| | CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND JOURNAL OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 16, 2005 | |
The City Council meets in the Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 and is called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr.
| Present: | Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr. | ) | |
| | Patrick T. Caine | ) | |
| | Peter F. Midgley | ) | Council Members |
| | Norman J. Miranda | ) | |
| | Valerie A. Perry | | |
| | William J. Fazioli | ) | City Manager |
| | William J. Conley, Jr. | ) | City Solicitor |
| | Dana L. Toy | ) | City Clerk |
The invocation is read by Mayor Larisa and the Salute to the Flag is led by Councilman Caine.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL JOURNALS
June 21, 2005 – Regular Meeting
July 12, 2005 – Regular Meeting
August 4, 2005 – Special Meeting
B. CANCELLATION/ABATEMENTS (Requested by Tax Assessor)
| YEAR | AMOUNT |
| 2005 | $37,050.60 |
| 2004 | $ 334.32 |
| 2003 | $ 652.58 |
| TOTAL | $38,037.50 |
D. RESOLUTION – CITY OF PROVIDENCE - Resolution in support of the USS Saratoga Museum Project at Quonset/Davisville.
E. COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL – Notice of Violation No. 05-0124, Plat 312, Lot 2. 41 Bluff Street (Dynamic Investment, LLC)
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. APPOINTMENTS
Conservation Commission (By Mayor Larisa) (reappointment)
John Rose, Sr.
5 Wil-Ann Circle (02915)
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Ancient Little Neck Cemetery (By Councilman Midgley)
Gordon MacDonald
90 Grassy Plain Road (02915)
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Traffic Control (By Councilman Midgley)
Steven Checrallah
78 Bullocks Point Avenue (02915)
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Unanimous Consent: Mayor Larisa moves up Cindy Marchetti-Communications, who is requesting to address the Council regarding closing off Daisy Ave. between Argyle Ave. and President Ave. for block party on Saturday, August 27, 2005 between 12 and 6pm
Cindy Marchetti, 29 Argyle Ave., is present and sworn in by City Solicitor.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Council Consent: Without objection, Councilman Midgley asks for approval for a block party to be held on Saturday, August 27, 2005 between 4pm-10pm for the Richmond Point Crime Watch Annual Block Party and would close off Winter Harbor Drive between Beach Point Drive and North Shore.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Motion by Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, to return to the regular order of business.
III. CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS LICENSING COMMISSIONERS
LICENSES REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
Class Change From: B-Limited To: B-Full Privilege Victualler Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
*Note for Council: Stipulation on existing license states no liquor to be served after 10 p.m.*
Dinis Paiva, Paiva’s Rest. Corp. d/b/a O’Dinis Restaurant & Tavern, 579 Warren Avenue
Dinis Paiva, South Spruce Street, is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
Motion by Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine to accept petition from Mr. Paiva.
Mark Fay, Attorney representing the neighbors, is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor. He reads the petition from the neighbors who are against the upgrading of the license; they would like the license to remain as is. Without objection, the petition is marked as Exhibit A.
The following abutters are sworn in by the City Solicitor and speak against the upgrading of the license: Deborah Cardillo, Raymond Cardillo, Melissa Cardillo, Al Pitaco, Monica Sanchez, and Charlie Botelho.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to issue the full privilege license for a three (3) month period only and with the stipulation that no liquor is to be served after 10 p.m. Will revisit this license again in 3 months to see where things stand and decide then whether to issue the full privilege license or not. Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
1) Dance/Entertainment Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
David Mathias, Mathias Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Campino Restaurant & Sports Bar, 218 Warren Avenue
David Mathias, 45 Misty Oak Drive, East Greenwich, is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve with the stipulation that any music cannot be heard when doors are shut, subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
2) Vict/Not Over 25 (Change in Corporate Name Only-Same Owner) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
From: JT Donuts, Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts
To: Martin’s Bakers, LLC, d/b/a Dunkin Donuts, 399 North Broadway
Joseph Martins, 95 Rice Avenue, East Providence, is present and 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.
3) Kennel Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
Roscoe Higgins, 66 Commercial Way
Roscoe Higgins, 35 Harris Street, East Providence, is present and 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.
4) Vict/Over 50 Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
John Kenyon, Eurest Dining/Bank of America Café, 3400 Pawtucket Avenue
John Kenyon, 10 Hall Avenue, Nashua, NH, is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, 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.
5) Peddler-Hot Dogs, Etc. Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
Richard L. Costa, d/b/a Rick’s Chuck Wagon, 74 Oak Avenue
On motion of Councilman Midgley, 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.
6) Catering (Transfer) –(Transferor Information not available due to length of time since transfer took place) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
From: Rhode Island Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Domino’s Pizza, 1086 Willett Avenue
To: Gerald Carter, Another Pizza Co., Inc., d/b/a Domino’s Pizza, 1086 Willett Avenue
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, 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.
7) Catering (Transfer) –(Transferor Information not available due to length of time since transfer took place) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
From: Rhode Island Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Domino’s Pizza, 2145 Pawtucket Avenue
To: Gerald Carter, Another Pizza Co., Inc., d/b/a Domino’s Pizza, 2145 Pawtucket Avenue
On motion of Councilman Perry, 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.
8) Holiday Sales Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
Robert Baptista III, d/b/a Ohkeedoke, 188 Taunton Avenue, Unit 3
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Midgley, 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.
9) Carnival Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
Rev. Douglas Spina, St. Martha’s Church, 2595 Pawtucket Avenue - October 14, 15, & 16
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.
LICENSING COMMISSIONERS RESUME SITTING AS CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORDINANCES - FINAL PASSAGE (Given first passage July 12, 2005. Advertised – Providence Journal – July 15, 2005)
1) The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining to the sealer of weights and measures
SECTION I. Chapter 8 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island 1998, as amended, entitled “Licenses and Business Regulations” is amended by adding thereto the following:
ARTICLE XXII. Sealer of Weights and Measures.
Sec. 8-576. The sealer of weights and measures shall be a qualified elector of the city and shall be appointed by majority vote of the City Council for a term concurrent with that of the Council and until a successor is appointed and qualified.
Sec. 8-577. The sealer of weights and measures shall charge the following fees:
MECHANICAL/ELECTRONIC SCALE WITH NETP CERTIFICATION
Capacity of less than 35 pounds…………………………………………....$12.00
Capacity of 35.01 pounds to 300 pounds………………………………......$30.00
Capacity of 300.01 pounds to 5,000 pounds………………………….……$24.00
Capacity of over 5,000.01 pounds…………………………….per hour…..$36.00
Retail precious metal scale…………………………………………………$30.00
GASOLINE MEASURING DEVICES (test and/or approve)……….per meter.…$18.00
Verification of price of computation at multigrades…..per multi-grade......$12.00
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by Councilman Midgley)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage.
2) The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining to the issuance of a license or permit to carry a concealed pistol or revolver
SECTION I. Section 12-1. entitled "Carrying pistol or revolver." of Chapter 12 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled "Police" is amended to read as follows:
A license will shall be issued by the chief of police to carry a pistol or revolver to a suitable person who is a retired regular officer in good standing, an active reserve/constable in good standing, or a holder of a State of Rhode Island permit in accordance with the City of East Providence policy regarding the issuance of a license or permit to carry a concealed pistol or revolver pursuant to R.I.G.L. § 11-47-11.
The fee for such license shall be $40.00 and shall be payable to the city clerk’s office upon approval by the East Providence police chief and the permit shall be picked up from the East Providence Police Department as outlined in said policy.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by Chief of Police)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage.
3) The following is an ordinance amendment regarding stop signs on Wilson Avenue
SECTION I. Sec. 18-269 entitled “Stop and yield intersections designated; when stops required.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
WILSON AVENUE (southbound traffic) at Hammond Street.
WILSON AVENUE (northbound traffic) at Holbrook Avenue.
WILSON AVENUE (southbound traffic) at Bourne Avenue.
WILSON AVENUE (northbound traffic) at Duncan Road.
HOLBROOK AVENUE (eastbound traffic) at Wilson Avenue
SELDON STREET (westbound traffic) at Wilson Avenue.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by Councilman Caine)
Bertrand Choinere, 225 Wilson Avenue, is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
Mr. Choinere asks that the Council approve putting the stop signs back up to help reduce speeding in this area. They had petitioned the Council a few years ago to have the signs installed and the signs did have a positive effect in helping reducing speeding. About three months ago, the signs were removed without any notice. Believe that a resident called saying that we no longer wanted the signs up. I have a petition from majority of the neighbors with their signatures wanting the signs put back up.
Councilman Caine states that the consensus with the neighbors was that the speeding has slowed down with the stop signs up. Found out that it was a temporary ordinance that had expired and that’s why the signs were taken down, it wasn’t because of that one neighbor. I believe they will slow down the traffic on Wilson and make it less of a cut through and make it more livable for the neighbors.
Mayor Larisa states it was a special ordinance that was passed for the signs to go up right away for emergency purposes so you wouldn’t have to wait one or two months to get them. Those have expiration dates and you cannot just vote to put them back up without a public hearing. You will have permanency tonight and for them to come down again, you’d need a full public hearing where everyone would be notified.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage.
4) The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining to spaying and neutering of dogs and cats
SECTION I. Subsection (a) (3) of Sec. 3-17 entitled “Mandatory spaying and neutering of dogs and cats adopted from a licensed releasing agency.” of Article I entitled “In General” of Chapter 3 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Animals” in amended to read as follows:
Sec. 3-17(a) (3). In addition to executing the written agreement the adopting party must leave with the licensed releasing agency a deposit of not less than $20.00 and not more than $40.00. The amount of the deposit shall be determined by the licensed releasing agency. This deposit will be refunded by the licensed releasing agency to the adopting party upon presentation of a written statement or receipt from a licensed veterinarian of the adopting party’s choice where the dog or cat was spayed or neutered providing that the spaying or neutering was performed within the 30-day period.
There shall be a spay/neuter program at the East Providence animal shelter for cats, which program shall be adopted by the animal control officer with the approval of the city manager. There shall be an adoption fee for animals adopted from the East Providence animal shelter set by the animal control officer subject to the approval of the city manager.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by Mayor Larisa)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
After discussion, it is amended that the word “cat” should be changed to “animals”.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve as amended for First Passage.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
1. Fire Department – CAMEO System Demonstration
Acting Chief Brassill shows a demonstration regarding the new CAMEO System.
Unanimous Consent: Councilman Miranda wants to commend and thank the firefighters for their recent help with his wife.
2. Sanitation/Recycling Workshop – September 27, 2005
Mr. Fazioli states we will be holding a public workshop on September 27, 2005 at 7 pm relating to the recycling and sanitation guidelines we have in the City. A presentation made by our sanitation personnel and members of RI Resource Recovery and Central Landfill will also be here.
Also, on Saturday, August 20, 2005 from 8am-1pm there will be an Eco Depo at our Central Garage in conjuction with RI Resource Recovery. Residents can dispose of hazardous wastes legally, such as used gasoline, turpentine, pesticides, and oil-based paint. You have to call ahead of time to make an appointment. The phone number to make the appointment is 942-1430 ext. 241 or check the website at www.rirrc.org for more information.
3. Award of Bid – Warren Avenue/Broadway Corridor Revitalization Project
Mr. Fazioli states we are seeking the Council’s approval to award bid to the low bidder, Catalano Construction, for this project.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to award bid to Catalano Construction.
4. Award of Bid – Sale of Surplus Property
Mr. Fazioli states we are seeking Council’s approval to award the bid for the Tristam Burgess property to Michael West Builders, Bid #3.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to award bid to Michael West Builders, Bid #3.
5. Ratification of Lease with Newman YMCA
Last August, received proposals for the use of Union Primary School. We received bids and we were leasing the building out and received one bid from YMCA. We did execute a lease with them. Council previously had approved it. This is just to inform Council that this was done. Some allocation of space issues and modification issues on interior space were all resolved and the YMCA just recently signed it.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
B. REPORTS OF OTHER CITY OFFICIALS
CLAIMS COMMITTEE(By William J. Conley, Jr. City Solicitor)
| Victor Barclay, Claim No. 05-066 | Approved |
| Emanuela Berca, Claim No. 05-067 | Denied |
| James Poe, Claim No. 05-073 | Refer to Insurance Carrier |
| Firmino Rodrigues, Claim No. 05-071 | Approved |
| Edward Vieira, Claim No. 05-068 | Refer to Insurance Carrier |
| Diane Rekos, Claim No. 05-058 | Approved |
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to accept as presented.
PLEASANT VIEW ESTATES – Property disposition (elimination) and dedication.
Jeanne Boyle discusses that the Planning Board is considering a proposal for a preliminary subdivision called Pleasant View Estates, a five-lot subdivision on Sylvan Road. The subdivision meets all the requirements of Zoning, and the Planning Board has granted them preliminary approval. There is a six-inch piece of land called a spite strip along the edge of Sylvan Road, which was deeded to the City at one time. The effect of this strip on Sylvan Road was to deny frontage for a portion of the property and to limit the subdivision potential. The Planning Board granted conditional approval subject to the City giving up this six-inch strip to the developer to allow them frontage. In turn, the developer will dedicate a portion of that as a City street. Asking Council tonight for approval to dispose of the six-inch strip to allow subdivision to go forward and that will be incorporated into the right of way of the City street.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
C. COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilwoman Perry: Job Performance Council Appointees: Continue until September 6, 2005 at 6pm.
Councilman Midgley: Discussion and vote on bond money for improvements to Carousel Property:
Councilman Midgley states the Carousel Park Commission is asking the City to release the bond money for further renovations at the park. Mayor Larisa states he’s doesn’t object to this, but the way this is done is that a proposal is presented to the Council on what they want to do. The Carousel Park Commission rejected the proposal and they are now looking for a landscape architect to do a different proposal, to put together irrigation and maybe a miniature golf course. The proposal usually comes to the Council with a price tag on it and we then vote on it.
Councilman Miranda asks if that money is earmarked for that park and do we need the Carousel Commission to come up with a recommendation of what they want to do there. Mayor Larisa it is earmarked for the park and that they need to come up with a recommendation of what they want to do.
Without objection, John F. Conley steps up and is sworn in by the City Solicitor. Mr. Conley states that he was the past chairman on the Carousel Commission and has talked to Mrs. Damiani and knows what the need and want is and it is to put in more bathrooms and to expand the concession stand. We all agree that we don’t need competition, the Rose Larisa Memorial Park is a very pristine looking park, it’s beautiful, but the bottom line is that this is bond money. Perhaps they have to submit a plan, but the plan is to put in a couple of handicap bathrooms, a couple of other bathrooms, and to expand the concession stand. There’s no questions Rose Larisa Park has attracted more people down there. It’s also been an active carousel year with all the fundraisers, but that is the plan.
Mayor Larisa states that both of these points are brand new news to me. I never heard of these proposals at all. The last time, the priority was to make sure that the area was irrigated so we no longer have events over there on a wasteland. Defer this until the next meeting until we hear from the Carousel Commission.
Councilman Midgley: New roads and old bad habits
D. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (If given first passage, can be referred to the next regular Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2005 for a public hearing and consideration of final passage).
1) The following is an ordinance amendment adding a stop sign to Read St at Fenner Ave
SECTION I. Sec. 18-269 entitled “Stop and yield intersections designated; when stops required.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
READ STREET (northbound and southbound traffic) at Fenner Avenue.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by Councilman Midgley)
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for First Passage.
2) The following is an ordinance amendment regarding limits on cats
SECTION I. Article I entitled “In General” of Chapter 3 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Animals” is amended by adding thereto the following:
Sec. 3-21. Limitation of number of cats to be kept.
It shall be unlawful to keep more than four (4) cats at the same residence except by permission of the animal control officer provided this provision shall not apply to licensed facilities for the treatment and/or shelter of cats.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by Councilman Midgley)
Councilman Midgley discusses a problem in his ward with too many cats. Heard a way to eliminate them is by spaying/neutering them. That may be one solution, but it doesn’t remove the fact that a spayed/neutered cats can still create problems in the neighborhood. Will make a motion tonight to limit the number of cats in a residence to four cats.
Councilman Miranda seconds motion, but wants to ask Mr. Midgley if he would raise the limit from four to six cats. Councilman Midgley states he would.
Mayor Larisa asks Councilman Midgley if the purpose of this ordinance is because of an overpopulation of cats in the City? Councilman Midgley states it is. Mayor Larisa believes the complaint was from Allison Court with an individual who had 8 cats and they trespassed on a neighbor’s property and deposited excrement everywhere and this would be a nuisance issue.
Cat limits do not help with the overpopulation issues. Warwick has a cat limit and they have a huge euthanasia problem at their pound. I agree with Councilman Midgley that there is an on overpopulation issue. But what does work on overpopulation is mandatory spay/neutering because this can be enforced. This way, they won’t be having babies and the population will go down over a period of time.
I know it is not Councilman Midgley’s intention at all, but this is a cat killer ordinance. If you have more than 6 cats, they will be sentenced to death without any good reason whatsoever. What happens if you have 8 cats whose neighbor was upset that they were ruining her yard? That is a terrible thing, I agree with Councilman Midgley 100% on that, but that would be a nuisance issue and we do have a nuisance ordinance. It talks about animals trespassing on private or public property, to damage something of value or an animal that deposits feces on public property, the Animal Control Officer may impound the animal. What I would like to see is not just the impounding of the cat, but a warning and fines and a requirement to clean it up. This law is already on the books, but we can strengthen the Animal Control Officer’s power to punish these nuisances.
The complaint was made to the Animal Control Office for Allison Court, he went there, and did his job. He issued a warning, found out the cats weren’t vaccinated, he can’t make them get spay/neutered-that is not in his power, and said if they don’t heed that warning, he would make a follow-up call. There was no follow-up call. Then I heard at the Carousel event that nothing was ever done. Nothing was done because the Animal Control Officer wasn’t called again to do something.
So what do we do when someone has 8 cats? Are we going to go into their homes with their kids crying and take out two of their cats that aren’t hurting anybody? Then we take them to the pound and if they’re not adopted, they only get 5 days before they’re euthanized. Are we going to do that to over five or six hundred cats in the City? We heard at last meeting about property rights, yet we hear tonight that we going to take out of your home anything over the limit and exterminate them. This ordinance is unconstitutional. You can’t give an Animal Control Officer absolute discretion like this does without any rationale to give an exemption. It does not work. It is unconstitutional and takes away your property rights without any rational basis.
And if that woman on Allison Court, were down from 8 cats to 6 cats, how would that be changing anything? Those 6 cats could still go into the neighbor’s yard and make a mess. People have 1 or 2 cats that can go around and terrorize a neighborhood and people we know that have 10 or 12 cats and they never leave the house. Who are we to say you shouldn’t have that many cats in your house? I don’t know who we are as a City when there’s not a problem solvable to go into any home with more than 6 cats that they’re going to be taken to the shelter, and if not adopted out, they will be euthanized. It is just wrong and it is bad public policy. I would love to work with the other Council members to put in a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to solve the problem and come back at the next meeting to amend the nuisance law to give the Animal Control Officer a set of fines and to put the Animal Control Officer’s number out so if there is a problem, you follow up with him, call him and allow him to do his job. The City Manager said the Animal Control Officer can’t be spending the day going neighborhood to neighborhood looking for cats who are terrorizing neighborhoods, you’ve got to call him and he’ll be there for you and do his job.
Councilman Miranda states he doesn’t want to see any cats killed. I don’t want anyone going into someone’s home to take a cat. I would like to see them get adopted, not killed. Mayor Larisa states adoption is good, but the problem with adoption is that there are very few people now to adopt cats. If you put five or six hundred more cats in the pound, there are not enough people to take them. So within the five days, they would have to kill them. I believe by State law, the pound can keep them longer than the five days if they are not overcrowded. I believe the pound can hold forty or fifty cats; otherwise, they’re going to have to start putting them down. I agree with you that no one wants to see cats getting exterminated, but if you start putting limits on cats, there will be a bunch of cats being picked up and brought to the shelter. The owners can’t reclaim them because they’re already over the limit, so if they’re not adopted, they’re going to be euthanized.
Councilwoman Perry states she feels badly that this has happened in the City. And all this because of the ignorance of a few people that have cats and don’t take care of them and let them run wild and destroy other people’s property. And now we’re trying to take away everyone else’s rights because of these few ignorant people. No matter how many laws we have, people will still throw trash out of their cars, people will drive without their headlights on when it’s raining or snowing, people will still have yard sales without getting a permit. People don’t realize that there are laws on the books, but we cannot keep taking away the rights of people. What we have to do is educate the people; we need programs that we can take care of the cat population without taking away people’s rights. We have to look at this reasonably and come up with a solution that we can get these cats taken care of, get them off the street if there is a problem, but lets not take away anymore rights. Most people do take care of their cats; it’s the few people that don’t that are causing the problem.
Councilman Caine states we’ve spent a lot of time at the last few Council Meetings talking about cats and dogs. We’ve got sewer problems and many other issues going on in the City. I don’t know enough about cats and dogs as to whether limiting is the right thing to do or not. Originally, I thought we should table this and have the Animal Control Offices review it and inform us better on what limits do, what spay/neuter programs do. I know spay/neuter programs are significant to help with the cat population. Unfortunately, we can’t solve every problem out there and cannot dictate common courtesy in our parks or anywhere else. Over-legislation and increasing the number of ordinances we put in place becomes overwhelming at times depending on what we’re trying to solve, and I’m not sure tonight of what we’re solving in the long run. I’m not convinced that all of this is leading us where we need to be. Have a lot of things coming up with the budget that we need to look at. We all love animals, but you individually as an owner have to take care of your animals. Would like to table this and then hear from our experts on this before I approve this sort of ordinance or not.
Without objection, a motion by Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry is made to change the order of business to move up Communications for Helen Sullivan, Pier Toledo, and Dennis Tabella.
Helen Sullivan, 17 Allison Court
Ms. Sullivan is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor. Ms. Sullivan states Councilman Midgley was responding to our complaint about cats. We felt we’ve caused him a lot of grief because of this. The Mayor stated a lot of things have gone on, but when people attack you at your place of worship, that is very nasty. Last Sunday, this yellow sheet was distributed at the mass at St. Brendan’s Church and Mr. Midgley was greeted with one when he came out of mass. I think that is despicable when you attack someone where they worship. I want to apologize to Mr. Midgley for what he’s had to endure with this because of our complaint and apologize to the rest of the Council as well.
Mayor Larisa asks Ms. Sullivan about a report from the Animal Control Officer that he was out there on July 14th, were you there when he came out? Ms. Sullivan states, no he didn’t meet with me, he met with someone else and he said he would follow up. Mayor Larisa states the person who was complaining about this need to call the Animal Control Officer to follow up if it happens again.
Councilman Midgley states it’s very humbling to have a woman come up and speak in my defense, but I find it irritating that it had to happen. I don’t even have words to describe how I feel about this. The ad that was in the East Providence Post, the ad put on telephone poles, and in front of my Church. And then the letter from Rita Falaguerra in the Post, this isn’t a way to make friends and influence people. You have a right to say whatever you want to, but the one place I stayed away from during my campaigns is a Church. I never put leaflets on cars in a Church parking lot or at a social event where that person was. I went to the streets and knocked on people’s doors. Let me tell you about the phone calls I received on this. My calls have been 80% to 20% in support of my proposals and me. Tonight, I’ll ask for a vote, and if I don’t make it, I don’t. But I’m not backing down or going away.
Pier Toledo, 65 Ravena Ave.
Pier Toledo is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor. The question I have on cat limits is why? If it is because of overpopulation, then the only solution is mandatory spay/neutering. Limit laws have recently been proven to fail in every City, including the one in Rhode Island that initiated it. Pawtucket is no better off now than before they had cat limit regulations. If it’s cats pooping on neighbor’s lawns, whether 4 or 6 are doing it, the 4 cats will soon be 8 cats if they are not spayed/neutered and will still be going on the neighbor’s lawn. Strong enforcement of our nuisance laws and mandatory spay/neuter laws fix all the problems we are having here. It’s worked in California as well as other areas in of the country and in other countries. Counties in California larger than Rhode Island have initiated mandatory spay/neuter laws and within five years, the cat population was cut in half.
Where will these surplus cats go? We don’t have room for them at the shelter. We can’t adopt what we have there now so that means that these well-cared for, well-loved house cats will be euthanized and for what reason? What have they or their owners done to deserve this? It’s conservative to say that at least five hundred cats will be destroyed at an estimated cost to the taxpayers of at least $15,000 a year. How will we explain to our crying children when the Animal Control Officer takes away their cats to be destroyed? Maybe we’ll be fighting with neighbors if they are turned in or citizens will be forced to break the law if they do not turn in their beloved pets. I heard talks of exemptions, but who gets an exemption; what makes one person worthy of a stay over another? Citizens could be discriminated against, which could cause lawsuits against the City. The bottom line is every seventh cat will be euthanized just because it exists. That does not sit well with the people of the City, pet owners or not, it’s just wrong. I ask you to look at the long-term ramifications of what you are proposing. Enforcement of our nuisance laws and mandatory spay/neutering programs will fix the problems.
Regarding the Animal Shelter Commission, I believe I speak for all residents of the City when I say we don’t want a repeat of the past. We realize that the City does not have the funding to provide the much-needed repair of the building itself, especially with new regulations from DEM on the way, nor the money to provide good quality food and medical care for all animals that pass through the shelter. The current system lacks the means to promote quality adoption and the shelter itself is not a very welcoming place for visitors or prospective adoptive families. At the last meeting, Mr. Caine said he was concerned we may have a repeat of the past. If you were really concerned, you would not have rehired a former staff employee. But since you did, that tells me you do have faith in change. I can tell you now that none of the interested individuals in this commission are interested in being in the shelter. They all have full-time careers and families. You have staff and through our tax dollars, we the residents pay these salaries, and expect the staff to perform their duties. We do not expect the volunteers to do the jobs we pay City employees to do. I do believe volunteers play a major role in assisting in the adoption and care of animals; however, that role should be determined by the City and/or the Animal Control Officer.
This commission would not be an on-site, hands-on volunteer staff. It is a group of East Providence residents appointed by the Council who are willing to volunteer their precious time in the betterment and well being of our homeless animals. The fact that they still want to do this after the fiasco in the past should be respected and commended.
A commission will be also be able to obtain grant money from various avenues. This is very time consuming and not what we pay our Animal Control Officer to be doing. Money can be used to upgrade the building so we can have both a cat room that is up to date and in code, which it currently it is not, and a quiet area where staff employees want to take their lunch breaks. Our cats shouldn’t have to suffer inadequate space or ventilation so staff can have a lunchroom. Nor should our staff employees have to eat their lunch outside of the kennel room. We can do both and the commission is the solution.
The commission will work with the staff and look for their ideas and input on such matters. In addition, the commission will assist in pet adoption programs, spay/neuter programs, as well as assistance programs for those adopting from our shelter. Programs like obedience training, medical care assistance, low cost certificates for vets, pet food discounts, and education and that is just the beginning. The commission will also be used to cut deals with major food companies to donate free food for our animals. Good quality food means healthier animals, less veterinary expenses, and quicker adoption. No one wants to adopt a sick animal. The initial vet bill for a new pet owner can run from $150-$300 or more, which would include their first exam, shots, and possibly spay/neuter. With the program the commission would initiate, with the discounts already in place, someone can adopt a healthy, spayed/neutered animal for a very low adoption fee. Even if the fee were $80, that would be a steal for a new pet owner. That would also mean more people would adopt from our shelter over another because they’d know they would be getting a healthy animal and don’t need to do any routine medical treatment for one or two years. Also will help ensure animals are going to responsible people. If someone is not willing to pay a small fee for a healthy animal, they are not going to spend a larger amount providing proper care after adoption.
All this and much more at no cost to the City. Our Animal Control Officer can be out enforcing our ordinances and fulfilling DEM requirement at the shelter. Our staff employees can do their thing by keeping the shelter clean, feeding the animals, and properly exercising them. Good homes take a lot of time and effort to ensure. Am asking for you to support this commission and welcome it as a value-added service to the community. This can only be good and will move our animal care facility into a forward motion, one that is good for our animals and good for our community.
Mayor Larisa asks Ms. Toldedo if you’ve had or if any of the individuals interested in being on this commission have had any contact with the individual that caused the problems in the past? Ms. Toledo states no, they have not.
Councilwoman Perry states the commission will advise the Animal Control Officer, on what types of things? Ms. Toledo says they would gather information on costs, low cost medical care, food donations, and educational programs. Would present them to the Animal Control Officer for his final decision on which program or what pet food company to use.
Councilman Caine states this ordinance says the commission may form a non-profit entity for the purpose of raising funds for shelter purposes. Why isn’t that enough? You could just form a 501C3 organization, where volunteers get together, talk with the Animal Control Officer and provide services like you do now. Ms. Toledo states it would be much easier for us to apply for grant money as a commission that as an individual person.
Councilman Caine states he is not a fan of taking an employee of the City and placing him in the position of being on this sort of commission. What I’ve been hearing is that if the commission isn’t formed, no help will be offered to the shelter. It’s either your help because you want to help or not. With the lawsuits I’ve seen, based on the litigation still out there, and based on what has happened, and what I don’t like to see is that the City is spending money on those sorts of issues in the long run because a problem existed. The Animal Control Officer has only been there about seven months and we need to give him a chance to get his feet wet and figure out what is going on. If there are folks out there that want to help and volunteer and the Animal Control Officer is willing to accept that, that’s fine, but I don’t want to create a piece of legislation and an ordinance where he has an obligation to be the chairman of this commission, that he has an obligation to something outside the realm of what’s he’s being paid to do.
Mayor Larisa asks Councilman Caine about the Glen Lyon Park Commission and Councilman Caine states that it was a non-monetary commission and it was advisory. Mayor Larisa states the Animal Shelter Commission would also be a non-monetary commission that is also advisory. No lawsuits have been filed against anyone that wants to be on this commission. Councilman Caine states we have a significant history here that we need to look at. Mayor Larisa states we have an Animal Control Officer that isn’t even here tonight he’s so scared, he needs all the help he can get.
Mr. Fazioli asks for a point of order. I find it very offensive that the Mayor made a statement like that about a City employee. I have serious issues with this. I’d like to ask Ms. Toledo if John Smith were here today, would you be offering this service? Ms. Toledo states no she would not. Mr. Fazioli states that he chose to terminate him. I think we’re trying to make the shelter better and all I’m hearing is that it is not working unless the commission is there, that we’re just going to repeat the mistakes of the past. The new Animal Control Officer has just started, he just finished his probationary period, and I have a Mayor who says he’s scared, who at the last meeting put him up here and cross-examined him and pressured a City employee to answer questions and unless he answered them the right way, he was going to reprimand him. And I told him not to be here tonight because if he were, I’d have to pay him time and a half to be here for the entire meeting to listen to this. Do you know how much money that would cost? And if he did come, he’d file a grievance. And you know what, Mr. Smith might be back for all we know, it’s totally out of our hands. So you put the commission in place and guess who’s running the next meeting, Mr. Smith, and then what do we do? Ms. Toledo states the Animal Control Officer doesn’t need to sit on the commission.
Mayor Larisa states this is a continuing problem and I’m not going to go into details. Charlie Savoy met with City Manager and me. I had a commitment from a Department Head. This ordinance was fine, it was going to be powerful, we made it advisory. It was going to be permanent, we made it one year. We made every single change to this ordinance that he wanted and now he’s backstabbing this agreement.
Councilman Midgley asks for point of order and states I do not want to discuss City personnel at this Council Meeting. Mayor Larisa states City employees can speak, they speak about me, they call me a vandal. I can speak about them when they’re not doing they’re job. I was accused of pressuring a City employee, who had an agreement with me, and I’m going to respond to this. The City Manager said he would be here tonight and he’s not. He’s the expert on animals; he should be here for this.
Mr. Fazioli states the Animal Control Officer told him he doesn’t believe limits are valid or a way to control the cat population and that I could say that on his behalf. I wasn’t going to pay him time and a half to be here. We’re in the middle of arbitration with a current employee. I didn’t rehire a former City employee; that was the subject of an arbitration agreement.
Councilman Miranda states the Animal Control Officer works for the City Manager and if the City Manager told him not to be here, then that’s the end of it. Mayor Larisa states there’s no question about that whatsoever. But when the City Manager tells me on Friday that he will be here at the Council Meeting tonight and he’s not, that is my problem with this.
Councilman Miranda states he went through what happened before and doesn’t want it to happen again and will not vote for any commission.
Ms. Toledo states all she is saying is there is a group of individuals interested in making the shelter a better place. We know what it was like before; we don’t want it that way again. We’re offering our services as a commission because a commission can get more done than an individual can. I’m sure there are individuals in the City other than us who are more than happy to donate their time. But you cannot accomplish with one what you can accomplish with a commission.
Mayor Larisa asks Councilman Caine if the Animal Control Officer was removed from being on this commission and we just raise the number of appointees, would that work for him? Councilman Caine states he thinks it premature to establish a commission when the previous issues are not yet resolved. I also think there are a multitude of ways to take care of this issue, it doesn’t have to be by a commission. They could establish a 5011C3 organization. They can do nearly as much without the tie to the City. I cannot support a commission until everything from the past is resolved. Once that happens and when the current Animal Control Officer has a little more time on the job, then I would have a better idea or whether it makes sense to have this commission or not.
Mayor Larisa says he’s tried and tried and has no support with this. We have the best volunteers in the State, but what you’re doing is slapping them all in the face. We’re trying to make this a model shelter with the help we have. They are the only way we can get mandatory spay/neutering and they have been slapped down again and again. But the majority will speak. I want members of the Council to tell the volunteers that you’re not needed; we don’t want you in a volunteer organization. All they want to do is advise, the same way as the Glen Lyon Park Commission. The Parks Dept. was intimately involved with the City with the Glen Lyon Park Commission and the City is always involved with any commission that involves the City. The Carousel Park Commission, the Rose Larisa Memorial Park Commission, and any commission we have in this City. But because of the past problems, we say no to it and the saddest part for me is that the animals will be the ones that end up suffering because of this.
Dennis Tabella, Director, Defenders of Animals
Requesting to address the Council to speak in favor of Animal Shelter Commission and opposition to pet limit laws.
Dennis Tabella is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor. Mr. Tabella states in 2003, East Providence took in 500 cats and only 35 were returned to their owner. In 2004, East Providence took in 137 cats and only 16 were returned to their owner. These numbers come from the State Veterinary Office, where each City and Town is required to send in monthly reports. What do you think that number will look like when next years report comes out if this proposed ordinance is passed? Make no mistake, your cat intake and death rate will go sky high. Neighbors will be turning in neighbor’s cats and trapping them. You’re going to have neighbors feuding all over the City.
One un-neutered and one un-spayed cat can produce 420,000 cats within seven years. You do nothing by limiting cats in people’s homes. Do you really think you’re going to solve anything by this proposed restriction? Warwick, Providence, and Pawtucket have restrictions and they still have cat problems every day of the week. They are putting down animals left and right.
Those people who let their cats out to roam neighborhoods to damage their neighbor’s yards and gardens are going to still do it no matter how many restrictions you put on it. They don’t know any better. I have no problem with the City having a strong nuisance ordinance in place. Go after the people that are causing the problem, don’t go after the people who having been taking care of their pets in their homes. All you will do if you pass this ordinance is cause grief, heartache, and feuds between neighbors. What will a parent tell a child when an extra animal has to be turned over to animal control and destroyed? Families will either break the law in front of their children or break their hearts.
You want to take cats away from the elderly; these cats are their companions. Unless there is a health problem in that house, you don’t have a right to do it, morally or otherwise. You have convicted felons on your streets, habitual offenders who are protected by laws, yet we are considering turning civic-minded residents into criminals. We don’t have the death penalty in Rhode Island for sex offenders, we don’t have one for those who take innocent lives, but we want to justify a death penalty for cats because of inconsiderate neighbors who let their cats roam the streets. Make the offenders pay the price, not the animals.
I can tell you stories all night about other cities like Providence, going into peoples home, dragging their cats out of their homes. Don’t think it won’t happen here in East Providence and don’t think you won’t have lawsuits because the second you take a cat from someone’s home, there better be a good State law to back it up. I don’t know why the City of East Providence wants to this, it’s an invasion of people’s privacy, decency, and rights. This proposed ordinance means every seventh cat will die. The problem can be solved without causing misery and pain. Instruct the animal control division to go into the neighborhood and find the ones who are letting their cats cause the problems and fine them. Don’t focus on controlling animals, but on controlling irresponsible pet owners with stronger nuisance laws. Pass a spay/neuter ordinance before they are adopted from the shelter. By doing this, we won’t cause a lot of misery for our neighbors. We won’t put a burden on the animal control division and won’t have to destroy hundreds of cats in East Providence this year. Channel 10 took a poll and asked would you risk your life to save your family pet. 11,470 people in Rhode Island said yes. They certainly are not in favor of this ordinance.
Councilman Midgley makes a motion to approve for First Passage. The motion is seconded by Councilman Miranda. Roll call vote as follows:
| Councilman Caine | Nay |
| Councilman Midgley | Aye |
| Councilman Miranda | Nay |
| Councilwoman Perry | Nay |
| Mayor Larisa | Nay |
The motion is defeated 4 to 1
3) The following ordinance establishes an animal shelter commission
SECTION I. Article I entitled “In General” of Chapter 3 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Animals” in amended by adding thereto the following:
Sec. 3-22. Animal shelter commission.
There shall be a commission established called the East Providence Animal Shelter Commission. The purpose of the commission is to advise the animal control officer and support the East Providence animal shelter.
The commission shall have nine members who shall be appointed as follows:
Four members of the city council who are elected by ward shall each appoint one qualified elector of the city from their ward to the commission subject to approval by a majority of the city council; the remaining at large member of the city council shall appoint one qualified elector from the city to the commission subject to approval by a majority of the city council. There shall be three additional members appointed by a majority vote of the city council who shall also be qualified electors of the city of East Providence. The animal control officer shall serve as Chairman of the Commission.
The commission shall meet a minimum of once per month. A secretary shall be appointed by the commission.
The commission duties are as follows:
Advise and assist the animal control officer on animal care, vaccinations, general and emergency care of sick or injured animals, spay/neuter, dietary needs, procedures for adoptions, educational efforts in the community, physical changes to structure, adoption of any new regulations proposed and adopted on the state level, and adoption for presentation to the council any changes to or new ordinances concerning the care of animals in the city of East Providence. Commission members shall not be involved in the operation of the animal shelter. The Commission may form a nonprofit entity for the purposes of raising funds for shelter purposes. The Commission shall direct the use of all funds raised.
This ordinance shall expire within one year of its enactment.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (By Mayor Larisa)
After further discussion, a motion is made by Mayor Larisa, seconded by Councilwoman Perry to approve for First Passage. Roll call vote as follows:
| Councilman Caine | Nay |
| Councilman Midgley | Nay |
| Councilman Miranda | Nay |
| Councilwoman Perry | Aye |
| Mayor Larisa | Aye |
The motion is defeated by 3 to 2 vote. Councilman Miranda was not in the room, but stated earlier he would vote against this ordinance.
4) The following is an ordinance amendment regarding restraint of dogs
SECTION I. Sec. 3-31 entitled “To be restrained at all times.” of Article II entitled “Dogs” of Chapter 3 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Animals” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 3-31. To be restrained at all times.
The owner shall keep the dog under restraint at all times and shall not permit the dog to be at large or off the premises of the owner, unless under the control of a competent person and further restrained by a leash no longer than six (6) feet in length on city property.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by: Councilman Midgley)
Councilman Midgley states that this ordinance states no longer than six-feet on City property. It eliminates longer lead on dogs. It will prevent dogs from running up or getting wrapped up around you. I think it’s a reasonable request on City property, it doesn’t mean the sidewalks or anywhere else. When you’re on City property, I think a six-foot lead is sufficient. Defenders of Animals ridiculed me on this, but I don’t believe this is a hardship on anyone. What it does it keeps your dog close to you in a crowded environment, especially when on City property. I don’t think it’s restrictive.
Mayor Larisa asks does City property include sidewalks or streets? Councilman Midgley states no, that is public property. Streets and sidewalks I don’t consider to be City property.
After further discussion, Mayor Larisa states the following wording should be added after city property: “excluding therefrom city streets and sidewalks”.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, a motion is made to approve as amended for First Passage. Roll call vote as follows:
| Councilman Caine | Aye |
| Councilman Midgley | Aye |
| Councilman Miranda | Aye |
| Councilwoman Perry | Nay |
| Mayor Larisa | Nay |
The motion passes 3 to 1
5) The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining to animals in public parks
SECTION I. Sec. 3-10 entitled “Nuisance abatement.” of Article I entitled “In General” of Chapter 3 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Animals” is amended by deleting therefrom the following:
(c) It shall be unlawful to allow or permit any animal to trespass on private or public property so as to damage or destroy any property or thing of value and the animal trespassing on private or public property is hereby declared to be a nuisance and such animal may be impounded by the animal control officer.
SECTION II. Sec. 3-10 entitled “Nuisance abatement.” of Article I entitled “In General” of Chapter 3 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Animals” is amended by adding thereto the following:
(e) It shall be unlawful to allow or permit any animal upon those areas of public parks designated as sport playing fields or picnic areas.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. (Requested by: Councilman Midgley)
(NOTE: Subsection (c) above is being deleted to correct an editing error in Section 3-10)
After discussion, the Council states the following wording should be deleted after playing fields: “or picnic areas”.
Councilman Midgley states he would like to amend section (e) and strike picnic areas from it. It’s not public parks, it’s public parks designated as sport playing fields.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve as amended for First Passage.
D. COMMUNICATIONS
Mike Conley, 124 Prescott Ave.
Requesting to address the Council to discuss graffiti on fences and it taking away from their property values
Mike Conley is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor. He passes out pictures of what has been happening in the neighborhood. On July 26th, his wife called him and then called the Police and told them that someone had vandalized the D’Agostino’s side of the fence. They own the fence. Police came and looked at it and went to their house and the D’Agostino’s said they spray painted the fence. I called City Hall and spoke to Mr. Pimentel about the situation with the fence and he said they were being prosecuted. On July 28th, my neighbor, Cindy Dugas, was out there and saw that the D’Agostino’s were having their own child and his friend spray paint the fence. The Police came and went over to them and they admitted they had spray painted the fence. The Police report states that she dislikes all of her neighbors and she’ll do anything in her way to annoy them. We’ve lived there for twelve years, have brought our kids up here, and never had any problems here. Everyone gets along good. Basically, it depreciates the whole area. And for them to destroy their own fence, what are they going to do to our properties? They’re home all day and they don’t work. We’re afraid to go to work and leave our property because of what’s going to happen next. They wait for us to leave to do this. It is no way to live. We came here to see if you could help us.
Mayor Larisa asks didn’t they show you letters from their former neighbors thanking them for leaving the neighborhood? Mr. Conley states yes. Because of the problems they’re having with the codes and the laws with the fence, they are now retaliating and doing this. The fence has to go back 20 feet and it doesn’t. We were just trying to find out where the boundaries of our property were because we knew they were putting a fence up so we just wanted to find out where the line was. I tried to put a line up to see where it was and had to call the Police to baby-sit them because they were out of control. I had to have the Police watch them while I put the line up. We all take care of our property, we all have nice yards, but we all have to look at this fence.
Mayor Larisa asks the Solicitor what can we do to help? Solicitor Conley state they’ve gone through the Zoning Office, sent the proper notice of the violation of the fence and the first notice has gone out. I like everyone else got phone calls from them complaining about the prosecution. The way it works is that people have time to cure the problem and a second notice has to go out and then a failure to cure it before you can bring prosecution on these type of cases. It does take some time. Everybody was getting calls trying to prevent the prosecution and Mr. Conley said once it did go forward, is when they resorted to this conduct. We are prosecuting them for what we can, which is the Zoning violation regarding the fence. But painting on a fence is probably something we can’t undo and you may not want to hear it, but we probably can’t do anything about it. As tasteless as it is and the lack of common courtesy, but there is not a lot that we can do about that.
Councilman Caine asks if a survey was ever done. Mr. Conley says yes, and City Hall was going to come back and recheck the whole survey. Solicitor Conley will follow up on that. The Zoning Officer shared with me the report and for the first time was brought to our attention that the fence itself may be on our easement which it cannot be. That’s why I’ve requested Engineering to go back and get the survey so we can make the determination as to whether or not the fence is encroaching on our easement. If it is encroaching on our easement, I will recommend we take appropriate action. I know it takes a while, but we are following up on it and prosecution is going forward on the fence and we are determining whether or not it is encroaching on our easement.
Mayor Larisa states if it does, we can maybe work out a compromise that if you leave it there, you paint it back and you leave it alone, in some sort of written agreement they sign.
Councilman Caine states the first issue is you that you need a permit to put up a fence, if none was pulled and it’s not in the right spot, then it needs to be approved. Solicitor Conley asks Mr. Conley to call him this week and I’ll let you know exactly what the status of the prosecution is and make it a priority to work on the encroachment issues as well.
Cindy Dugas is also present and sworn in by the City Solicitor. She says took the photographs. I’m very happy where we live, the community is wonderful. I didn’t take the pictures to make any enemies. I’m just trying to make the point that this isn’t acceptable behavior, especially knowing parents would allow their child to do that. I’m worried for my children because they see and hear all this.
Mr. Conley states they have submitted a whole timetable to City Hall and East Providence Police of all the incidents with these people. Everyone is frustrated because she calls up all the time about situations that aren’t even true. We just need your help.
Mayor Larisa asks the Solicitor to check for the next meeting of whether we can have any ordinance, which would prevent a person from defacing with the intent. Even if you have to prove intent because you can’t have good taste police, but maybe you can have an intentional defacing of property with the intent of hurting a neighbor. The Solicitor will check on this.
There being no further business, on motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, the meeting adjourns at 12:20 a.m.
Attest:
__________________________________
Dana L. Toy
City Clerk
Approved: September 6, 2005