in Stark County, Massillon is by far the best city and I want to see you do things that will help it stay as good as it is or get better.  Currently the registration process you have outlined in the county at the auditor level of the county is much better than it started.  They’re really starting to track and you can find out a good portion of the information that you want us to register with your city there.  All that’s done at no cost to your city.  It has all the contact information that you need to find the owner or the local manager it also when it comes to listing tenants its my opinion that it will be much more difficult to track all the tenants moving in and out.  Just my company we had more than 20 people move in last month and about the same amount move out.  So if you’re trying to track where tenants live that’s going to be very difficult.  According to the way you have the registration written you want to know everybody over 16 years old.  I have some of the best records in the county and I don’t even track anybody that’s under the age of 18.  If you’re 18 and move into one of my properties I have your name, social, everything you could ever want.  But it’s too much of a hassle to not discriminate against familial status if I start tracking children.  All I need to know is how many people live there, what are their names, I have no idea what their ages are if they’re under 18.  So simply following the law would be very cumbersome and for you as a city to track it would be almost impossible.  Not to mention how fast people are moving.  Right now I see I believe what you see one of the biggest problems in all of Stark County is the massive amount of vacant houses.  I’m not against in any way the vacant property registration.  I think if anything that could help the only down fall is if you start going on and tacking on all the stuff most of the banks own the homes that are causing the problems.  It’s just going to pile up with the fees and stuff that will be paid out of closing.  We just bought a property a couple blocks from here last week where there was over $1,500 in pass due sewer bills.  If there’s some way that we could use that to help get these properties in the hands or get them on the market so banks can’t let them sit as long that might be something to consider there.  But as it’s written I believe that might be a very good thing.  The registration of owner or non-owner occupied homes however I see as being very cumbersome and providing very little benefit to you that you can’t already get from the auditor.  So I just wanted to say that I am against the one ordinance and for the other and hopefully you can split them and vote on them in a way that’s best for the city.  Thank you.

PAUL DOERING – I live at 318 4th Street NE.  I’m a registered professional engineer in the State of Ohio and a member of the Stark County Real Estate Investor’s Association.  I would like to speak against the enactment of 2012 Ordinance 48 & 49.  I read in the local paper that Councilperson Halter wants these ordinances passed and will stay at it until they are.  I thought council members are supposed to do what their constituents wants.  I’m a constituent of Mrs. Halter and I do not want these ordinances passed.  I’m a life long resident of ward 2 and I am fairly close to many others in the ward.  I do not hear anyone complaining about the need for ordinances for vacant houses and who owns rental property.  I do hear a lot of complaining about enforcing existing laws about the conditions of houses and rental properties.  I did hear a rental tenant talk to this very council about not implementing this ordinances because of the effect it would have on raising her rent.  These ordinances are written vaguely and require owners of vacant houses and rentals to register with the city and pay fees for doing so.  Stark County already requires registration of non-owner occupied houses.  The city claims it needs to know who owns these properties.  In a meeting I attended with the chief building official along with others from Stark County Real Estate Investors Association the chief building official admitted that there were only 2 to 3% of land owners they could not find through county records.  The city should not make the majority of owners of vacant and rental properties pay fees just because a few can not be found.  It is unlikely that the owners which now can not be found will register and pay the new fees.  Ordinance 48 requires boarding up of houses after 30 days being vacant.  This does not give land owners enough time to repair damage from tenants and would make the city look very bad with a lot of boarded up houses.  Mr. Kraft has said in work sessions that he would not enforce this.  Indeed there was a lot of arguing in the work sessions and it seemed no one could agree on anything.  Registration after 30 days and boarding up is still written in the legislation and it should be not implemented if there’s no intention to enforce it.  Legislation should match what is needed and what will be enforced.  Ordinance 49 says it will cost $30.00 per structure but then specifies penalties per unit.  What does this mean?  Also there are forms for inspections but Mr. Kraft said inspections will only be complaint driven.  Why are there inspection forms in the legislation?  Again, legislation should match what is wanted and what will be done.  There are vacant buildings all over the city which are in extremely bad condition.  I just passed one 1st Street NE today.  It’s been like that for years.  The owners of many of these properties are known but they are left alone for years.  Instead of passing new legislation the city should enforce equally and fairly the legislation it already has.  Thank you.

CINDY BRATTON – I am standing up. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – You can adjust your microphone downward just a little if you’d like.

CINDY BRATTON – I’m at 927 3rd Street NE in Massillon.  I have an issue with 87, Ordinance 87 – 2012.  My question is why the citizens are being asked to pay additional income taxes to continue covering up the corruption in the city?

6.  INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 78 - 2012                      BY:   ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 

Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to advertise for and receive sealed bids and enter into contract, upon award and approval of the Board of Control, with the lowest and best bidder for the Influent Raw Screw Painting Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, in the City of Massillon, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Yes, this ordinance is just a standard maintenance of the facilities down at the Treatment Plant.  It’s coming out of its own funds a capital improvement fund that it has down there.  So it’s not going to be coming out right out of the general fund.  With that said I would like to make a motion that we suspend the rules requiring three readings and bring it forward for passage this evening.

COUNCILMAN LEWIS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Manson.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 78 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 79 - 2012                      BY:   STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY

Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to advertise for and receive sealed bids and enter into a contract, upon award and approval of the Board of Control, with the lowest and best bidder for the 2012 Target Neighborhood Street Program Improvements in the City of Massillon, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – This ordinance is the city’s 2012 Community Development Block Grant Target Neighborhood Resurfacing Program.  The following streets have been selected:  14th Street SE, from Walnut Rd to Pearl, 6th Street NE, from Lincoln Way East to North Avenue NE, Stadium Road, from Oak Avenue SE to 19th Street SE.  If I don’t any questions this evening I would like to make a motion to waive the rules requiring three readings and move Ordinance 79 forward for passage.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 79 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 80 - 2012                      BY:   STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY

Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to sign the Resolution authorizing the contract with the Ohio Department of Transportation for the SR 172 Paving Project, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – As the clerk stated this ordinance is authorizing the safety service director in the city to sign a resolution with Ohio Department of Transportation for the improvement of 1.09 miles of SR 172.  They’re looking to resurface, upgrade, curb ramps, curb inlets, catch basins and manholes.  The city’s share of the project is $199,256 which will all be covered by grants from the Ohio Public Works.  We discussed this at the last work session if there are no questions I would like to move this forward for its passage.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 80 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 81 - 2012                      BY:   STREETS, HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY

Authorizing the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to sign the Contract with the Ohio Department of Transportation for the SR 172 Paving Project, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Ordinance No. 81 is identical to 80 however, 81 is the contract it is not the resolution.  The passage of this would just simply allow the city to sign a contract with the Department of Transportation.  Same wording from resolution to contract, same cost, everything.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 81 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 82 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund, 2105 Stormwater Utility Fund, Safety Fund, Insurance Fund and the Summer Concert Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2012, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – We discussed these at last Monday’s work session.  I’m going to go through them briefly I’m not going to read the account numbers.  I’m just going to give the amount and where they’re going to there’s six sections:  1st section, $26,858 to an account entitled unemployment compensation, $32,355 to an account entitled unemployment compensation.  Section 2, $20,000 to an account entitled storm water repairs.  Section 3, $19,000 to an account entitled utilities and safety.  Section 4, $7,765 to an account entitled salary safety, $9,134 to an account entitled PERS safety.  Section 5, $11,913 to an account entitled employees insurance.  Section 6, $10,000 to an account entitled services and contracts.  If there aren’t any questions I’m going to make a motion to waive if there are we’ll get the questions answered. 

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Manson.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 82 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 83 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Reducing the appropriations in the 1219 WIC Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2012, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – This appropriation to reduce the like the clerk said 1219 WIC fund for the year ending December 31, in the amount of $9,855.58 from account entitled salary WIC.  Again, if there aren’t any questions I’m going to ask for to waive the rules.

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Slagle.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 83 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 84 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Making certain transfers in the 2012 appropriations from within the General Fund and the Wastewater Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2012, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Okay, these appropriations are as follows I’ll try and go through them as quickly as possible.  The first one from will total $198,305 those accounts are:  Accumulated Sick Leave, Transfer Debt Retirement, Engineer’s Salary, Real Property Tax, Income Tax Department Staff’s Salary, Tax Administrator Salary, Advanced Out, Budget Director’s Salary, Mayor’s PERS, Income Tax PERS, Income Tax Medicare, Planning Steno Salary, Engineer Medicare and Building Department Medicare.  Again, totally $198,305.  We’re going to transfer those to:  Fire Salary, Director Salary, Auditor PERS, Deputy Auditor Salary, Law Director PERS, Health PERS, Law Director Salary, Council PERS, Law Director Medicare, City Hall and Public Building PERS, Auditor Medicare and Council Clerk Salary.  Adding up to $198,305.  The next section, section 2 from Operating and Maintenance Salary, Operating Maintenance PERS and Operating Maintenance Medicare to Wastewater Salary, Wastewater PERS and Wastewater Medicare.  Are there any questions?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any questions?  Mr. Chovan?

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Not really a question but just to clarify for people who are sitting here.  What we’re doing is just to make sure I understand this we are scrubbing money from certain accounts to pay salary accounts.

AUDITOR FERRERO – That’s right through the year end. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Right for the year end.  Thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Peters, your motion.

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Manson.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 84 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 85 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Authorizing the Mayor of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to submit an application for Ohio Public Works Commission Fund for the 2013 funding year, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – This is the funding part of the ordinance that Mr. Townsend brought forward earlier.  If there’s any questions we’ll get them answered.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any questions?  Mr. Chovan?

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – These are different…

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Address him don’t address me I’m not running the meeting. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Are these different street projects that we’re talking about as before?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – What’s that? 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Do you have an answer?  Would you like to call someone forward?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Yeah, we’ll call the engineer forward.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I’d like to call the engineer forward please.  Mr. Dylewski?

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Keith, my question you just made the statement that this was for what Tony had just talked about and its not.  I just want to clarify you talked about improvements for 14th Street and so on.  Right, this is for other projects to occur next year so these are two different things, right?

ENGINEER DYLEWSKI – That correct.  The ones that Mr. Townsend talked about were the Target Street Program on Lincoln Way Project these are for funding applications for next year. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – For different project.  Thank you that’s all I wanted.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – is that clear to everyone?  Are there any other questions?  Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Slagle.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 85 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Authorizing the Director of Law of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to renew the one year contract with the City of Canal Fulton, for the purpose of providing prosecutorial services, and declaring an emergency.

 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – We discussed this at Monday’s work session.  We did make a change to it on being that these funds will go into the general fund was the only change we made.  This is something that we do every year at least since I’ve been on council.  It runs from February 1st, 2012 through January 31st, 2013.  So we’ve already been doing this we’re just now authorizing the law director to enter into a contract with them. 

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Manson.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

ORDINANCE NO. 86 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

ORDINANCE NO. 87 - 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.

 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – This ordinance it really doesn’t need an introduction we’ve discussed it, we’ve voted on it, we’ve talked about this thing all year.  The only change you see on this one is that it’s a 65% credit.  It will effective commencing October 1st, 2012.  I will open up for discussion but my intention is to waive the rule and put it forward for a vote tonight. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We do have any discussion on the ordinance?  Mrs. Scassa?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – I would like to bring the mayor up, please. 

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY – We have a report from the auditor today that we need to share with you tonight that has everything to do with this tax credit.  Mrs. Ferrero, do you have that?  The auditor will pass that out for you.  It’s pertinent that you understand before you cast your vote this evening what this vote actually means to our city.  Now, all of you live here and love our city as I do and its time that we take action and help this city and not hurt it any further.  Yes, we were left a mess a $6.5 million dollar mess and we’re trying to fill that hole as quickly as we can.  I want to go over some of the things that we’ve done so that you realize the changes that we made because we’ve been told by some council members and you know who you are that you more cuts.  So the first thing that we did was no overtime for department heads, we saved $100,000.  We suspended the education stipend for exempt employees, save $72,000.  We asked the exempt employees and had a vote by you council members and we thank you for that we instituted the 15% being in July $104,000 savings.  We lowered the salaries for department heads that came on board $35,000.  We’ve had our exempt employees take furlough days $16,000.  We modified the work week for some city employees $11,000.  We laid off police and fire $268,000 and $325,000.  Laid off solid waste $47,000, laid off street department $150,000.  I know we’ve sold some scraps that we have in the city to a tune of about $10,000.  So that is what your city administration has done so far this year for a total of about $1.1 million dollars we’ve save so far.  That was very hard to do as I said before my father was a Canton policeman and was a very proud member of the F.O.P.  That was the hardest thing for me to do was to lay off police and fire let alone the street department and solid waste.  Very difficult.  Now the report you have here and Auditor Ferrero you can jump in any time with me.  In fact, why don’t you explain the report and then I can finish with my comments. 

AUDITOR FERRERO – The report that you have before you is the one that begins August 1st.  Every month we have this report and I’ve given it to you last month I gave it to you.  As you see it continues to get grimmer and grimmer and that’s because we have not had any additional revenue to make up any of these shortfalls that we have.  As you can see all of these things are all of what we have obligations to the end of the year.  It also includes first and second quarter of police and fire pension.  Right now we have all of 2011 bills paid with the exception of the fourth quarter Ohio Police and Fire Pension.  That is the only thing from 2011 that is not paid.  So every other bill from 2011 has been paid.  I’ve been asked that before I think by Councilman Manson.  So those are things that we have to pay because if we don’t they’ll take money directly from our property taxes.  Debt service we have that all put back and ready to pay all of our debt.  So you can see that all of these things add up and by the end of the year if we don’t have additional revenue we’ll be $2.899,000 in the hole.  Now the only thing that we can do to make this better is to bring in additional revenue.  I’ve been telling you that for a couple of years, not the same people but you know it’s the same story that I’ve been preaching up here.  So if you have any questions for me please feel free to ask I have Pat Pentello my chief deputy is here with me tonight.  She can go into detail on any of these line items that you want.  She brought all the reports with her and so I want you to feel very comfortable asking any questions and we’ll be more than happy to explain them to you. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – What happens if there is no other revenue and we end up the year this way.  Talk about the state of the city at that point. 

AUDITOR FERRERO – Well, then of course you’re looking for something fiscally to happen.  You know you’re looking for a fiscal emergency.  You’re looking for a bankruptcy, you’re looking for something like that to go on.  There’s certain criteria that has to be met last year we only had a $418 carryover in cash.  I mean that was very sad but then we had millions of dollars in debt too that we didn’t pay.  This year there’s no way I can show us in the black for cash this year.  The way that we’re paying everything out. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Thank you.  I mean I was thinking more like in the terms in terms of if when you talk about fiscal emergency are you talking about the state stepping in the state auditor’s office?

AUDITOR FERRERO – Well, I’m talking like something serious is going to happen.

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Well if that would happen what happens?  If the state auditor comes in if there is no other revenue what changes will they ask the city to make?

AUDITOR FERRERO – I don’t know.

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Do we know that?

AUDITOR FERRERO – I mean I don’t know what they’re going to tell us to do.  I can’t foresee that I’m hoping that everyone that sits around here would not want that to happen.  That we would not want our city to go into that kind of a situation.  I mean lets look at our neighbors lets look at our neighboring city for just a second last week Canton passed a tax credit because their council knew that they were in dire straights.  That’s the only way that they could get out was with a tax credit.  You can put, you can put an ending date on it.  You can put it for two years, two and half years, whatever you would see fit.  Maybe by then we would have time to get a committee a together and so that we could go out and raise the income tax from 2.8 or 1.8 to something more.  But right now we have to get all our ducks in a row and the only thing that we can do is if we pass a tax credit then we can always get an advance because they know that money is coming to us.  The county will advance that money over to us.  That would help us this year the fact that its starting on October isn’t the greatest help in the world for us but as least it’s a beginning.  I would just ask all of you to think long and hard before you cast a no vote.  I know it’s not popular I know that I know it’s very hard for me to stand up here and ask you to do it.  But I’m telling you we are in a financial position and we have been for a while.  This just did not happen this year.  Please don’t think it’s because of all of you it is not this has been ongoing it’s been coming for the past few years.  People that have been on council for longer than just this term know that that’s the truth.  I’ve been standing here before you for many years telling you that we that it was coming to this. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any other questions.  I’m sorry Mr. Chovan were you finished? 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Yes, thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, I have a question and a statement.  Last year you told us that we were short $2.6 or $2.7 million.  Now you’re saying this is through the end of the year.  So you’re talking roughly $100,000 to $300,000 more than last year.  Okay, how much is this city income tax credit going to bring in?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – If I may, based on the last completed tax filing year which is 2010 and allowing for about a 10% increase in income tax for 2011 and 2012 this will bring in roughly $980,000.  Of which 1 out every $6.00 of that new money could be directed towards parks.  Since they have one sixth of the total income tax allocated to parks and rec. 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – So how much are you saying it would bring in?  Just to the city not to the parks?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Okay, roughly about $751,000 which would be about $187,000 per quarter. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER –  Mr. Lewis? 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Question for Mr. Koher, you stated that $980,000 I’m assuming that’s annually?  (Correct)  And that is if there’s a 10% increase in income tax…

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Based on 2011, 2012.

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – My only question is where are we getting this 10% considering we have like what an 8.2 to 9% unemployment rate right now in the country?  How can we possibly project with that high of unemployment we’re going to see a 10% increase in income tax?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Well, with last year and what we’ve seen this year, this year’s a little bit over 4%.  It’s 10% for the combined 2 years.

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – For the 2 years together not individually.  Okay, thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER –  Ms. Scassa?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA –  Mr. Koher, my understanding when this was brought up in the spring was by reducing the credit that this is a way to bring in money now as opposed to putting something on the ballot.  I believe in the spring that’s where some contention came about how are we getting this money in now?  If we pass this it goes into effect October 1st but then if a taxpayer chooses can they wait until you know April 15th of 2013 to pay?  I mean how is this going to…
 
BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Estimated filings will increase also withheld income from payroll that could increase too.  People would have to elect to that do plus I believe we can borrow against that money in anticipation of it. 

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – Okay, back to that I guess in the spring I don’t know if it was ever determined to us if we could borrow against it or…

AUDITOR FERRERO – We can it’s an anticipation and we can borrow against it.  Once this body would pass that then we can go to the county and ask for that. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER –  Mr. Slagle?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – You said that withheld do all do we know that every person working in the City of Massillon right now is having their income tax withheld right now as it is?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Not for 100% certain, no.

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Is there anyone that still doing the job that Mr. Harwig did when he went out and at least policed and I think it’s like having a highway patrolman sitting on the side of the highway.  He doesn’t arrest everyone but most everyone slows down.  So do we have anyone going out and policing that?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – No, not at this point.  What I can tell you is and this ties in with the legislation that Mrs. Halter has with the non-owner occupants.  There is an ordinance on the books already that requires registration of tenants in income tax code there.  In fact I have something with the law director that will include commercial buildings as well.  Along with that I’m looking at creating a moratorium period to get those records up-to-date so people can self report and not without fear of penalty.  That’s being looked at to beef up the collections there.  To make sure everybody that owes tax or should be paying tax in the city does. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Do we have any idea what that percentage is by chance?  I mean is there any way to know it.  Isn’t there some way we can correlate between the Ohio state returns perhaps of those that live in the City of Massillon and City of Massillon residents that aren’t paying city income tax?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – There’s a reconcilement done with the state records and through our MITS municipal income tax software. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Is that being done now?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Yes.

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – By whom?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – It’s done in the income tax department with MITS through MITS. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – So you know what the status of that in terms of the correlation?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – No, we do not have the complete year for 2011 in file yet.  You know with the reduced staff and the budget there we don’t have the people enough to get everything input.  Last year it took till November this year it’s going to be through November.  So we’re always going to be lagging a tax year behind.  So we’ll be in 2013 when that’s done. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone who would like to speak for the first time?  Mr. Townsend?

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – I don’t know but maybe the mayor can answer this question.  Would any of these dollars bring back some of our safety forces, some of the guys?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- That’s a great question, Mr. Townsend, and the answer is no.  We’re scheduled to be about $2.8 million dollars in the negative by the end of the year.  So just by passing this tax credit it’s going to be able to help us so that we’re not so far negative.  It will help us to get started for the new year.  So the answer is no as much as we want to bring people back we can not with state of the city at this time. 

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND – Could it possibly prevent future layoffs?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- It could prevent future layoffs in fact you know we talked today because you know we have to make sure that the city is functioning properly.  We talked about you know could we lay anyone else off and every single one of us Pat, Mrs. Bonk, Mrs. Ferrero, Ken and George and I the answer is no.  I mean there is no where else to cut.  We’re doing the best that we can with the hand that we’ve been dealt.  But we need to ask for your help at this time and you know the state auditor when we met them in the spring if you recall me talking about that you know they told us some things like turn off lights.  Well, we learned about turning off lights cost $50 each and then you have to have them turned back on within two years.  Then there’s a $50 fee to turn it back on.  Then if you don’t turn it back on it’s a $200 fee to take it out.  Then if you have one light out that we put out ourselves and then another light goes out and there’s an accident the city could be help liable.  So then crime increases.  So street lighting to turn off is really not an option for our city.  You know we’re a pretty safe city, we’re very proud of that.  We’re trying to turn this corner and we need your help to turn it.  This is the third time that I’ve asked you for this tax credit. Now you have the power to sunset it, you can put a sunset on it, you can put a sunset on it and say you’ll take it away when an income tax is passed.  You can do anything you want with this tonight.  But what I ask from you is please don’t vote no.  You know we need to get our people back to work and this is one step in doing that for our future.  I want you to think about your kids and your grandkids and your neighbors you know all of these people here are working very hard for the residents.  I need you to ask you to work just as hard and I want you to think about this, because this is a very important.  If you vote on this tonight this is going to be your most important vote of the year.  Because there is no other way to raise revenue unless you put that street lighting assessment on.  That’s not enough money to get us out of this hole. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone who would like to speak for the first round?  We’ll move on to the second Mr. Slagle, was your hand up?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Yeah, Madame Mayor, it seems to me that or I would hope that you could find some sort of staffing to help the income tax department out because it seems rather critical that we collect the money that we actually have there as soon as we have.  Can’t we reassign someone in there for several days a week to catch up on that?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Well, we’ve had some issues with medical reasons at this time.  So we’ve been dealing with that.  We do have someone from the auditor’s office that goes over and does assist already. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Because it from what Mr. Koher said and from what I understand we’re behind on collecting some of what we’re even owed right now.  We don’t even know what it may be.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- That occurred last year and as Mr. Koher said that it didn’t become completed until the end of November.  They’re working as hard as they can to get those in.  They do have staff from the auditor’s office going over to help.  But we have had some medical issues in the area as well.  It is a priority.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are finished Mr. Slagle?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Yes, thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Chovan?

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – I don’t know who’s best to answer this but and if you answered it and I missed it I apologize.  But what do you have in delinquent income taxes owed to the city now?  Do we have a dollar figure on that?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – There is an active amount and an inactive amount.  Once there’s a statute of limitations on that starts to take when taxes when returns are filed.  I would say actively we have about $350,000 potentially that’s collectable. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Inactive is uncollectable?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Yeah, and some of the records they haven’t been purged along the years they go back into the late ‘90’s.  So…

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – This may go along with what Larry was asking I’m not sure but if you have I mean there’s going to be some there are building projects going on in town now.  There will be others hopefully when we have contractors from outside the area that work in Massillon on those projects are we assured that we’re getting our share of their taxes?  I mean how do we do that?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – We have a process taking place there with the building department when they issue permits there.  They’re also given income tax information and before that final permit issued the companies have to attest that they’ve been in compliance with all the ordinances. 

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – And you feel that’s being done?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Not a 100% and you don’t really know until at the end of a quarter or a fiscal year when forms are filed with the employers and the employees.  So…

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, first of all Mrs. Ferrero, their Canton council did vote to pass it but they voted 7 to 6 to pass it.  Couple of questions, we’ve already recertified at least once this year right?  Up to what $16,400 some thousand I believe?

AUDITOR FERRERO – Pat, has that, do you want to come to the microphone and tell them that?

PAT PENTELLO – Yes, currently we have certified $16,147,964 to date. 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Okay, now, your estimating revenue through the end of the year you’re saying we have another $6,200,000, you’re saying we’ll end up at somewhere around $17,249,000 total for the year.  Is that right?

PAT PENTELLO – That’s our goal, yes.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Okay, the administration has said very clearly here not to long ago that they needed at least $19 million to run this city properly for a year.  I agree with them.  We’re talking about raising $751,000 a year by your calculations.  That’s and I would think those are probably pretty…

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – That’s conservative.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Nah I don’t believe conservative I think they’re your calculations.  But we’re already $2.8 million in the hole we’re going to spend $17,249,000 this year if it comes in.  We do need that $19 million I still believe the route we should be taking is we should be putting the city income tax on the ballot just the way we talked about it in the past.  Because this is a band aid approach many of those people that will be affected by this might be inclined very well may be inclined to vote against the city income tax once they’ve already been hit with this.  I won’t be supporting it because I believe we do need legitimately $2 million or more annually.  I don’t know do you disagree with that?  That $2 million?  Do you think we need more than that?

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – No, I don’t but a 2% raising it to 2% and freezing the tax credit where it’s at will not raise the $2 million. 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, it will I strongly disagree with that.  That’s why I said I don’t agree with your numbers.  I think it’s easy to calculate out and you can that it will bring roughly $2 million dollars in.

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – Alright, well I’m using the city’s income tax programs and it’s designed to estimate those and it comes out to about…

COUNCILMAN MANSON – I’m using right what comes out of the city income tax office.  Same numbers.

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – It comes to about $1,036,000…

COUNCILMAN MANSON – But $751,000 is far short of what our problem is.  It would take four years just for that $751,000 to take care of that $2.8 million maybe nearly $8.9 million. 

BUDGET DIRECTOR KOHER – We’re looking at one third of the tax filers for the City of Massillon.  I don’t expect them to bear the weight of $2 million dollars. 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – So, I think everybody should look at those numbers there.  That $17,249,000 that’s not going to do it for us.  We do need to get it and the only its going to happen is if we all get together and support the city income tax if you really want to get this thing right.  Like I said I will be voting against it.  You made it clear and I’ll give you credit for that you haven’t said that there will be any recalls because of it.  I’m sorry about that but we do have a serious problem but we do need to work on here.  Band aids won’t take care of it.  I have recognized this for a long time this isn’t something that I just recognized since the last election was over with.  I think its time that we take a real serious look at this and get organized as to what we truly do need to get this thing on track.  So none of the numbers you’ve given me here change my mind. 

SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR MAIER – With all due respect to the numbers Mr. Manson and you’re certainly entitled to your opinion these numbers have been researched as well.  You say we need to get serious with all due respect we have been serious.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Mr. Maier, with all due respect those are your numbers, okay, and I have my numbers.  I can back mine up very much so you know…

SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR MAIER – As well as these numbers can be supported.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – And we’ve been looking you know the income tax was up roughly 4, 5% last year.  I know its going to be up roughly 4, so if Mr. Koher says that’s 10% over two years I can accept that.  That’s not a problem, but nah, you’re not selling me on those numbers. 

SAFETY SERVICE DIRECTOR MAIER – Well, not trying to sell you on the numbers…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Maier, I’m sorry no one has asked you a specific question.  Are you done Mr. Manson? 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – For now, yes.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there someone else?  Mr. Lewis?

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Of this $980,000 that you guys…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Who are you asking?

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – I would suppose either Ken or the mayor who ever feels the most adequately capable of answering.  The $980,000 that is projected to possibly if conditions meet up you can borrow against them or pull them forward.  Would you pull all $980,000 out of next year?  Is that the plan?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- We would be working with the auditor with that.  But that seems logical to me is that we would utilize that entire amount.  Because we don’t want to end the year now there’s two areas that we’re looking at we don’t want to end the budget in the negative our budget that you passed and we don’t want to have over the $2.8 million dollars in debt.  So that is the crucial point and that is what’s different from last year you see what city council has done and the administration has done is you’ve allowed us to pay all the bills from last year which was significant.  So we had to pay last year’s bills and this year’s bills which is very, very difficult when you’re already decrease in local government fund and the estate tax now will go away next year.  So it’s critical that this happen and you know you can sit around and talk about the income tax but you know its August 6th.  Mr. Manson, if you were serious about that you would have had it on the agenda in January.  You say you’ve been talking about it for eight years you say…

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Well if you were serious about talking care of our problems you wouldn’t of supported moving those contracts from last year forward into this year.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- You say you’ve been talking about this for eight year’s but you’ve done nothing.

(During this time the mayor and Councilman Manson were talking over each other)

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I’m asking both of you to stop.  You have the floor mayor.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Thank you, Mr. President.  You’ve done nothing you know you can sit around and say I want the income tax but you’ve done nothing.  I’d like to see some action…

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Point of order, Mr. President.  I’m sorry we that was not in reference to my question.  I’m sorry, mayor. 

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Well, that’s okay but I needed to answer the question fully.  You know we need to do something, do something. 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – I understand.  My question the reason I was asking that line of question is because if we pull next year’s workers earnings we’re essentially saying next year we expect that our employable citizens will earn $980,000 next revenue through this possibility.  If we pull it ahead now what’s earned next year we’re not actually doing anything but kicking the can down another year.  Eventually we’re still going to have this issue. 

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Not true.  In next year with the layoffs we’re going to see some reprieve.  You’re going to see a lot of reprieve next year and then we are working diligently with the Hampton Inn they’ve paid us $45,000 back.  We’re working to sell the Duncan Plaza, there are many things that we’re doing that you aren’t aware of because we’re working every day not just on the budget in making ends meet but on other areas.  We’re working to bring new businesses to increase income tax to our city.  You know we are committed to turn this around and we’re asking for your help. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone on this side.  Ms. Scassa?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – I just have I guess a question or a clarification rather than a comment necessarily.  But under section b if you look on the second page the second sentence references 50%.  I guess I just was a little confused since we’re since this one that we’re working with I believe is the 65% credit. 

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- You are correct that should be 65% credit and maybe it came out (c) says 65% credit.  So I am not sure why that 50% is in there.  The law director maybe could answer that question.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Ms. Scassa, could I ask you to clarify what you’re talking about?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – Under section b, under section 2, section b if you look at the second page the second sentence makes reference to 50% and everywhere else it references 65%.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Do you have an answer for that?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- I did answer Mr. President, I said the law director may have to address that because this came out of his office.  So…

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – I expected it just clerical but again…

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- I think its just a typo because (c) does state 65%.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Well, return to that in a moment then.  Was that your question, Ms. Scassa?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – I just wanted to bring that to everybody’s attention just so…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We’ll go back to Mr. Slagle and then I will remind everyone council rules allow two rounds of questioning by everyone.  Generally if you’ve gone through the two rounds and you head into a third that means there are still a lot of questions left.  I will permit a third round.  Mr. Slagle?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Madame Mayor, what is your position on an income tax increase?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- I have supported the tax credit all along.  You know what happens what I’ve talked with you about…

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Wait a minute, wait, wait, wait what’s your position on an income tax increase was the question.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- I’m answering the question…

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – No, you said you supported the tax credit.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- But I’m talking because its important to answer this question the way I’m answering it. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Well, I understand your position on the tax credit and you sound like one of my defense ex or when I cross examine them.  What is your position on an income tax increase in the City of Massillon?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- I’ve talked about that already.  The tax credit gets us cash this year and that’s what we’re worried about is immediate cash this year.  The income tax Mr. Slagle, I did not believe it would pass this November there are too many important issues on the ballot.  Number 1, the schools, the museum’s on, the parks is on.  Those are three important issues so when you give constituents a chose they’re going to chose their schools first for the students for the children.  So with four things on the ballot I did not think it would fair well this year. 

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – So you’re in favor of an income tax just not this year increase, just not this year.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- I didn’t say that.  I said this year I don’t believe it would pass.  What I would like for you to do is get the tax credit for cash this year.  I think that’s what our focus needs to be is this year. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – You had one ahead of me that hasn’t spoken at all yet.  If you…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Well, we’ll get to her on third round here.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Alright, first of all we’re back to we’re talking about $751,000 to the city not a total thing goes to the parks and everybody else.  But maybe your memory our memories aren’t as short as yours, mayor.  I’m sorry you know I you say I haven’t done anything but there are very few revenue things over the years that I haven’t supported including this year.  This maybe the only exception.  Because I made my mind up a long time this wasn’t the way that you wanted to go on it.  It wasn’t good for the city okay, sure it will bring in some fast money maybe some.  Okay, but I don’t believe it’s the proper way to go.  We have been increasing revenue for a long, long time.  You consistently opposed it until this year.  I feel bad about that I really feel bad about that, that all of a sudden you see it more clear.  But I feel you made some bad decisions in the past when you did some of those things that you objected to.  I’m not even going to name them, but that doesn’t mean I accept all of these things now.  I don’t accept all of Mr. Koher’s numbers.  We have a disagreement between Mr. Koher, our police and our fire and our newsman that covers council meetings about exactly what we are saving this year.  So I know you know I wouldn’t ask you to buy all of my numbers I don’t buy all of your numbers.  But I still believe that we need significant revenue and this band aid approach is not the best approach.  I really am tired of hearing about all of these other issues clouding it up we have to think about the City of Massillon and we have to go after what we believe will best serve us.  I’ve heard in the past when the recession was worse a year or two ago that school levies weren’t going to pass and school levies passed a number of them in the area.  So you can’t allow that to cloud your vision.  I do not believe that taking this tax credit away from people is the way to go.  That’s it.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Well, my comment to you is that you know you also told the Independent that the city was fiscally in a good position…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mayor, you were not asked a question please.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- No, but I need to respond you told the Independent you were in a fiscally good position and they didn’t endorse you. 

(At this time Council President Gamber had gaveled the mayor several times)

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mayor, you’re out of order here.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Excuse me, Mr. President.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – You’re out of order this is not your meeting. Your having plenty of time to answer questions and we’re going to let Mrs. Halter ask a question now.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Sure, go ahead Mrs. Halter. 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER –  Actually I think my question is for Mr. Koher, but mayor you did say that this money was good because it would come in right now and help this year.  I would like to know this $751,000 annually how much of that will we get for this year when would it be paid.  Will it be paid this year or will it not be filed until next April?  So how much do you project will come in this year to help us now with this problem?

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Well, Mrs. Halter, but what we’re saying is that even though if something is passed and its $751,000 that is projected to come in we’re allowed to borrow against that. 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I understand that I’m talking…

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- And so, so its hard, its hard to say what the projection will be.  It’s hard to say what that will be that’s going to come in because as Mr. Koher said earlier you don’t know who’s going to pay that.  But you have the option of at least borrowing against it. 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – It’s just too bad nothing was done last year.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Well, we tried to do that last year I brought it forward in November and there were some games being played by council members and our council president. 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – Okay, that’s fine.  Thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I take high offense to that.

MAYOR CATAZARO-PERRY- Yeah, yeah, so I do appreciate your time I know that this is a really hot topic.  It’s very important that we are not you are not going to be considered the council that let the city go into fiscal emergency or watch.

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I think that was last year’s council Madame Mayor. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else who has any questions of anyone up here?  Is there any other discussion?  Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Lewis.

The rules were not suspended by a roll call vote of 6 yes, 2 no.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – It takes seven votes to suspend the rules this receives first reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 87 – 2012 WAS GIVEN FIRST READING.

RESOLUTION NO. 15 - 2012                    BY:   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

Authorizing the Law Director to execute a petition for change of township boundaries to make then identical to those of the City. 

 

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, I’m going to ask the law director to come up.  What we’re being asked to do here is something that several years ago we didn’t have to do.  But I believe with the controversy that’s starting to surround some annexations I believe the county is being a little more critical of what we are doing.  So I would like Mr. Stergios to explain why he needs this resolution.  And maybe give us a little history.

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I don’t know how much history I can give other than the fact that historically we did not we’re not required to file this petition that’s attached to the ordinance in front of you.  Then a few years back the county prosecutor’s office said “well you need to file this petition to adjust the township boundaries”.  So we started filing it I would say three, four years ago and either I would sign it or the safety service director would sign it.  Well this go around they called up and said “well now you need a resolution authorizing the law director to sign the petition”.  Not to debate it because I know we’ve had a long meeting but I said “well we never did that before and we always adjusted the township boundaries” and they said “well that’s what we want”.  So rather than argue I did what they wanted.  It’s something that we have historically signed and filed and it’s been it changes nothing to do with the annexation.  But we have always adjusted the township boundaries to reflect I’m sorry the city boundaries to reflect what we annexed.  So it’s a procedural matter in my opinion.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, and it is procedural everything is done as far as the annexation and everything.  Something that was pointed out the other night at the meeting we’re talking about a Resolution No. 15 but a couple of places in here it says ordinance.  On the second page where it says “whereas Council the City of Massillon, Ohio, previously accepted by Ordinance No. 52”  Okay, that’s right.  We have ordinance down at the bottom in section 2 it says “this ordinance is declared to be an emergency” it should say resolution there.  So we’ll correct that to say section 2, second word is ordinance. 

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I don’t have page 2 so…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are you talking page 2 or section 2?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Section 2 on page 2. 

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I’ve got section 2 on page 1 and I don’t…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I have a one page Resolution 15, section 2 is on page one. 

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – We don’t have the signature page.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – That’s correct.

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – It’s a resolution.  Let’s put it that way.  Yes, that’s correct.

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Okay, just wanted to clear that up it came up the other night.  So that’s the only thing it’s just a housekeeping type of ordinance.  Like I said I believe they’re being a little more critical on annexations to make sure everything procedurally is done right.  So I will be moving to waive the rule if nobody else has any serious questions that can’t be answered.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Do we have any other questions?  Your motion then.

COUNCILMAN MANSON moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilwoman Scassa.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

RESOLUTION NO. 15 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

RESOLUTION NO. 16 - 2012                    BY:   ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 

Adopting the updated Stark County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

 

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Yes, we discussed at the work session.  We had the mayor come forward and speak on it and she informed us as well as the language within the resolution.  This is just a plan that in case of a hazard or some kind of other unforeseen circumstance to come across the county and us need to be able to react.  It’s just us saying that we’re going to update our plan to match with the plan of the counties.  If there’s no questions then I will move to suspend the rules that require three readings and bring this forward for passage.

COUNCILMAN LEWIS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Manson.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

RESOLUTION NO. 16 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 2012                    BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE 

For the proposed budget for the fiscal year 2013. 

 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – This is the proposed budget that we need to send to the county.  There is a drop dead date it has to be at over at the county by the 20th.  So we will not have another meeting before that time.  We everyone’s had a copy of it for you know two, three weeks at least.  So if there aren’t any questions.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any questions?  Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Do you have to waive the rule for a resolution?

COUNCILMAN PETERS moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Slagle.

The rules were suspended by a roll call vote of 8 yes.

RESOLUTION NO. 17 – 2012 WAS PASSED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

7.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.  PETITIONS AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS

9.  BILLS, ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS

10.  REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS

A). AUDITOR SUBMITS MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY 2012 B COPY FILE

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We do have one report from a city official that would be the auditor with her monthly report.  Mr. Peters we need a motion to accept.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I move that we accept the auditor’s report for July 2012, seconded by Councilman Manson.

Roll call vote of 8 yes to accept the auditor’s report for July 2012.

11.  REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – As far as committee sessions they will meet on Monday, the 13th. 

12.  RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone who has a report, request or resolution?  Mr. Slagle?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Just reminding everyone the rec. board meets Thursday at 6pm at the rec. center.

13.  CALL OF THE CALENDAR

14.  THIRD READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

15. SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 48 - 2012                      BY:   HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS

Enacting a new CHAPTER 1331 “REGISTRATION OF VACANT BUILDINGS”, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon.

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – You all should have received amended Ordinances 48 & 49.  What I would like to do tonight is make a motion to accept these amendments and then I would give them first reading.  So we have yet one more work session to discuss them before we pass.  Did everyone receive their amended yes?  Thank you.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there any discussion are there any questions on the item?  Mrs. Halter?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I move that we waive no, I make a motion that we accept the amended Ordnance No. 48 – 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Councilwoman Scassa.

Roll call vote of 8 yes for the amendments to Ordinance No. 48 – 2012.

ORDINANCE NO. 48 – 2012 HAS BEEN AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Ordinance No. 48 has been amended and it now reverts to first reading.  Mrs. Halter?

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I’d like to give it first reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 48 – 2012 HAS GIVEN FIRST READING.

ORDINANCE NO. 49 - 2012                      BY:   HEALTH, WELFARE & BLDG REGULATIONS

Enacting a new CHAPTER 1330 “REGISTRATION OF NON-OWNER OCCUPIED”, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Massillon.

 

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – This also is in the same situation we have the amendments here tonight.  I’d like to make the motion to amend Ordinance No. 49 – 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Councilwoman Scassa.

Roll call vote of 8 yes for the amendments to Ordinance No. 48 – 2012.

ORDINANCE NO. 48 – 2012 HAS BEEN AMENDED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 YES.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We are back at first reading for Ordinance No. 49 – 2012.

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I’d like to give it first reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 49 – 2012 HAS GIVEN FIRST READING.

16.  NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I would like to mention to the finance committee on Ordinance No. 87 Ms. Scassa brought up a question of a 50% item in section 2(b).  If you all could look into that and determine if that’s there properly or if that needs to be changed. 

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

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone in the audience who like to speak to a topic that is not or the agenda if so we invite you forward at this time.   

CINDY BRATTON – 927 3rd Street NE.  I have an issue regarding Ordinance 263 – 2000.  It looks like there’s money being rolled into the rec. board bond and this is for the second time.  I believe the amount is $20,000 if I’m not mistaken.  It actually looks like we’re paying for them twice.  I’d like for someone if they would to clarify that for me.  I have also a question about I haven’t seen anything in the newspaper or anywhere about any updates on the union negotiations for the police and the fire department. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – As far as your first item the appropriate people have heard your comment and they’ll look into it.  As regarding the second we generally do not publish the progress of negotiations in the newspaper. 

CINDY BRATTON – Thank you very much.

AUDITOR FERRERO – She can submit a public records requests for that.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Could we have the auditor come forward to a microphone please.

AUDITOR FERRERO – That would be something that she would want to do a public records request for and we’ll give her the information. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – You’re talking the item 263?

AUDITOR FERRERO – Yep.  From 2000?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I think that’s what she said, yes.

CINDY BRATTON – Thank you.

AUDITOR FERRERO – Sure.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else who would like to address council?  And again please don’t wait for an invitation just following the proceeding person.

MITCH GROVES - I got a question I’m getting a sewer bill for storm sewer I live in Perry Township on Perry Road.  My dad got annexed into the city and now I’m getting billed for storm sewer and we don’t have storm sewer.  So…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Alright, what I would suggest is you talk to Mr. Lewis right here.  Raise your hand Mr. Lewis after the meeting he is chairman of the committee.  We also have the Wastewater Treatment Plant manager here.  Are you involved in this at all Ken?   (Not me)  Alright, if you check with Mr. Lewis first.

MITCH GROVES - Yeah, I bought my parents house but he got annexed into the city so if that’s the case I’d like to know and I know this has never been done what do I have to do to get annexed out of the city?

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – You live on Earl Rd not Perry Rd, by the way.

MITCH GROVES – I know Perry Township is what it said.

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – No, Massillon City.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Talk with Mr. Lewis afterwards and we’ll get you worked out here.  Is there anyone else who would like to speak to council?  Mrs. Halter, we need a motion to adjourn. 

18.  ADJOURNMENT

COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – 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