COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER B I'd like to welcome all of you to Massillon City Council for Monday, February 6, 2012.  We have a number of city officials with us this evening Mayor Catazaro-Perry, Safety Service Director Maier, Budget Director Koher, Engineer Dylewski, Auditor Ferrero and Law Director Stergios.  Also under item #5 on the agenda is where the public can speak on any item that appears on the agenda and then under item #17 is where the public can speak on any item that does not appear on the agenda.  I'd also like to remind anyone with a cell phone please turn it off or turn it very far down.  I’d like to mention that the microphones that we use are basically for transcription purposes.  They’re not meant to be a public address system there’s something about trying to do both things that will affect the quality of the tape when the Clerk goes to transcribe it.  So please keep it quiet in the audience and you should be able to hear I’ll remind all the council people to please speak into your microphones as much as you can.


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

Thus giving a roll call vote of 9 present.


COUNCILMAN SLAGLE B Gave the invocation for tonight.  


COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance.  


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. 


COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We are at Item 5 and we will allow you to come forward we have no time limit per se but we have a general rule of thumb of about three minutes.  If you run past that I’ll give you a gentle reminder.  If you’re saying exactly what five other people have said please keep that in mind.  Just give us your name and address and let us know that you agree with those comments.  Also once we get started don’t wait for an invitation if you feel like being next get up and be next.  Alright, so at this point if there’s anyone who would like to speak to council on a topic on the agenda please come forward to the microphone please give your name and address and then your comments.

JOHN KURTZMAN – I’m a resident of Massillon 10th Street NE.  I’m chief counsel for John Ferrero our county prosecutor.  I’m here to oppose Ordinance No. 13 – 2012 I know that the City of Massillon has a budget problem.  I know that we’re in debt like everybody else every other family we have a problem with our finances.  That is a situation that we all have to face there are several things that we can do and I know they’re in the works the mayor is trying to work them out.  Here’s the problem I see when council and the mayor try to impose upon certain people the .9 credit which they are going to withdraw that would raise those people for example who live in Canton or who work in Canton to have to pay almost 3% income tax.  That is not right these people are unfortunate enough to work in Canton or in Cleveland or in Lorrain where ever that may be.  To impose upon these people another .9% income tax is a punishment to those people.  You are now pitting families against families when these people file their tax return in April they have to pay more tax their neighbor does not.  They are then taking food away from their children, they’re taking shoes away from them and its just unfair to hit one person or one family and not the other.  Now I know we have to have tax that’s not the problem the problem is doing it the right way.  First when you impose the storm sewer tax you did it right you put it across the board.  When you are going to impose I’m quite sure the garbage tax you’re doing that right I don’t agree with the amount that you’re going to have because if I read the paper the Independent its 13.6% increase.  Social Security this year said that the cost of living only went up 3.6% so it seems like a big difference there.  Also if you were going to impose the tax on the license plate that would be fine because that goes across the whole board and its used for your streets, employ your people to fix the streets and things of that sort.  Now the problem that arises is these people that have to work outside the city have to have added cost in driving back and forth to work.  When they go to Cleveland when they go to Lorrain the steel mill up there they have added cost to maintain their car, they have to additional oil and they also have to use additional gas.  One tank may not take it up to Cleveland one tank maybe alright here.  But when they pay that or when they get that extra gas they’re also paying extra tax.  That tax in a certain fashion comes back to the city so they’re paying tax.  They’re paying additional tax.  I would submit to you folks that its not right to charge these people with that extra tax.  Now I would submit to you…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Kurtzman, you’re at closing in on 5.

JOHN KURTZMAN – I’m just about done.  I submit to you that you should listen to the constituents.  In the Evening Independent there was a letter to the editor by John Dottavio he says if you do things right if you cut your budget where you have to the people will pass the tax.  I agree with him.  One last thing I was listening recently with regard to the Super Bowl John Harbaugh who is the coach of the Ravens they asked him how do you treat your 53 players?  He said I treat them as family he said the commentator said you don’t treat the people in the bench any different than you treat the first stringer?  He said no.  I submit to you folks don’t treat these people that have to work in Canton or have to work in Akron or where ever it may be different from anybody else.  Thank you and Mr. Chairman I have one person that’s going to speak we’re not going to have the whole people speak.  Thank you.

JOHN OATES – A resident of Massillon Burd Avenue NE.  Also speaking on the same ordinance that Mr. Kurtzman did.  Basically its what he said its certainly not fair to charge certain residents and not others.  I’m certainly not disputing the fact that you probably need more revenue although I think most of the community would like to see you maybe get some of your expenses in order first.  Mainly health care contributions by employees I think that would go a long way toward a lot of us supporting a tax.  But my question is why a certain portion of the community through the tax credit why not a property tax?  You know and there’s been estimates in the newspaper that this tax is going to raise 1.5 million dollars.  I requested the information from that and what I got back was information from 2007.  Certainly the economy is different today than what it was in 2007 so I think you should really get a better estimate of what this would actually generate first before you so at least you would know what your imposing on us.  A 3 mill property tax issue would raise you about $1.6 million dollars per year we know that already.  That’s a you know that’s information that can be verified.  Also I don’t think this is going to solve your problem this year.  If you start this April 1st I know I’m certainly I work in Canton I am not running to my payroll department and saying oh please withhold more money from me for the City of Massillon.  You’re going to get my money April 15th of next year and I’m sure it would be that way you know for a lot of people.  So I don’t think that’s going to solve any problems for you this year.  That’s about all I have to say about it.

BOB RICHARDS – 1375 Benson Street SW.  I’m I kind of hate to say this you know I’m partially retired my wife still works in Canton but I’ll tell you this city needs the money.  The city needs the money now and I’ll be more than glad to pay the extra money to help our city out right now.  We need it in the worst type of way.  So I’m going to support this all I can and I hope you people here at council does to.  Thank you.

CRAIG PARR – I live in Augusta Lake on Championship Circle.  I submitted an email Friday I’m not sure if all of you have a copy of it.  I sent it to Tony and then.  I feel like I’m being penalized for moving back home.  I work in Barberton I used to work in Springfield Township paid 2.2% tax there and I don’t feel that its fair that my city taxes should go up 50%.  When I feel that its more than fair to raise the total city tax to 2% that way everybody’s goes up less than .2% or less than 10%.  I just feel that this is my home I get emotional here so bare with me I raised in the projects I worked my way up I’ve done well myself and I wanted to back home and support my community.  I just feel that I’m being pushed back out and I don’t feel that’s fair.  I know they brought up moments that Louisville or Canton pays an extra I don’t live there I don’t want to live there.  I also know that there’s city taxes throughout Ohio that are less than 1%.  Typically those are the ones that they come back and ask for the additional 50% credit.  The cities that are taxed over 1.5% are typically offering the 100% credit on your city taxes.  So I just wanted to address this as somebody that you know the city probably does need money the budget probably needs to be addressed.  But I just don’t feel that somebody has working themselves up from the bottom has to dig deeper to pay a much higher percentage than everybody else around me so that’s why I’m not in favor of that ordinance.  Thank you.

PAT PENTELLO – 935 Roosevelt.  I’m here this evening to speak on two ordinances Ordinance No. 9 in regards to the health insurance for the non union employees of the City of Massillon.  I just would ask that there be some consideration of this group of people in regards to the 15%.  We haven’t had any type of increase for three years.  We also would like to see all the contracts opened and see what the other unions settle for and everybody be dealt with fairly on the same percentage.  On Ordinance No. 10 with the step increases the majority of the people that are in this group have been here more than three years and then these step increases go from three to five and then from five to ten to fifteen and they are 1% on each step.  I just think that I don’t have an objection to the 15% I have an objection to everybody being treated the same.  I think that we need some representation whether it comes in the form of paying dues or just plain fair as the me to.  So we would just ask that there be some consideration of looking at the fact that we haven’t had an increase the fact that if you take the step increase away plus the 15% we’ve been hit in many directions.  I’d also like to speak on the income tax credit I understand how it does hit the families but I also understand that the City of Massillon has operated on 1.5% too long with 100% credit.  Myself I see where you want to increase the tax but then I’m paying the whole percent of the increase where other people are not.  I think that I understand people living in other entities I work in another entity and I also pay there.  But we have to make the hard decisions and I think we do need a credit and I would hope that instead of kicking the can down the road that we get some action on that.  Thank you.

MIKE BASIEWICZ – 1108 Forest Avenue, Massillon.  I’m speaking against Ordinance No. 13.  Since the bubble in 2008 that pretty much everybody go broke and watch their income.  I got a raise in 2008 and not again until about a month ago.  Since then everything has increased everything has increased I have not increased my income but I made cuts, cuts after cuts.  Now with this increase I might as well not have got with the new tax it was like I’m getting no increase at all.  So its not a good idea to pick on your out of town workers.  It would put me in the highest tax bracket for city taxes at 2.8 unless I worked in Youngstown 3.18%, Akron 2.93%.  There’s not a lot of jobs here in Massillon we have to go out and work and get a decent job we can survive on.  So putting us in the highest tax rate instead of making cuts where cuts can be made probably not a good idea and a lot of people will probably bail out on the issue.  There’s probably places utilities everybody uses them put a tax here put a sales tax on somewhere so its across the board.  Don’t pick on people that are making a livelihood spending their income in this town. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Thank you sir.  If anyone would like to speak to a topic on the agenda?  I thank you very much for coming we appreciate those who did get up and speak.  We will move forward with agenda.



COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – I’d like to move Ordinance No. 13 – 2012 forward as the first time of business this evening. 

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

ORDINANCE NO. 13 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE

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


COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – We’ll give that first reading.


COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – For those in the audience we do have an opportunity to bring this up at three successive meetings.  Tonight it’s been given first reading there will be no vote or any further discussion.  So if you would like to leave go ahead and quietly leave now.  But if you’d like to stick around for the rest of our exciting meeting you’re certainly welcome to do that. 


Authorizing the Mayor and the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to enter into a purchase agreement relating to certain lands that are presently owned by the City of Massillon to the Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) of Massillon, Inc., in accordance with Section 761.02 of the Ohio Revised Code, and declaring an emergency.


COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, we’ve been through this at the committee meetings.  What this is this has been we’ve been working on this for more than a year here in town.  This affects some land that was state owned along the walking path behind Indian River.  We had a problem there where the walking trail was washing out.  We have an opportunity now the land was transferred from the state to Massillon through the Community Improvement Corporation.  It’s in our hands now then we hope to convey it to it doesn’t say Wenger Construction but the company is owned by Wenger Construction I believe to correct the problem down there.  If I think everybody understands this if there’s a problem bring it up now otherwise we’ve messed with this long enough I intend to move it forward and waive the rules. 

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

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


ORDINANCE NO. 7 - 2012                        BY:   ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE

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


COUNCILMAN LEWIS – First reading.


ORDINANCE NO. 8 - 2012                        BY:   PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE

Authoring the Director of Public Service and Safety of the City of Massillon, Ohio, to advertise for, receive sealed bids and enter into a contract, upon award and approval of the Board of Control, with the highest and best bidder for the operation of the concession stand at Genshaft Park, and declaring an emergency.


COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – We discussed this at the work session and since then I’ve also contacted Kenn Kaminski and I forwarded that email on to the members of my committee.  He did state that they’ve gathered 17% of the gross revenue for the past five years that Steven Rinehart and his family had won the bid in the past two times and they were two and three year periods in each of those.  They don’t expect to make a lot of money on this but the last the other options they’ve used in the past were to staff the facility itself and vending machines.  Neither which he thought were viable options.  This is only for Genshaft Park there’s also something in the clause about special events being held down there.  I would like unless there were some questions I didn’t hear any because it was the concession time will commence fairly soon.  April 5th is the opening bid time so I think the better and faster they get this out the longer they have people to have it then the more likely are we’ll get a good bid on it.  So I would ask unless there’s some major objection I’d ask that we waive the requirement of three separate readings so that they can get this out to bid and get a concession stand at Genshaft Park. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Do we have questions?  Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Mr. Slagle at the work session you stated there were some questions I believe you did answer with the email that you sent from Mr. Kaminski.  But a couple of questions I had how many years does these contract or is the contract for?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Well the last one was a three year contract.  Frankly I don’t it was part of the packet I know.  I’ll get there…

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I didn’t see in it anywhere where it said that but I might have missed it.  I guess my question is is it going to be for the same period of time as the last contract.  I don’t know.

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – I can ask Kenn that if it’s really a critical issue to you.

COUNCILMAN PETERS –  I suppose its not I mean I agree with you that we should move it forward.  I guess it was for my own information more than anything I don’t think it really I mean…

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Duration for two years well I can’t answer that.  It was two years before and I gather that they didn’t redo it for 2007, 2008 but reading it it does say 2012 to 2014.  So…

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Okay, so that’s two years and I agree we should probably move it forward because it’s getting close to that time of year.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any others questions?  Mr. Slagle?

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

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


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

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


COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – This ordinance before us simply put is the contribution for employees in the City to start paying 15% of their health care.  I believe where the questions have come about are what employees are we talking about if I may call up the law director maybe add some clarification to that.  Couple questions again for clarification purposes since we have different types of employees within the city.  Have you had a chance I guess first off to take a look at this ordinance?

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Yes, I have and there’s no question it does not cover police, fire wastewater treatment plant, AFSCME and generally the street department.  So that would lead to the question of who does it cover and in all probability it does not cover each individual elected official or employees of the elected officials.  So that leaves not small but it narrows down the number of people that this would cover and some of those people are probably subject to debate depending on who you talk to.  But so that probably raises more questions than it answers but excludes you know anyone under an existing union contract no question is not covered by this.  That would have to be covered by the contract negotiations which are all upcoming or in the process of getting started now anyhow because two of the contracts were extended maybe three the last one is just about at the end date I believe.  So…

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – Okay, its fair to say then you mentioned elected officials is it up to each elected official whether or not they want to impose this 15% on their employees within their department?  (I think so)  Okay, and then speaking about the court we’ve heard that the court is giving us their word that they would impose this on their employees.  Can we as a city council force the court if they would let’s say take their word away to impose this on their employees.

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – I don’t believe so all you can do is change the court’s budget and not give them enough money and then you’re in another law suit over whether we have to fund the courts.  I mean that is not a battle that I think anybody wants to fight.  But you appropriate the money and you could cut all of our appropriations myself, other elected officials but I can’t sue you and make you pay my wages and benefits and cost of operations whereas the judges and/or the clerks office have the ability to do that and it could be an expensive proposition.  I think we’ve all read things about it in other communities.  It’s something nobody wants.  But I don’t see how can you force them short of taking that drastic action.





COUNCILMAN PETERS – Since I’m not a lawyer Mr. Stergios, I know I practice a lot but let me get this clear in my head.  If we pass this ordinance I’m just going to use you as an example okay since you’re an elected official and you’re ahead of the law department you can’t say that you’re not going to listen to this ordinance. 



LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – But you can cut my money and not give me enough money to pay anybody. 

COUNCILMAN PETERS – That will happen. 

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Do it across the board and that’s fine with me.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Right.  I mean I okay so…

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – My people aren’t classified and see that’s the debate which is really not tonight is not the day to have it as to who and what.  It’s probably something more for executive session or a committee session but it’s a very confusing and volatile issue as to who this affects and who it doesn’t and who you can make do it.  I’m not being a smarty or anything up here I’m just saying that’s you guys appropriate the money.  Your real weapon is to not appropriate the money to any or all of us to pay these things.  I mean…

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I guess I wasn’t you know even we discussed this in the work sessions and so forth and I really when Ms. Scassa just brought that up I wasn’t aware that if we passed this you had the using you as an example had the ultimate say so and you know these are fights that I don’t know if I want to get into.  I you know and I guess this doesn’t apply to you but I mean this is going to happen I mean this is what’s going to happen with all of our union contracts.  I mean my bosses are saying cut and my bosses are the people of Massillon.  They’re sick of seeing you know people not contributing and so forth and doing their part to you know like everybody else in the private sector.  So I mean but I’m not for passing ordinances where I can be just trumped I guess.  Then we get into a bunch of and then we get into this non funding and non appropriating and so forth.  So…

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – But you see that’s get partially into a historical debate or analysis of what’s always just because we did it this way in the past doesn’t mean it was right.  But for years long before any of us were here as elected officials they did police, fire, AFSCME and the other contract first and then these people got the same thing under this thing we call the ACUE contract.  Well last go around nothing was ever done with the ACUE contract back in March of ’09.  I’m not positive but my recollection is everybody else got 0, 0, 4 on percentage raises over a three year period and the ACUE people sort of by default got nothing.  Certain parts of the city raises went out even though they weren’t under quote contact while others didn’t and historically the thing has been handled that this last bunch came along and got the same thing as they did on the union contracts.  I’m not saying that’s right or wrong I’m telling you its been that way since probably the ‘80s.  And so now this one is up first that doesn’t mean the other ones get negotiated or that they agree to just pay 15% without I mean it’s a vicious 360.  There’s no right answer you have to start somewhere.  Again it raises more questions than it answers but I mean that’s my take on it all. 


COUNCILMAN PETERS – That’s all I have.


COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, we got hit with this the other night and we had very, very little discussion in fact some of the questions that we just tried to answer here was brought up even after the meeting the other night.  Personally I don’t believe we should move forward on this at all tonight.  My list of questions is growing almost daily on this and I know we have to do something and I think this as far as all employees in the city that work for the city that work for all the different departments and work for the courts I think this is the way we should be going.  But it needs to be an orderly process we just don’t start throwing stuff at the wall here and you know hoping we get some stuff that sticks.  I think we need to get this back to committee and have some more discussion about these things and how they will be handled.  I’m not ready to jump and raise the cost of the fringe benefits for a very small group of people when I don’t know if we can make these other people come along with this.  So I’m not ready personally I think we should just give this first reading and go back into committee next week and discuss it some more.


COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Yes, you have to excuse me I might need a little direction.  I was wondering because the problems seems to be that some of the elected officials may have the power to trump this and say no myself and my staff are not doing it.  We’ve also had the question to whether or not the court will come on board.  Is there a way we can pass a resolution or somehow a formal request asking that these stated officials would you know confirm that they will go along with this if we do pass this.  Then that way we have them on the record saying it then when we pass it we can say look its on the record they’re going to agree with it and if they back out then…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – There again the ordinance under discussion does not include what you’re saying.  You can pass any resolution you’d like to but again the cooperative discussion take place behind the scenes and before that actually occurs.  So just passing a resolution means nothing.  You know if there are departments that are exempt from council authority it doesn’t matter if you pass a resolution or anything else.



COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – My opinion is that we’re coming near the end of March and we need to have a budget in place.  If we keep going around with this its going to take us a lot of time to do it and I think that Mr. Stergios gave us the right answer.  We control the funding we control the purse strings we have no guarantees from any other department head that they’re going to do anything as far as getting the people that work for them to pay this 15%.  I think we need to do it through appropriations.  That’s my opinion. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else?  Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – My question is for Councilman-at-large Chovan let me get this straight you’re saying go ahead and move this forward so that we act on this?

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – No, I’m saying just the opposite.  I’m saying that I’m not even sure that we need to act on this.  I think what we need to do is get knee deep into the appropriations and if we need to take and see what 15% of those costs per department is we need to change the funding for those departments reduce it by the 15% let those department heads make that decision on their own.  If they don’t have the money then they have to they can’t spend what they don’t have.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Chovan, may I interject this would even cutting that part of the budget the line item would still only affect the people that would be affected by this ordinance.  If you can’t affect them with this ordinance you can’t then cut their budget for that portion either.

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – Then I must have misunderstood what Mr. Stergios just said.  Mr. Stergios, would you again please. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – You can cut their entire budget

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I still have the floor.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – I’m sorry.  Well Mr. Chovan has the floor actually.

COUNCILMAN CHOVAN – You would please clarify that again Mr. Stergios?

LAW DIRECTOR STERGIOS – Ultimately you guys appropriate the money each of the departments, elected officials and so forth.  If you reduce that appropriation then it arguably can be up to the specific individual as to how they’re going to allocate that money.  So I think you’re partially correct but I also think that that is a very difficult way to go about it.  But if push came to shove then maybe that’s the answer.  I don’t know but I also speaking out of both sides of my mouth I think we need to have something in place as to and this at least helps clarify it.  Some of the positions I mean we need something because right now we have something that says the city pays the entire monthly premium for these people and we know there are some.  You can debate who all it includes but that’s the policy that’s been followed forever and I don’t like having that policy not changed because it creates confusion.  I mean we have the thing in place that says that and this modifies it to say 15%.  We can argue and I’m not but argue later about who all that it is.  But at least it gives us somewhere to start so I think that might help I don’t know.


COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Back to you, Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I’m ready to vote on it so this is where I stand.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else?  Ms. Scassa?

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – With all those comments being said again we were elected to make these hard decisions.  I think we all knew that health care contributions were going to be up and on the table.  Again, that’s why I called the law director up to try to clarify what this ordinance what employees this ordinance covers.  I think you know as Councilman Lewis asked can we do a resolution you know getting the word of certain elected officials or certain departments.  I mean yes they can give us their word but you know perhaps we can’t force them through this ordinance.  But the fact of the matter is we all saw the chamber full tonight they want to see us make cuts.  This isn’t new we all knew this was coming.  Unfortunately things may not be fair this year.  I think we’ve all learned that we’re going to have to make sacrifices and try to do it in the most fair possibly way.  This I think puts our administration in a better position to go to our unions and to negotiate that they start to pay their fair share.  I think everyone in the city wants to be fair nobody wants to have someone else pay more than them.  I think we all want to our part.  I think this is the first step towards that with that being said I am bringing or I would make a motion to bring this forward tonight to suspend the rules and it forward for its passage.

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters.

The rules were not suspended by a roll call vote of 5 yes, 4 no.  Chovan, Halter, Manson and Slagle voted no.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – It requires seven votes to suspend the rules we’ll give Ordinance No. 9 – 2012 first reading tonight.


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

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


COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA – Again my intention is to bring this forward for passage tonight suspending the rules.  Again these are the hard decisions that we have been forced to make.  Again I remind you the chamber was full tonight they want to see us make cuts before we go to them. 

COUNCILWOMAN SCASSA moved for suspension of the rules and passage, seconded by Councilman Peters.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any comments on this ordinance?  Mr. Manson?

COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, I still believe that this should be given first reading.  We had a committee meeting the other night that quite honestly was a mess.  We didn’t get to talk sufficiently about any of these things in a proper way in an orderly way.  So I will still be voting not to waive the rules. 

The rules were not suspended by a roll call vote of 6 yes, 3 no.  Halter, Manson and Slagle.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Again the rules are not suspended we’ll give first reading to Ordinance No. 10 – 2012.


ORDINANCE NO. 11 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE  

Making certain appropriations from the unappropriated balance of the Community Partnership Prosecution Fund, 2108 Stormwater Utility Fund, 1406 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Fund, Insurance Fund, 1401 Capital Improvement Fund, Forfeited Funds Fund and the EMS Capital Fund, for the year ending December 31, 2012, and declaring an emergency.


COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – We briefly went over these things Monday.  You should have everything in front of you there.  If there’s any questions about any of this we can discuss it but we will be bringing this forward for a vote tonight. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Are there any comments or discussion?

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

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


ORDINANCE NO. 12 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE  

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


COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – This also was discussed at the meeting Monday night.  If there are no questions or comments will bring this forward for a vote tonight.

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

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


RESOLUTION NO. 4 - 2012                      BY:   FINANCE COMMITTEE  

Regarding recent discussions of State Biennial Bill (HB 153) suggesting that the State Department of Taxation take over the collection of municipal income taxes.


COUNCILWOMAN HALTER – This is a resolution that we discussed Monday night regarding the State of Ohio offering to collect our income tax and then dispense the money to us.  This is a resolution stating that city council has stated in this resolution would prefer to not participate in that service.  I’ll be asking for passage tonight. 

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

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







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

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

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

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Peters, we have the mayor’s appointments to the boards and commissions.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I make a motion to accept the mayor’s appointments, seconded by Councilman Manson.

Mayor’s appointments to the Boards and Commissions was accepted by a roll call vote of 9 yes.


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


COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – Just a reminder that the rec. department or the rec. board of the City of Massillon meets Thursday at 3:00pm at the rec. center. It’s a public meeting so…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – May I ask a question Mr. Slagle?  Who is the chairman of the rec. board this year?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – That’s a good question let me see if I can figure out who…

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We’ll come back to you.  Mr. Peters, did you have your hand up for something?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – I was going to ask the same question.


COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, we had a lot of confusion at the last committee session.  There’s been a lot of discussion about our council rules pertaining to our Clerk and our Council President and also procedures for handling legislation.  I think we need some serious discussion about those things next Monday.  I think what we saw last week the confusion that entered in and the tempers flared a little bit.  I think we need to deal with this and clear them up so things are a little more orderly. 


COUNCILMAN PETERS – I have one more question.  We have a piece of legislation on the table am I correct the garbage?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – There was an ordinance that was tabled yes.

COUNCILMAN PETERS – And that is tabled I just wanted to know when it comes back.

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – The 21st and that’s a dollar.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – If it was tabled until a specific date it will appear on the agenda automatically.


COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Mr. Lewis, is that your recollection the date?

COUNCILMAN LEWIS – Yeah, I believe it’s the 21st and that’s the one for a dollar not the $2.25 that was presented to us at the last committee meeting.  Just to make it clear.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Does that answer your question?  Anything further?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – No, we can discuss it Monday.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else?  We’ll mention that we have the Presidents’ Day holiday coming up on Monday the 20th therefore council will meet on Tuesday the 21st.  Mr. Slagle?

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – I think its Moe Rickett.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Okay, and again just as another follow up the meeting that was proposed was that proposed by the board or by an individual member its now been cancelled or postponed.

COUNCILMAN SLAGLE – I’m not certain that email came through the day I’ve haven’t been able to find out why.  Originally it was proposed that the work session that was last Wednesday.  It seemed to have a pretty universal approval amongst the members of the board that were present and they were all present.  But I don’t know why it was I frankly don’t know who did it or didn’t you know pulled it I don’t know.  I saw that email some time late in the day when I went through those emails.  But I don’t why.




COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – We have an item for third reading Ordinance No. 1.


Amending Section 1151.02 of the Massillon Code of 1985 rezoning a certain tract of land from R-1 One Family Residential, RM-1 Multiple Family Residential, O-1 Office and B-1 Local Business to O-2 Office. 


COUNCILMAN MANSON – Yes, we had a public hearing tonight on this rezoning request.  There was one person that had some objections to it.  I agree with Mr. Peters he said that he felt most of those things would be handled during the construction process by our engineers and probably the building department.  So its my intention to I strongly recommend that we bring this forward and pass it tonight. 

COUNCILMAN MANSON moved to bring Ordinance No. 1 – 2012 forward for passage, seconded by Councilman Townsend.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Do you have a question Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – No, I have a comment. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Okay, do you have a comment Mr. Peters?

COUNCILMAN PETERS – Yes, I would just like to and go along with what Councilman Manson said.  I want to thank Affinity for doing what they’re doing I think it says a lot about for them and being part of this community.  I think they’re trying to do the right thing I think it sends a clear message that they’re going to be here to stay for awhile.  This kind of improvement and this undertaking is something that we’ve all waited for.  I think they’ve also made it clear to even the people that somewhat objected tonight at the meeting that they would work with the neighborhoods and so forth.  I firmly believe that they will they’ve given me no reason to doubt that.  I think this is a win for everybody. 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT GAMBER – Is there anyone else with a comment?  Alright, roll call vote please for the ordinance.





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




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