I.  CONSENT CALENDAR

A.  APPROVAL OF COUNCIL JOURNALS

      March 15, 2005 – Regular Meeting

      March 15, 2005 – Closed Meeting re: Collective Bargaining

B.  CANCELLATION/ABATEMENTS (Requested by Tax Assessor)

C.  BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW

      Requested adjustments for hardships and residential Tax Board of Review

D.   Alcoholic Beverage License - Class F1 – April 9, 2005

       St. Francis Xavier Church, 81 North Carpenter Street, East Providence

       Alcoholic Beverage License - Class F1 – April 16, 2005

       St. Francis Xavier Church, 81 North Carpenter Street, East Providence

On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Consent Calendar.                                                                                           

II.  CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS LICENSING COMMISSIONERS

LICENSES REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING

Additional Hours

Karen Larkin, Tim Horton’s New England LLC d/b/a Tim Horton’s, 2200 Pawtucket Avenue, East Providence

Karen Larkin, 243 Taugwonk Rd., Stonington, CT is sworn in by City Solicitor.

There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.

On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve, subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING

Laundry/Drycleaner (Transfer)

From: Donna Dang, 537 North Broadway

To: Celina F. Leitao, Celina F. Leitao, d/b/a New Image Cleaners, Alterations & Tailoring, 537 North Broadway, East Providence

Celina F. Leitao, 172 Norton Street, East Providence, is sworn in by the City Solicitor.

On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve, subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

Laundry/Drycleaner (Transfer)

From: Linda M. Croce, 1026 South Broadway

To: Maria E. Tavares, Maria E. Tavares, d/b/a South Broadway Launderette, 1026 South Broadway, East Providence

Maria E. Tavares, 12 Mohawk Drive, Seekonk, MA, is sworn in by the City Solicitor

On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve, subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

Hawker

Wanda L. Roderick, 382 Academy Avenue, Providence, RI  02908

Wanda L. Roderick, 382 Academy Avenue, Providence, is sworn in by the City Solicitor.

On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to continue until April 19, 2005 Council Meeting.

LICENSING COMMISSIONERS RESUME SITTING AS CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING

III.  PUBLIC HEARINGS

HIGHWAY ABANDONMENT – ABBOTT STREET

Petition for highway abandonment on Abbott Street

Petitioner:  City of East Providence

Attorney:  William J. Conley, Jr., Esq.

Advertised - East Providence Post – March 18^th & 25^th, and April 1, 2005

Notices sent to Utility Company – February 25, 2005

Notices served on abutters –  February 26, 2005 & March 1, 2005

There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.

On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine, it is unanimously voted to approve.

ORDINANCES - FINAL PASSAGE  (Given first passage March 15, 2005.  Advertised – Providence Journal – March 18, 2005)

IV.  NEW BUSINESS

A.  CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Rose Garden/Glen Lyon Park Project - Prequalification

Joe Crook, director of Parks and Recreation, steps forward to present architect drawings of site layout and projected estimates of construction costs for Glenlyon Park and Rose Garden Park soccer field submitted by Beckman Weremay.  Also is looking to receive approval from Council regarding RFQ’s for recommendation of general contractors request for Glenlyon and Rose Garden Park. 

Michael Weremay of Beckman Weremay, LTD, landscape design consultant steps up to give presentation on both parks regarding cost estimates for construction costs.

Councilman Miranda states that the person for what happened at Rose Garden Park should have been fired immediately.  Prior Council promised them soccer fields and it didn’t happen.  Is happy to see that things are on the right track now.

Mayor Larisa states for the public that what Councilman Miranda is speaking about is that the park was already done once, but did not work.  Asks Mr. Crook whether anything is salvageable from that previous construction at Rose Garden Park or is it all from scratch.

Mr. Crook states the water line coming into the field, the back flow preventor, and the meter are all salvageable.  None of the irrigation system is salvageable.  The fill that is there now will remain as only a base.  Mr. Weremay states need a crown of 18 inches from edge to center in all directions.  To accomplish this, will start with 9 inches of fill at the corners, where it is flat right now.  The Mayor asks if this will work and Mr. Crook states that it will at both parks.  Both will be regulation size fields.  Is working on getting the fields hydro-seeded by first to middle of September at the latest to allow the turf to establish itself through the winter.  Recommending approval of plan and for approval of RFQ’s.

Mayor Larisa asks Mr. Crook if the funding on Rose Garden Park is bond issue, is it City money?  The Rose Garden is all CDBG money; the Glenlyon Park money is $300,000 from a DEM acquisition development grant and the rest is bond money.

Councilman Caine states importance of staying in budget on these projects and Mr. Weremay say that they’ve identified priority items on both of these projects.  Thanks Jeanne Boyle and staff for putting together information so we could receive $300,000 grant from DEM.  Also 3 members of the committee are present tonight.  They put a good group of people together to look at issues from a neighbor’s prospective and made decisions quickly to get the project rolling.  This is just an example of community having a vested interest in the project and he wants to personally commend them for this.  They spent their time with no pay and many headaches, but they stepped forward and made decisions that made everyone’s job a lot easier.  Finally will have two showcase soccer fields in the City. 

City Manager states that a motion is needed to pre-qualify firms for Glenlyon and Rose Garden Parks.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve the RFQ qualifiers.

Mayor Larisa asks for a motion to approve plans of the Design Review Committee.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve the plans.

Oak Avenue Sewer Project Bid Award

Mr. Fazioli state that Steve Coutu is present to report on the Oak Avenue Sewer Project.  Part is being funded by CDBG and some bond funds.  Seeking authorization from Council tonight to award bid.

Steve Coutu steps forward and states public bids were received from prequalified firms for improvements to Oak Avenue.  Received 3 bids.  Seeking Council approval to award bid to the lowest bidder, Boyle & Fogarty. 

City Manager states a motion is needed to award bid tonight.

On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to award bid to Boyle & Fogarty.

Master Lease Bid Award/Use of Proceeds from Sale of Surplus Property

Mr. Fazioli a couple of months ago, sought Councils approval for Master Lease.  Bids came in yesterday.  Received 7 bids.  Asking Council to award to Suntrust Leasing, have dealt with them in the past, their interest rate was lower than the other 6 bidders.  Also negotiated for them to waive the pre-payment penalty so we can pre-pay the lease without paying a premium.  Seeking Council to award bid for the lowest interest rate to Suntrust Leasing. 

On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, it is unanimously voted to award bid to Suntrust Leasing.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted that it is the intent of the Council, when necessary and when no other money is paying for it, to use the surplus property account to pay down the Master Lease, whatever items the Council approves on the Master Lease.

Authorize Purchase of Police Cruisers/Awarding of Bid

Mr. Fazioli states we are requesting the Council’s approval for the purchase of ten police cruisers from MHQ Municipal Vehicles in Marlborough, MA

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve the purchase of ten police cruisers from MHQ Municipal Vehicles to be paid for from the Surplus Property Account through the Master Lease Agreement.

Authorize Purchase of Salt Shed/Awarding of Bid

Mr. Fazioli states we received a grant from RIDEM to partially pay for a salt shed to store salt in during the winter.  Stored outside now and we do lose salt due to weather conditions.  Will be able to store more salt without losing it. 

Steve Coutu states only one bid submitted from Park Lane Construction.  We would be able to store more material with it washing away due to the weather.  Also are environmental issues.  There are new RIDEM regulations in place that required the covering of salt piles.  RIDEM has awarded the City a matching grant in the amount of $40,000 for the construction of a salt storage facility. 

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted to approve the purchase of salt shed from Park Lane Construction to be paid for from the Surplus Property Account through the Master Lease Agreement.

Spring 2005 Road Paving Projects - Prequalification

Mr. Fazioli states public works is asking the Council to pre-qualify 4 companies for roadway improvements.

Councilman Miranda states he would like them to keep an eye on these.  What took place a few years ago, he wasn’t satisfied with what happened.  Had problems in his ward and it was never solved.  Still money is being held back.  Just wants to make sure they keep an eye on things.

Mayor Larisa asks Mr. Conley about having arbitration with an entity that put more asphalt on the streets than the specs. called for.  The arbitrator made us pay for the additional amount of asphalt that we didn’t request or approve.  Did we fix this in the bid docs?  Mr. Conley states yes, but the issue was that the work exceeded those bid docs. and we accepted the work, therefore, we were required to pay for it.  There is language stating if contractor exceeds specs. it does so at its own expense and the City is not responsible or liable even if it approves the product, but whether that makes it bulletproof or not if we accept product.  There’s not anymore we could do.

Mayor Larisa asks if we’re in a dispute with someone and we’re withholding money, can we insist that this be resolved before giving them another bid?  Mr. Conley we could review that prior to accepting of that bid.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted to approve.

CDBG Re-allocation of Funds

Mr. Fazioli states the need to transfer funds between existing CDBG projects.  Asking Council’s permission to transfer $279,468 in CDBG funds to some other projects that were previously approved to projects that we can spend money on before the July 31^st deadline.

These CDBG projects haven’t expended all funds due to preparing project specs. and putting out for bid and need to use the money before deadline expires.

Nancy Remington, CDBG Coordinator, states that the City spend no more that 30% of funds on projects that do not benefit low & moderate income.  70% of CDBG funds have to be spent on projects that benefit low & moderate income.  Reviewed CDBG projects that have not expended all funds, due to delays, etc. 

Mayor Larisa asks is the reason to spend the money by July 31^st or to shift money to low & moderate income category or both.  Is Weaver House renovations helping low & moderate income?  Ms. Remington states yes it is, project qualified under social services category, it’s what it is used for inside when it’s done.  Same as Sabin's Point area and street reconstruction.

The Mayor states we now have to come up with future CDBG money for Rose Garden and Senior Center.  Ms. Remington states yes that is true.  You also received a list of new applications for CDBG funding that we’ve included those replacements on a number of those projects.

The Mayor asks will we have to fund all of these through new money.  Ms. Remington states no, a couple of projects we’ve determined that we’ll no longer need to.

Mr. Fazioli states that the projects that will benefit the following projects: Weaver House, Sabin’s Point Park revitalization, and street reconstruction.  The Rose Garden Soccer field and Senior Center expansion will be rolled into the 2005-2006 CDBG applications for funding.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted to approve.

B.  REPORTS OF OTHER CITY OFFICIALS

1.  CLAIMS COMMITTEE (By William J. Conley, Jr. City Solicitor)

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to accept as presented.

2.  SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY (by Jeanne Boyle, Planning Dept.)

Jeanne Boyle states the Council received a memo regarding certain City owned properties. Council referred previous list to the Planning Board and it was reviewed at their March 15^th meeting.  They have recommended that they proceed with the disposition of the properties.  The Beacon Park Drive and Redland Avenue sites should be rezoned to allow for residential development prior to selling them in hopes to increase the proceeds of the sale.  The James Street site should be restricted to single family use.  Will prepare specific recommendations to the Council to be considered at the April 11^th meeting on how these specific properties should be rezoned.

The Mayor asks what are we doing with the Tristam Burgess site as far as houses vs. commercial?  Ms. Boyle states it’s zoned R6 now, which allows for 2-family residences.  Would have to be sub-divided as more that one 2-family residence could go there.  This is another property the Planning Board discussed and suggested the Council would like a recommendation from the Board on as to whether it should be rezoned and what other options we could look at.  Other approach Council could take is to request for proposals for that property without assigning a particular use and then wait and see what we receive and weigh the responses and look at the pluses and minuses associated with it. 

Councilman Miranda has no problem with that.  Been on the Council a long time.  R6 bothers me.  You can build a duplex on a 5,000 sq. foot lot.  Have to give the neighbors some consideration.  Look at that neighborhood and there are not many 2-family houses there.  Can live with your recommendation to see what it brings and then determine it from there.

Ms. Boyle asks how if we chose to dispose of these properties, how would the Council want to go about disposing of them.  Do we want to advertise these for sale or a real estate person to be our agent in selling these?  Whatever the Council’s prerogative would be.

Councilman Miranda states his understanding was that we would advertise them and give the neighbors a chance to see the advertisement so they could bid on them.

Ms. Boyle states their recommendation of all properties except the Tristam Burgess property would be to sell directly or send out a notice to all the abutters so they are aware of what is going on.  Other question is do we want to go with a realtor or put them out to bid.  They are relatively simple properties and we might be able to just advertise and dispose of them to the highest bidder.

Councilman Caine states your own recommendation for the request for proposal is on the Tristam Burgess School, not on the former City Highway Garage site?  It’s 31,000 sq. feet, zoned R6, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum, a potential for 6 lots with duplexes on each.  The James Street, Bentley Street and South Broadway bother me.  Looking at the parcel size, it’s a relatively large site.

Ms. Boyle states did go through a sub-division process on that one and was actually sub-divided into 4 lots and the restriction was place by the City Council and the Planning Board limiting to single-family residences.  Have been waiting to finalize this.  The reason it appears as 31,000 sq. feet is because the sub-division had not yet been finalized pending other work needed to be done by the City. 

Councilman Caine states he wants some sort of appraisal don on them to determine their value.  Agree that from a neighbor’s prospective, as long as fair value is obtained, doesn’t matter who buys it.  If the neighbors are interested in it, certainly giving them notice before a bid process opens up, I would recommend. 

The Mayor states should get a recommendation from City Manager for the next meeting on which way to go because if we do get a 2 or 3% realtor, they’ll do the appraisal presumably within that.  If not, have to do it another way, maybe Al or someone else could do that.

Councilman Midgley talks about the 2 lots on Harding Avenue.  States he can understand Planning Director’s view, not the cities responsibility to provide parking for residents and property owners.  When these homes were first built, they were summer cottages and had no parking at all.  Now we have 2 lots and people are parking there and to deny them to park there would provide a great hardship on them and also on their property values.  Really want to help them as much as we can.  Suggested group of property owners buy a lot and turn it into parking where each person would own a share of it and they’d have a place to park.  This way, they’ll have a place to park and then the City wouldn’t have to service it. 

Councilman Miranda states that someone is here tonight and has an interest in the James Street lot.  William Reynolds, Russell Avenue is sworn in by the City Solicitor.  Lives next door to the old Welfare building, only 4 feet away from this lot.  Would like it to be offered to the abutting neighbors.  There are three of them, including his father. Just wants to make sure they are given the opportunity to purchase it.

C.  COUNCIL MEMBERS

Playfields, Minefields, and Inconsiderate Pet Owners (by Councilman Midgley)

Councilman Midgley discusses the problem of inconsiderate pet owners that do not clean up after their pets at parks and playgrounds.  They leave the waste there when children are playing and City workers are working.  Do have an ordinance requiring owners to pickup after their pet and it is not being enforced.  If people do not start picking up after their pets, we may have to ban animals in the parks and playgrounds.  It may sound funny, but it is not a joke.  We spend lots of money making beautiful parks and playgrounds and are not spending it to become a dumping ground for pets.  Please help us out, it is your responsibility to pick up after your pets.

Mayor Larisa states it has become a big problem at Rose Larisa Memorial Park, where over a million dollars in federal and state money has been spent so far.  There are people at City Hall who are pushing to ban dogs in the parks throughout the entire City.  You have to curb your dogs.  Just bring a bag with you, pick it up, and throw it in the trash receptacle.  If it’s not done, we’ll have to make a tough choice.  Other Cities have banned dogs in parks and have created a single dog park that is specifically for dogs.  Hopefully, we won’t have to do this, but it’s not fair to people in the community who are trying to enjoy the parks. 

Councilman Midgley also states this is happening on the streets and on people’s property as well.  Don’t think that it is a deliberate act, but why should I have to pick up after someone else’s dog.  It isn’t right and it’s become a big problem everywhere in the City.

Councilman Caine states that he and Mayor Larisa were recently at Rose Larisa Memorial Park and every car but one had dogs in it.  The people opened their doors, let the dogs run loose to do their business, and then the dogs returned to the cars.  Amazed at the amount of people taking dogs for a ride to the park to let their dogs do their business.  We walked around the whole park and there were deposits everywhere. 

Director Crook states he did speak with the Mayor about this last week and it is a serious problem.  You couldn’t walk anywhere without stepping in a pile of dog excrement.  It is a health problem.  We’ve invested a lot of money at these parks and need to do something, as it is getting progressively worse.  There is a small group of people who do pick up after their pets, but most are not.  It is an issue we’ll need to revisit because it is a big problem and growing.

Boob Boxes  (by Councilman Midgley)

Councilman Midgley states he’s talking about the dopes that ride in cars with the bass turned up too high, that’s the boobs I’m talking about.  I want the Police to enforce this.  We do have an ordinance on the books for this.  It is unfair for them to ride in cars with the stereo

going full blast day and night and in residential areas.  I’ve had several residents call him with complaints on this problem.  They don’t realize how inconsiderate they are being.  They think they have the right to do whatever they want, but it is a quality of life issue in the community.  Police do pay attention to this, but more needs to be paid to it.  It is that time of the year now and if they’re not going to abide by this, then they will pay the price for their foolery.  Again, we have ordinances and fines for this.  Needs to be enforced more.

Anthony Street Yard Sale  (by Councilman Miranda)

Councilman Miranda received a phone call saying that all the neighbors on Anthony Street want to have a big yard sale on the entire street on Saturday and Sunday.  They want to know what they need to do to and wonder if they could get just one permit for the entire street instead of each person getting an individual license.  A blanket permit to cover them all for the two days. 

Councilwoman Perry asks if the yard sale is at one house because the ordinance does state multi-family yard sales in one particular location

Mayor Larisa states if the council wishes and solicitor agrees, we could consider Anthony Street the one location and one person could come in and get the permit for the entire street.

On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, it is unanimously voted to approve.

Yard Sales  (by Councilwoman Perry)

Councilwoman Perry states it is that time of the year for yard sales to be starting all over the City.  We do have a permitting process in the City, but maybe get about 1 or 2 permits per week.  Was put in place because some people were having yard sales every single week.  It was causing traffic problems and havoc.  Permitting process is only $5.  Checked on-line and other Cities charge $10 - $15 and ours is just $5.  This way, it is controlled and we can see how many and if there are getting to be too many.  After three yard sales, they would have to ask for permission and this way the Council and Police are aware of it and if there were any problems with the neighbors, it could be addressed.  Another problem is signage requirements.  The ordinance reads no sign or other form of advertising shall be exhibited no more than 2 days prior to a sale and all forms of advertising must be removed within 12 hours of close of sale. You drive by telephone poles and see signs in August for yard sales that were held in June.  It is getting worse and needs to be enforced and brought to the people’s attention.  Suggest to the Clerk when people come in for their permit, make them aware of the signage requirement.

Mayor Larisa is given Unanimous Consent regarding the City Clerk position.  He is very happy to report that Dana Toy will be staying on as City Clerk.

D.  RESOLUTIONS

E.  INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES  (If given first passage, can be referred to the next    regular Council meeting to be held on April 19, 2005 for a public hearing and consideration of final passage).

F.  COMMUNICATIONS

SCOTT CORDISCHI, 8 Harding Avenue, East Providence

Requesting to address the Council re: interest in purchasing piece of property between White and Harding Avenue.

Scott Cordischi is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

Mr. Cordischi states the City owns tax title to a piece of property between White & Harding Avenue, Map 313, Block 9, Parcel 5.  It is approximately 2,200 square feet on an un-buildable lot.  It is an area where my neighbors & I have parked on for many years.  Our concern is we’re fearful that if the City sells this land, then we’ll have nowhere to park.  This would be a great inconvenience for us, as the nearest parking would be Bullocks Point Avenue, about 1/8 of a mile away. 

Mayor Larisa asks about the abutting lot they used to park on too until they were booted out.  Mr. Cordischi states that we had thought the entire lot was a City-owned lot for many years and just found out that an estate owns half of it.  The taxes are current on it and she had asked the neighbors to remove their cars from the lot, that she owned this lot.  They are in the process of trying to work things out with her.  If it doesn’t work out, if it comes down to it, we can get the three of us to park on the remaining lot.  We are the only three houses on Harding Avenue that have no parking.  Our portion of Harding Avenue is actually a grass alleyway, you cannot even drive a car down it.

Mayor Larisa asks if she enforces her rights on the property, could you accommodate all the cars you have on the two lots on the one City lot?  Mr. Cordischi states that they could.  One of our neighbors actually renovated three homes in the same area and has a piece of property similar to the City property.  His is approximately 2,000-2,100 square feet and he has six parking spaces on it.  So the City lot would actually afford us two parking spaces per household.

Mayor Larisa asks how big the other lot is.  Mr. Cordischi states it is slightly smaller than the City lot, approximately 2,100 square feet.

Mayor Larisa asks what the status is with her.  I would thing she is trying to protect her rights from an adverse possession claim.  Or what else is she going to do with it, other than to ask Zoning for a variance to build a single family home on it, something that many of us wouldn’t be happy with.  Mr. LaPalme states that is basically what she wants to do with it.  She thinks she can build there because she is grandfathered in.

Councilman Midgley states doesn’t want to discuss that issue, only to discuss their request to buy the City-owned lot, which I support.  Again, I’ve spent a lot of time down there and I understand the hardship that exists.  No one years ago thought about parking, it was different times.  Now it’s a serious issue.  It’s just the right thing to do, to help people when there’s a problem.  They invested their time and money and we need to protect them. 

Mr. LaPalme we’ve maintained the lots for the last ten years I’ve been there.  We plow it, weed it, keep up the shrubs, we put down crushed stone on it.

Mayor Larisa states he has no problem selling it, but you have to understand that now whoever it is sold to will now own a private lot that will be assessed and taxed.  And as Councilman Caine said earlier, we need to get the fair market value of an unbuildable lot, will have to get that somehow.

Solicitor Conley states would need to send it to Planning for their review.

Councilman Caine states there’s some confusion here.  Asks if they both own property and when purchased, they had no parking.  They state they do own property.  Mr. Cordischi states his understanding was that they purchased house from my wife’s grandmother, she parked in those lots and he assumed it would be the same. 

Councilman Caine says if he bought a piece of property, he would make sure I have parking somewhere so there wouldn’t be any issues.  The other thing is a parking tax, we have people parking on City property and no tax is being generated.  The point is we have about six people parking here and we’re not raising any revenue from that.  If we sell it, we would. 

Mr. Cordischi states they tried to purchase this previously, but at that time, the City wasn’t interested in selling it. 

Councilman Caine states he understands the hardship.  Mr. LaPalme states his realtor told him it was a City-owned lot and that it couldn’t be built upon because access has to provide emergency access to the three houses for fire, rescue & police because you can’t drive on that part of Harding Avenue, it’s a walkable street.   That was my understanding.

Councilman Caine states that again that you bought this property and were represented by an attorney.  The title policy would exculpate any parking.  If no actual parking for that property, that’s something you’d have to exclude from your owner’s policy.

Mayor Larisa states another step further, how would any reasonable mortgagor lend fair market value to that with no parking?  There’s something going on there.  When someone bought that, they look and see parking is fine.  But they look and see if you own the parking and you have a right to it, not does the City own it and could boot you out any time.  Your market value would go way down.  Curious what your deed says and your title insurance said somehow, someone must have thought you had some right to park there.

Mr. LaPalme states it is being looked into now.  The other woman down the street has been parking there for over 30 years.  It’s a long time to be parking there and someone telling you to get off the property all of a sudden.  Councilman Caine states he does this for a living and amazed that this wasn’t addressed at the closing.

Chief Castro states he has an issue with this.  Understands everyone’s concern.  The previous Chief and I have issues with this.  My responsibility is to let the Council know that there is no other means of access for us to get a fire truck in there to protect those houses.  Can come in on Beacon, but there is no way to get lines down to those houses to extinguish a fire and as close as they are to each other, we’d really have difficulty.  If City looses control of the lot, without some stipulations anyway, I can see problems. 

Mayor Larisa says it’s been like this for many years now, don’t understand, is there a problem with that, if we keep it the same way it’s been.

Chief Castro states there is a problem getting a truck in there now, and maybe that should be looked into.  The fact is if the City looses control of this, could be less access than we have now.

Mayor Larisa states what if it was sold and kept the same as the past thirty years?  Councilman Caine says he thinks the Chief means if the City owns the lot, if cars are there, he can call and say to tow these cars, he needs to get to a fire, and the City would have the right to tow them.

Mayor Larisa asks the Chief if he wants to change what is going on there with the cars or if that is ok, you just want to make sure no buildings are put there and make sure you have the right to move those cars in an emergency?  The Chief states if we loose ownership, we lose the rights to make a fire lane there.  No stipulations as to how many cars, boats or trailers are there.  The Mayor asks what if we do a lease where we have a right to end on a 30-day notice, with no more than four cars at any one time with complete access.  You say you want to put a fire lane in, is that what you really want to do now?  The Chief states his letter to Planning says if it is sold, restrictions such as a twenty-foot open lane so an apparatus can pull all the way up to the end.  The Mayor asks if he wants to change the way it’s been for the last thirty years because that hasn’t existed.  Chief Castro states it hasn’t existed, but the way it’s built up now and this is how the previous Chief felt as well.  Would like some type of easement so we can get in there with a fire apparatus.  My concern is the protection of those houses.

Mayor Larisa states will have to refer this to Planning and suggests the Chief meet down there with Jeanne Boyle and Scott and Joe to see if there is a way their needs can be met and how many cars they can fit on the one lot with leaving a fire lane open.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to refer to Planning.

WALTER LANGLOIS, 277 Mauran Avenue, East Providence

Requesting to address the Council re: stop sign on Mauran Avenue.

            Walter Langlois is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

Mr. Langlois states he has lived on Mauran Avenue for 45 years and never had a problem coming down Mauran Avenue to South Broadway.  Since the stop sign was erected on Mauran and Bentley Street, safety issues have arisen.  Never has had a car come out of Bentley or any other street pop out to where I had to make an emergency move to avoid an accident.  Since the stop sign was erected, that has happened.  There must have been a reason for the stop sign, but those of us who use it everyday, can’t see a reason for it. 

Councilman Miranda states there were concerns from his constituents in that area of cars speeding so that’s why he proposed them to be put in on Mauran, Juniper, and Bentley Streets.  If the neighbors have had a change of heart, you can come back to us with a petition saying you don’t want it there and I don’t have a problem with removing it. 

Mayor Larisa states you can either get a petition together to get the stop sign removed or we could have the City Manager arrange a neighborhood meeting with the community police officer to discuss the whole issue of traffic control in that area.  Sometimes, they can put signs up and other traffic control measures. 

MARYANN GOBERN MATHEWS, 51 Outlook Avenue, East Providence

            Requesting to address the Council re:

            1.  Ordinance to require notice on involuntary tows.      

Maryann Gobern Mathews is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

Ms. Mathews speaks about ordinance regarding involuntary tows.  Mr. Conley states addressed this issue many years ago.  Council enacted regulations for towing services, which are in effect.  States it is not being enforced.  Ordinance says owner of a disabled vehicle may request the police dept. to call any wrecker service firm of their choosing to tow vehicle.  When police may select wrecker – whenever owner makes no selection of a specified wrecker service, the police dept. authorized to call a wrecker service indicated on the current list.

2.  Request of Ordinance to Legitimize the Substance Abuse Task Force.

Mr. Conley states he sat with the Human Resources Director who is the City executive for the Substance Abuse Task Force and with the City Manager about this.  Substance Abuse Task Force is in the process of reviewing bylaws to determine what changes need to be made.  In terms pf establishment of the Substance Abuse Task Force, state law regulates or enables cities and towns to establish the task force, it is Title 16, Chapter 21.2, and specifically subsection 3, authorizes the government to establish task force and requires that they adopt are rules and regulations, bylaws, for operation of the task force. The oversight of the municipal task force is from Department of Mental Health Retardation Hospital.  Initial creation of TF is provided for under subsection 4, which requires initial action by municipalities to establish the task force.  MHRH approved at that time the establishment of the task force and so the task force has been established pursuant to state legislation has enacted bylaws as required by the statute and has been operating under those bylaws under the direction of the MHRH.  16 20.2, subsection 4 says that for MGRH to approve municipalities requirement to establish an appropriate executive action and at some pint MHRH approved it.

The Mayor says that many state statutes when they say enables a City to do something, such as a generic redevelopment agency, the one section begins with “the municipality may establish by ordinance” and then you pass an ordinance.  Are you saying that “may establish by ordinance” is not in the task force.  Mr. Conley states Section 16 29.2, subsection 3, section B says appropriate municipal authority shall adopt rules and regulations governing the substance abuse program, including talk about the approval of practical procedures which was approved by MHRH and in subsection 4, demonstrates municipality has established by appropriate legislative or executive action.

Mayor Larisa asks who controls the enforcement of the Substance Abuse Task Force bylaws.  Mr. Conley states they are approved by MHRH.  The Mayor asks what happens when they are violated?  Mr. Conley states the agency is MHRH, they are in charge with overseeing the municipally created Substance Abuse Task Force.

The Mayor states we need a report on this one from City Solicitor.  Who makes appointments to the Substance Abuse Task Force? Are the bylaws binding? Who passed them?  Who enforces violations of bylaws?  People just randomly showing up at meeting? How does it interact with the City budget?   Need to get a report on these.    

There being no further business, the meeting adjourns at 11:40 P.M.

Attest:

______________________________________

Dana L. Toy

City Clerk                                                            

                                                                                                Approved: May 3, 2005