City of Central Falls
Special City Council Meeting
City Hall Council Chambers
MONDAY, November 4, 2002
6:45 p.m.
A Special meeting of the Central Falls City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:45 p.m.
Councilman Noury
Councilman Leger
Councilman Patino
Councilman Issa
Councilman Weber
Council President Weber presided and led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Regarding possible litigation and proposed expansion.
Council President Weber commented.
Matthew Oliverio commented.
Frank Flaherty, Esq. was present and stated that he has represented the facility since 1991.
He stated his opinion regarding the facility and how in his opinion the legislation deals with the initial set of and construction of the facility. He explained the negotiations with the Marshall’s Service and how that relates to any expansion plans.
Council President Weber stated that this has never been formally brought before the City Council or the Administration.
Mr. Flaherty stated that in his opinion this does not require City Council or Administration approval and that the Board is a public body that has posted and advertised its meetings when these proposals were first discussed.
Councilman Noury questioned the state law and the interpretation of that legislation.
Discussion ensued regarding RIGL 45-54-8 and Mr. Flaherty stated that in his opinion it was the initial development of the project that required Mayor/Council approvals and that once the project was underway the Board makes the decisions regarding expansion etc.
Councilman Patino asked what about the residents rights in this decision. He asked how could the Council control the Board if the Statute doesn’t address the issue. He commented on eminent domain issues and the powers of elected officials.
Councilman Leger questioned the proposed project and asked if 45-54-6 gives the Board these powers.
He stated that the question of expansion and the powers of the Board are two different issues.
Councilman Noury questioned the status with the contract between the facility and Cornell.
Mr. Flaherty stated that Cornell wants a new contract with more money. The Board can’t give this until a new per diem rate is in place. He said that Cornell is still in place with an extended contract under all conditions and that they cannot leave without a 180days notice. He said the real problem is with the Marshall’s service. He explained that the Marshall’s service has not wanted to give credit for the transportation services provided by the facility.
Tony Ventutolo commented on the corporation’s reserves and the proposed capital program. He related on how the Bond was funded when the facility refinanced. He spoke of the issues related to the Marshall’s service and stated that with the new Marshall, Mr. Stallwood in place there was some better understanding of the current fiscal affairs at the facility.
He also stated that the facility was specifically designed as a quasi-public facility to insulate the City from any legal issues. He stated that since its inception, there have been at least a ½ dozen situations that have been insulated from any City responsibility.
Discussion took place regarding the Contract with Cornell and how well the facility is run by this Corporation with very few problems. It was noted that since its operation the City has benefited by receiving impact fees to the tune of 4.5 million dollars not including the benefits received by local business entities.
Councilman Noury stated that there is no question regarding the financial benefits to the City but rather it’s a quality of life issue for the City.
Councilman Leger stated that these facts are all interesting but they are not the issue at hand.
Council President Weber stated that the question is who has the right to move forward with any expansion to that facility and what was the intent of the 1991 legislation. What are the Chief Executive Officer and the City Council’s role with/involvement regard to this legislation and any pending expansions etc.
Councilman Leger questioned the ability of the Board relative to eminent domain and new land.
Matthew Oliverio stated that if the Board were to acquire new land it would be considered a new project as set forth in section 6.
Mr. Albert Romanowicz stated that the intent of the legislation was to set up the business. He stated that the City has done that and appointed a Board to oversee the operation of the facility. He stated that he has no problem with the City Council appointing a member of the Council Ex-Officio to the Board.
Councilman Leger questioned the Bond requirements.
Discussion continued on the operation and expansion plans for the facility.
It was noted that a larger facility would bring additional revenues to the City.
Board Member Maurice Brousseau commented on his understanding of the Board role and he sincerely believes that the Board has the power to decide the issue of expansion. He stated that he is a resident of the City and that he would never approve anything that would in any way not be beneficial to the City.
He said that it is his belief that when the legislation was created and the Board was appointed that it would be unpaid City residents who would sit on the Board and make the decisions necessary to move the facility in the right direction to the benefit of the City.
Discussion continued regarding the existing facility and future plans.
Mr. Flaherty stated that rather than pursue a lawsuit and in order to save time and money, if the Council is comfortable with the expansion perhaps a Council Resolution supporting the expansion would help and the issue of who has the power is not compromised for any future Council or Administration to pursue power issues if they develop.
Board Member Eugene Racquier spoke on what his role is and stated that he believes that he has the power to approve the expansion.
Meeting recessed at 8:05 p.m. Reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
Warden Thomas of 366 High St. spoke about the facility as an employer and other issues related to the operation of the facility.
Mayor Matthews stated that the purpose of the meeting is simple. The question is does the Detention Facility Board agree that this expansion should be approved by the Administration and the Council?
He said that the Board members have answered very simply No.
He said that the Detention Facility Board based on their own statement gives a clear message that the Board does not recognize the authority of the Administration or the Council. He said that the elected Officials of this Community are answerable to the Public and that they are their eyes and ears and they have an obligations to protect them.
He commented on expansion and the right of the public to have its say.
Matthew Oliverio stated his position relative to the Legislation and the duties of the Administration and Council.
Jonathan Kelly of 150 Jenks Ave. stated that this is a win-win situation for the City. It cleans up the Kings junkyard while bringing more revenue to the City. He pointed out that the Board had public meetings on the issue and workshops. He said that there were only 8 other residents at the meetings.
He stated that the City Officials were not present and they were elected to speak for the residents if there were concerns why didn’t they bring them before the Board then. He stated that the issues are what is the best thing for the City.
Charles Moreau of 37 Hedley Avenue spoke of the recent tax increase and commented that the Board it appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council and if the Board isn’t doing a good job then let the Mayor and Council replace them.
Mayor Matthews stated that it is not an issue of expansion or the rate per diem and not even about a vote tonight and that its about opening a line of communication.
Councilman Noury asked about liability.
Council President Weber commented on the Bond payment and the legislation.
Matthew Oliverio stated that the City is simply asking for a declaratory judgement which is a very narrow issue that all it would take is a legal brief before a Superior Court Judge to determine if the Administration and City Council have any say in the expansion of the City. He stated that an answer could be possible by spring.
Council President Weber asked if there was language that can be agreed upon at this meeting that can move the issue forward.
Councilman Patino commented.
Motion to reconsider passage of the Resolution taken at the October 21, 2002 meeting was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Noury.
Discussion took place to reconsider.
| Councilman Patino | no |
| Councilman Leger | yes |
| Councilman Noury | no |
| Councilman Issa | no |
| Councilman Weber | no |
Motion fails resolution stands.
none
none
Motion to adjourn was made by Councilman Issa and seconded by Councilman Noury.
All Agreed. So Voted. Time 9:22 p.m.
___________________________________
Elizabeth A. Crowley, CMC
City Clerk