I.  CONSENT CALENDAR

A.  APPROVAL OF COUNCIL JOURNALS

May 17, 2005 – Regular Meeting

June 7, 2005 – Regular Meeting

June 21, 2005 – Joint Council/School Committee Meeting

June 23, 2005 – Special Meeting     

B.  CANCELLATION/ABATEMENTS (Requested by Tax Assessor)

C.  Alcoholic Beverage License - Class F – July 16, 2005

Crescent Park Carousel Annual Clamboil, 700 Bullocks Point Ave.      

D.  RESOLUTION – Representative Amy G. Rice, District 72 – to oppose the development of State open space land in Big River Management Area

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Consent Calendar.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

II.  APPOINTMENTS

Conservation Commission (By Mayor Larisa)

            Nancy R. Stevens

37 Beaumont Street

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Conservation Commission (By Mayor Larisa)

            George E. Kent

154 Redland Avenue

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Mayor Larisa, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent. 

Zoning Board of Review  (By Councilman Caine)

Michael Beauparlant

387 Greenwood Avenue

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Unanimous Consent:  On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll call vote, Eugene Saveory is reappointed as Zoning Board of Review Chairman.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

III.  CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS LICENSING COMMISSIONERS

LICENSES REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING

1) Show Cause Hearing (continued from May 3, 2005 meeting)

Simon Karam, S. Karam, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Mart, 1049 South Broadway

Solicitor Conley states this on docket as result of a complaint regarding the violation of the issuance of a license for deliveries occurring early in the morning.  Since the hearing date, the license holder has complied and there have been no further complaints.  Would like to move to dismiss the show cause notice.

Robert Henderson, Mauran Avenue is present and previously sworn in.  He asks if the stipulation of no deliveries between 10pm-7am on the license will stay with it. Mr. Conley states that the stipulation will remain on the license.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to dismiss the show cause hearing.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

2) B-Full Privilege Victualer:  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

Paul T. Shire, Terrapin Foods, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia Food & Cocktails, 315 Waterman Ave.

Paul T. Shire, 17 Field Street, Seekonk, MA is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

*Letter of Objection received regarding location of dumpsters - Solicitor Conley states it’s from a neighbor objecting to the location of a dumpster being too close to the set back requirements so I would ask it be subject to the Zoning Officer confirming dumpster is properly located.

Mr. Shire states he has no problem with moving the dumpster.

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

3) Vict/Over 50:  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

Paul T. Shire, Terrapin Foods, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia Food & Cocktails, 315 Waterman Ave.

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

On motion of Councilwoman 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.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

4) Class A Retailer - (Transfer of Stock Only)  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

Florence H. McGreen, Haxton’s of Riverside, Inc., 1086 Willett Ave.

Jack McGreen represents applicant.  This is a request for transfer pursuant to Section 3, 5, 10.  Applicant is already a 50% shareholder and is seeking additional 50 shares of corporation.

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

5) Secondhand/Miscellaneous:  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

Edward C. Taylor d/b/a Taylor & Sons Used Furniture, 1070 Willett Ave.

Edward C. Taylor, 145 Verndale Avenue, Providence, is present and sworn in by City Solicitor.

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

6) B-Full Privilege Victualer (Transfer):  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: James Dillenbach, d/b/a 305 Club

To: Maria C. Rego, d/b/a 305 Club, 305 Lyon Ave.

The attorney representing the applicant states that the operation there now is a bar and what they are proposing is for food & pub.  Mrs. Rego has been in food service for over 15 years.  The hours of operation would be from midday until 1am.  There is also proposed having karaoke a couple of nights a week and some live entertainment on weekends. 

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

7) Vict/Over 50 (Transfer):  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: James Dillenbach, d/b/a 305 Club

To: Maria C. Rego, d/b/a 305 Club, 305 Lyon Ave.

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

8) Dance/Entertainment (Transfer):  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: James Dillenbach, d/b/a 305 Club

To: Maria C. Rego, d/b/a 305 Club, 305 Lyon Ave.

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

9) Pool Table (Transfer):  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: James Dillenbach, d/b/a 305 Club

To: Maria C. Rego, d/b/a 305 Club, 305 Lyon Ave.

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

10) Pool Table-Sunday (Transfer):  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: James Dillenbach, d/b/a 305 Club

To: Maria C. Rego, d/b/a 305 Club, 305 Lyon Ave.

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 subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Unanimous Consent:  On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Alcoholic Beverage

Licenses for St. Francis Church for Friday, July 22, 2005 and for Saturday, August 13, 2005.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING

1) Vict/Over 50 (Transfer):  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: Vasilios & Eleni Stamatakis, d/b/a Rooster’s Grill

To: Panagiotis Sofikitis, d/b/a Rooster’s Grill, 664 Bullocks Point Ave.

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.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

LICENSING COMMISSIONERS RESUME SITTING AS CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING

IV.  PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, & INTRODUCTIONS

A proclamation is read by Mayor Larisa and presented to Samuel Abbood for East Providence Heritage Week.

Unanimous Consent: Mayor Larisa changes the order of business to move up the two block parties under Communications.

Gregory S. Dias, 57 Tryon Avenue

Requesting to address the Council re: neighbors of Tryon Ave., Gibbs St., and Estelle St., request permission to block off Tryon Ave. at the corner of Gibbs St. and corner of Merchant St. and that Estelle St. be blocked at Ferris Ave. for 4^th Annual Block Party on July 16, 2005

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve subject to approval from the Chief of Police.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Jim Miller and Brian Lundstrom

Requesting to address the Council re:  permission to close for local traffic Watchemoket Square which includes Warren Avenue westbound from exit 5 at Comedy Connection, First Street from Mauran Avenue to Warren Avenue, Valley Street to North Brow Street. Sunday, July 24, 2005 from 10:30 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. for the Brian B-Lo Lundstrom Motorcycle Ride.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve subject to approval from the Chief of Police.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Motion to return to the regular order of business by Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine.

V.  PUBLIC HEARINGS

ORDINANCES - FINAL PASSAGE   (Given first passage June 21^st.  Advertised – Providence Journal – June 24, 2005)              

The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining to building permit late charge

SECTION I.  Subsection (1) of Section 4-16 entitled “Building permits.” of Article II entitled “Permits” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations” is hereby amended to read as follows:

(1)  All building permits, whether for new structures, repairs or alterations, and the fees for such permits are hereby fixed as follows.  A $500.00250.00 late charge shall be added for starting work before obtaining a permit.  Said late charge may be waived at the reasonable discretion of the building official as a result of work being performed due to exigent circumstances; provided said waiver is limited to one waiver per property and owner.

SECTION II.  This ordinance shall take effect upon second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

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.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

VI.  NEW BUSINESS

A.  CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Warren Ave. Streetscape Update

Mr. Fazioli gives an update on the sidewalk project.  The bids have been sent out and are due back the end of the month.  It’s a joint venture between the City and DOT.  The total project is $950,000 with $500,000 coming from DOT and $450,000 from the City.  The Cities portion is from bond funds issued two years ago.  The $500,000 from DOT is funneled through the Federal Highway Administration. Congress has not passed their bill yet.  Hope to proceed as quickly as we can and at least do the Cities portion.  As Congress reconvenes in August or September, we hope that the Federal Highway Bill is acted on and that would free up the $500,000 from DOT.  We didn’t want to miss out on this construction cycle, so we did have agreement with RIDOT to at least put it out to bid assuming that the Federal Highway Bill gets passed this fall and that will keep the project alive for this year.

Mayor Larisa asks if this does anything to the cost.  Mr. Fazioli states we are going for the bid on the entire project and our anticipation is that the Federal Highway Bill will be passed by the calendar year.  The City may have to cut a bridge loan internally to finish the project and then get reimbursed by DOT, but we didn’t want to wait and not bid the project until spring of 2006. 

Authorization to seek bids – Worker’s Comp. Insurance

Mr. Fazioli states that the City is self insured for Worker’s Compensation, injured on duty.  Have been working with people at Beacon Insurance and the Interlocal Trust to get us into a routine Worker’s Comp. Program and get us into position to seek bids and incorporate this into the budget.  This way, we would have claims management and administration of our injured on duty workers.  Right now, it’s up to a Human Resource person to manage all these claims and it’s really beyond the capability of a single person to handle.  With Beacon or Interlocal Trust, we would have a full service claims administration program, which we currently do not have.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to seek bids.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Authorization to issue RFQ – Public Safety Complex Feasibility Study

Mr. Fazioli states he is seeking authorization from the Council to issue an RFQ for firms to help us study the feasibility of having a public safety complex.  Presented the Council with a list of capital improvements the City will face over the next ten years and included in that was a public safety building.  We are in need of replacing Fire Station 1 on North Broadway.  It was built in the 1930’s and it is at a point where it cannot fit a lot of the fire apparatus in the building physically.  Right now, Station 1 is the busiest station in our City, it is right in the center of the City. We also go into Providence and this station is situated right off the highway.  In the next few years, we should be seeing substantial residential developments on the waterfront and we need the consultants to tell us where a new facility should be based on the changing landscape of the community.  Right now, we have no presence or any way to get down to the waterfront if we had to.  These studies will show if it is feasible to combine police and fire complex and where it should be located.  We have some money available from prior budgets for this study. 

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Sale of surplus property – Harding Ave. Parcels

Mr. Fazioli states back in February, the Council received a report from the Planning Board recommending the sale of certain city-owned surplus properties.  Two parcels are the Harding Avenue properties, which the Council has talked about over the years for potential sale.  These are two waterfront properties located on Harding Avenue currently being used by the neighbors for parking purposes.  Parcel 15 is approximately 6,800 square feet.  This property abuts an existing home.  Parcel 17 is approximately 9,500 square feet.  The Planning Board recommended sale of both parcels.  Asking tonight for the Council’s permission to sell Parcel 15 and put it on the market to see what kind of price it demands. For Parcel 17, would like to reserve this parcel for potential sale to the neighbors to ease their parking situation down there.  Will work with the neighbors over a six-month period and if we’re not able to come to terms with the neighbors, then we could just put it out on open market. 

Councilman Midgley states he realizes it is not our responsibility to provide parking for the residents, but I hope the abutters can come up with a fair value to get it.  Would like to see it stay with the neighbors because without the parking, they will be in an awful spot.  Years ago, no one really had cars.  We should make some kind of consideration to the neighbors for them to buy it.  It really would devastate them to not get it.  I want to make the best deal for the neighbors as well as for the City. 

Mr. Fazioli states that the zoning in the area is 5,000 square feet and believes that these are both buildable lots.  CRMC permitting would be required and the buyer would know that.  I would put that notice on the buyer of the property, I wouldn’t put the City in a position to file CRMC permits. That is the risk they take in buying any waterfront property.

Amar Singh of 13 Harding Ave. steps up.  He is the abutter to the 6,800 square foot lot.  He would like for the sake of the neighborhood to buy it as a non-buildable lot.  It can be deeded as a non-buildable lot and I will still leave all the parking the way it is and I will not put a building on it.  That way, the neighbors can enjoy the open view that is there and my benefit is that I wouldn’t have another house right next to me. 

Councilman Caine states his perspective is what is the value of these two lots.  Whether they are buildable or not or what you’re plan is, my issue is what is the highest value we can get to help the City.  Would rather have bids accepted on both lots and if we want to, we can reserve the right to the neighbors to make it a competing bid. At least we’ll know then the value of both lots. 

Councilwoman Perry states we also have to think about the value of people’s lives and I’ve been down there and they do have a parking situation down there.  I hope we can do something for them.

Mr. Singh states that he just wants to make the Council aware that he is willing to buy the lot and leave it as is, leave the parking there for the benefit of the neighborhood, that this option is available.  One of the functions of City government is to help people in the City.  There are older people on the street and if you don’t have parking there, on a winter night if you have to park somewhere else and walk on that street with ice on the road, it’s very hazardous. 

Mayor Larisa states there is no disagreement with that, but what we’ll have disagreement on is the dollar amount.  The dilemma we have is the good faith of the neighborhood as well as protecting all the taxpayers of the City.  I don’t see why we can’t put both parcels out to bid and reserve the right to sell one or both or none based on what the bids come back at.  Again, we want to do something for the neighbors and when these bids come back, then we’ll really have a fair market value on both parcels and before we do anything, we can see if we can work something out with the neighbors on one of these parcels.

BettyAnn Perry of 20 Harding Avenue steps up and states they have appraised values on that already and it is between $185,000 - $225,000.  We were told that you were going to try to let us have first bids on the lots.  What happened to that appraised value?  Mayor Larisa states that it is wrong, the amount is way off.  I think the majority of the Council is committed that neither of those properties will be sold at whatever the bids come in until we work with the neighbors to see if we can get a price on either one of the lots that lets you get one.  Neither one will go to anyone before this Council and the City Manager sit down and say this is what we got from the market place, which is the only real way to tell the value.  Some of us are willing to cut a little less money for the neighbors, but what is that price once we get it back and can we figure a way to structure something.  But I believe this Council is committed to not sell either one until we sit down with the neighbors once the bids come back and figure out if we can accommodate you with one of the lots. 

On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to put both Parcel 15 & 17 out to bid, that the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids on both parcels, and before the Council proceeds to sell either parcel, that a meeting will be held with the neighbors to determine whether either parcel can be sold to a neighborhood group.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Rose Larisa Memorial Park authorization of expenditure

Mr. Fazioli discusses a memo itemizing the funding for improvements to the park.  The sources for the funding of the grant were two grants totaling 1.128 million dollars.  Expenses to date are $990,000.  In the process of building the ramp and the pad for the amphitheatre, that’s $138,000.  Have approximately $53,000 in this grant left over for improvements to the park and tonight I’m asking the Council for authorization to spend $5,000 for a replacement

chain link fence that sits on the seawall.  The fence would go from north end of seawall all the way down to past the stairways.  It would be a five-foot high black vinyl coated fence that would replace the existing chain link fence.  We would leave the existing posts in place, paint them, and the Parks Dept. would install this fence so we wouldn’t have to pay any labor costs.

Councilman Caine asks what about the band shell?  Mr. Fazioli states that is not included in these numbers yet.  Mayor Larisa states that this will not be included in these numbers.  Director Crook is paying the $22,000 cost from the Parks Department budget for the band shell, $8,000 of that is included in the handicap ramp price for the concrete base.  He states the Rose Larisa Memorial Park Committee has been fighting for a concession stand with two handicap access bathrooms twice now.  I will be coming to the Council in the next couple months in connection with the October budget with potential additional federal funding and the first amount of surplus property money that would be dedicated to a concession stand/handicapped access bathrooms in conjunction with opening the beach in a couple of years.  Unfortunately, I had hoped to have over $100,000 left to start with.  I’m not opposed to the $5,000 for the chain-link fence, but that leaves only about $48,000.  We should be back up to close to $100,000 with another remaining item that will be worked out in the next couple of months, which is the liability of the landscape architect for not having the wheelchair access ramp put in in the first place. 

Councilman Caine asks wasn’t the band shell approved by the committee.  Mayor Larisa states it was, but the $48,000 left after is not to be used on the band shell because there was an agreement and a dispute between Director Crook, City Manager Fazioli, and myself that the amphitheatre was not authorized to proceed by this Council, it did proceed without authorization, and the resolution to that issue was that the band shell would come out of the Parks Department’s budget.  The $48,000 plus $250,000 - $300,000 more is what the City needs for the concession stand and handicapped access bathrooms if we’re to do that project. So we’re actually short on what is needed.  Bidding on the amphitheatre and concession stand back six months ago is we were going to have full or none.  Much to my surprise, there were activities that occurred that got one and deleted another, and the resolution of that issue was that the funding would come from the Parks Department budget and partial funding of concrete base from this account.  We’re actually short $250,000 or more for the concession stand/handicapped access bathrooms, provided we build it at all.

Councilman Caine states we haven’t even gone through the first budget go around and we have money sitting here to pay for this.  It is something that’s outstanding, it’s part of the park, and has been voted on by the commission.  The question will be from a budgetary prospective what do we have left and where can we find funds.  But my understanding this park was originally put together by not using City funds; that I believe was the intent. 

Mayor Larisa states, not the intent, but a miracle in how the project got done.  I will be very actively requesting that the City fund at least 5-10% of this park.  We just did Glenlyon Park with a 50% City contribution, so I think it is only fair for only 5-10%.  But that is not before us tonight. We can discuss this at the next meeting, but you have been well aware of both of these issues, the concession stand and band shell. 

Councilman Caine asks if the money go away after December 31^st?  Mayor Larisa states he will have a proposal well before then to wrap this all up.  We are in full agreement that any money from a Federal or State-funding source will not be going back.  Councilman Caine would like that looked into to see if the funds go away or not after December 31^st because we’ll have the budget go around in September for approval in October.

On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to expend $5,000 to replace chain link fence.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

Corporate authority for collective bargaining purposes

Mr. Fazioli states he needs corporate authority for labor negotiations from the Council.  It is a wage reopener as we enter into labor negotiations in anticipation the budget. That contract was agreed upon several years ago and allowed for wage reopeners each year and I need corporate authority to do that.  We are in negotiations with all four unions in the City.  Mayor Larisa asks if we usually have a Council member and the City Manager says you can appoint a Council member.  The Mayor states to be clear, the Council must still approve by a 3-2 vote.  Mr. Fazioli states yes, that is correct it’s not corporate authority to actually resolve anything; it’s just to discuss it.

On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to appoint the City Manager, the City Solicitor, and Councilman Caine corporate authority for collective bargaining purposes.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

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.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

2) Class B Alcoholic Beverage License Regulations (by William J. Conley, Jr., City Solicitor)   

Mr. Conley states a recently enacted statute requires that the City enact regulations for the issuance of entertainment licenses to Class B licensees and attached are the regulations for those licenses and recommend the approval of this.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

3) Donation Of Firefighting Coats (by Chief Brassill, Fire Dept.)

Chief Brassill steps up and states that in the past, they have donated equipment to the Guatemalan Fire Dept.  We’re asking at this time to donate our goods that we are going to be discarding anyway.  A memo was sent that requested we add to that hose that would be discarded as well.  The Guatemalan Fire Chief visited us on Friday and he expressed his gratitude with a plaque and metal of honor to thank us for our generosity.

On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

4) Lease Agreement Between Exxon Mobil Oil Corp. & The City Of East Providence Mr. Conley states this is the lease that came about as a result of discussions between the City and Exxon Mobil generated by Homeland Security.  The lease creates an agreement between the City and Exxon Mobil, which allows the City to access a boat mooring area, the guard shack, and parking associated with the dock area there.  Exxon Mobil will waive any and all rental payments for the duration of the lease and will terminate on February 1, 2008.  This will allow us additional mooring areas in that part of the river, which we don’t have now, allows us access to these facilities at Exxon Mobil in the event of an emergency, and allow us to work with the security in place at Exxon Mobil in relation to security issues around that area. We received a sizable grant for a new boat that was secured by the Police Dept. within the last year, which will provide security for our waters. 

On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

C.  COUNCIL MEMBERS

(BY MAYOR LARISA)

1) Dog Shelter Commission Ordinance

After discussion, on motion of Mayor Larisa, the ordinance is continued for an indefinite period of time.

2) Adoption of ordinance for cat spay/neuter policy at animal shelter

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)

Mayor Larisa states that this ordinance states there shall be a spay/neuter program, which will be adopted by the Animal Control Officer with the approval of the City Manager.  We need an adoption fee set to help cover some of the costs of that, and the Council is not setting the adoption fee.  The Animal Control Officer, with the approval of the City Manager, will set the adoption fee. This way Mr. Savoy, the City Manager, and others can work out the right way to structure in the amount without having the Council set the amount.

Councilman Midgley asks is this only for cats or does it apply to cats and dogs.  Mayor Larisa states that it is an ordinance is for just cats. Councilman Midgley asks if there is a spay/neuter ordinance for dogs out of the pound.  Mayor Larisa states other than the existing one, which is that you have to pay a deposit and then you have so many number of months to get it done, and the Animal Control Officer calls you to make sure you have it done.

Following further discussion, a motion to approve for First Passage and to amend the motion authorizing this to happen administratively immediately is made by Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry.  Roll call vote is as follows:

The motion for First Passage carries 3 to 1.  It is noted for the record that Councilman Miranda is absent.

3) Dogs at Rose Larisa Memorial Park

Mayor Larisa states he was alerted by e-mails and calls that there were signs that read “Respect the park, no dogs” put up at Rose Larisa Memorial Park the Friday before the 4^th of July.  Also heard and read that the Parks Director said that it is part of his job and there is no dispute about that.  And that we have no dog signs up at Pierce Field and at ball fields.  But in this case, what is most bothersome about this is that it is one thing if the Council never said anything on this topic, it is another thing if the Carousel or Rose Larisa Memorial Park Commissions never knew anything about this and the Director was just putting up signs.  That still would have been wrong and the Council still should have been consulted.  But it is another thing when we were consulted on this and this Council in a meeting in January or February with the Director of Parks there saying that we should put up no dog signs in the park and we had a whole meeting following and the Council unanimously indicated that we did not want to do that.  Maybe as a last resort in the future, but we do not want to do that.   There is a big difference between Pierce Field and ball fields and Rose Larisa Memorial Park.  One is a ball field; the other is a park for walking and enjoyment, and for a lot of people that includes walking their dogs.  Then at a joint meeting between the Carousel Park and Rose Larisa Memorial Park Committee the Director again said he needed support banning dogs from Rose Larisa Park and the answer again was no, no support of this, not one person in the room.  This may have to be done as a last resort in the future.  Putting up those signs after that is not doing your job. I did get one e-mail saying I am surprised, but I think we should ban dogs from the park because there are too many people ignoring the common courtesy of picking up after their dogs and ignoring the City ordinance.  The Council did say at our meeting that what should happen is that there should be rules posted at the parks. 

Providence parks have rules posted, such as closed after midnight, curb your dog, please pickup after your pet and deposit it in the proper receptacle, all animals must be on leashes, please don’t litter, etc.  We discussed this happening and it never did and this is what happened instead.  So hopefully, we will get those signs up at the park soon because there is broad agreement here that most people are responsible pet owners and don’t want to be penalized because others are violating the law.  No one wants feces all over any of the parks in the City, but I don’t think we are anywhere near yet banning dogs at any park in the City until we try everything else in our power to keep the parks cleaner.  People need to be responsible pet owners, but we shouldn’t be punishing the responsible pet owner for the irresponsibility of a few.  At the park, what happened over the winter was what had amassed once the snow melted. When spring came, people have started to respect the park better.  I agree we still do have a long way to go.  I just want to remind everyone again to please pick up after your dog, we don’t want to go and see these signs up again banning dogs at any park, but you have to help us.  You have to pick up after your dog so everyone is happy and the parks can stay clean.

Councilman Caine states that the time we went down to Rose Larisa Park back in May, there were three cars that pulled up while we were there, opened the doors, let their dogs out without leashes, the dogs did their business, and went back to the cars. Again, as a former member of the Rumford Little League Board, we had signs up saying curb your dog, pickup after your dog.  I think something needs to be done.  I believe some people are using the parks as a backyard for their dogs.  I think some sort of signs should be posted at that park as well as the other parks in the City.  You would think it wouldn’t be necessary from a common sense perspective, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.

4) “Grand Opening of Access to Crescent Beach – July 28, 2005”

Mayor Larisa states the Governor’s Disability Commission indicated they were interested in celebrating the anniversary of the American’s with Disabilities Act at our wheelchair access ramp upon its opening.  We have a concert scheduled at the park on July 28^th so we’re scheduling the grand opening for Thursday, July 28 at 5:30 p.m. at Rose Larisa Memorial Park where we’ll have all three public accesses to the beach opened to be able to go down to Crescent Beach, both of the staircases and the wheelchair access ramp.  It is a great accomplishment for the City and we hope to see everyone there on Thursday.

(BY COUNCILMAN CAINE)

1) The Supreme Court’s Decision in Kelo, et al. vs. City of New London and its effect on East Providence’s economic development.

Councilman Caine discusses the recent case that happened in New London over the condemnation and eminent domain proceedings.  Specific portions of the City of New London were blighted to some degree; however, there were some residential neighborhoods there that were well maintained and what the City did was create a development agency in order to try and develop their waterfront.  In doing so, they went around buying any property that they could buy.  Then there were about 15 properties left and those owners did not want to sell.  They moved along the condemnation trail by eminent domain and took those properties.  How eminent domain works is you file a petition in Superior Court, that development agency then owns the property, and you then have a right to get paid.  That’s how it works.  Actually 11 that lived there and 4 others that were rental property and they took this to the Supreme Court. And the court decided to side with the City of New London. Their decision was based on what I believe is stretching the takings clause.  Under the Fifth Amendment, we have a right of protection under our Constitution that the government does not have the right to take our property unless it is for public use.  What this particular court did, it was a 5-4 decision, a very split decision, the court said they are not going to look at public use, they are going to look at public purpose, which changes in my mind what the entire form of what the Constitution has to say.  And they placed it back to more of a legislative issue in that they thought that the City had done a reasonable job taking a look at the benefits of the community based on economic development.  In Rhode Island, Fidelity and Dow Chemical owned some property up in Smithfield.   The State came in and by eminent domain, took a number of properties for a planned corporate area in order to satisfy the expansion uses of Fidelity and Dow Chemical.  It was intended that the economic benefit that Fidelity and Dow Chemical would bring to the State of Rhode Island by hiring new workers and potentially adding to our economy.  Six or seven years later, Dow Chemical is no longer there, the jobs never materialized, and that case is heading to the Supreme Court in Rhode Island with respect to a public entity taking property from a private citizen and giving it to another private citizen.  That is so beyond the Fifth Amendment, I’m incredulous to the decision they came to.  If you look at their comments, they are taking the public use doctrine and extended it so far that anything that you could say has economic benefit based on what a City Council or some other public agency can say it may add, and it becomes able to be taken.  I raise this for a couple of reasons.  I am against the decision that came down in this case and I hope that at some point it will be overturned or that it would be brought back to constitutional terms, not this continued expansion of what economic benefit is.  From my perspective, the City of East Providence is not blighted and we don’t have any intent that I know of to create any sort of development agency.  We have some developments happening that don’t need our help and those cases are private citizens going to private citizens and buying that property regardless of what the value is.  That’s the determination that private citizens make to themselves.  Have heard that there are people out there talking to owners on the waterfront and telling them if they don’t sell their property, whatever the reasonable rate is, that the City of East Providence is going to take it by condemnation or eminent domain.  I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that does not happen.  In my opinion, a private citizen has the right to own their property, they have to following zoning laws, need to maintain property, but there is no need that I see that we would need to condemn or take any property by eminent domain at this time.  Clearly, the public use doctrine relates to roads, schools, and firehouses.  If we are going to do a study and take a look at new police/fire stations, there is a possibility of where will that go and what makes sense, and that would be a true public use; it is not a private use.  But I haven’t heard from anyone here that there are any plans or attempts in East Providence to create any kind of commission or take anything by eminent domain or condemnation.  If we look at our history in the United States and how our economy was shaped and formed, our waterfront was where commerce was for many years.  You have over time that things will change based on economic need.  If businesses don’t make sense along the waterfront, they move and sell.  From a residential perspective, it’s the same thing.  I don’t think condemnation or eminent domain is something that is needed because I think you need that kind of time to change your City over a long period of time. 

Mayor Larisa states he and Councilman Caine have discussed this and we agree we don’t see any need for condemnation of any property under the auspices of the waterfront commission at this time.  We agree that condemnation would be an absolute last resort only used when all other avenues of determining fair market value and a willing buyer and seller fail.  Where we disagree is I believe that when you have a last resort when you have maybe 12 parcels and you have a proposal of a 1,000 job company that needs the last parcel and our finance director tell us it’s a half million dollars a year in revenue for the next 20 years for the City, but the one entity won’t sell, then the company goes away.  And you look at it and the assessor says that property is worth one million dollars, how much is he asking, he won’t settle for any less than five million, why, because he knows it will kill the project and in my view, that is exactly when condemnation should be used.  They should be able to get fair market value for their property and also get a big premium on the property, but in my view, when you look at public purpose and public use, what is more valuable to the public?  A fire station or a half million dollars a year for twenty years, 1,000 jobs and a great new company in East Providence?  I think you can make a pretty strong argument that the better public use of that property is the proposal where you have to condemn to be the last piece of what is called a squatter from holding the whole project hostage versus taking it for a fire station in the City.  Reasonable people may disagree on this, but I just want to make clear I am not one of the ones who would ever say that the threat of condemnation a lot of times makes a fair market value sale go because if you think you may condemn and maybe instead of five million you accept two million when your property is only worth one million to get it done.  But if you know you have the power to kill it and no one is even thinking about condemnation, you try to go for the five million.  I agree that we have not seen anything we need to condemn now, but I would hate to think anyone on the waterfront is going to hold out for a king’s ransom on a property, again only if essential for a larger piece to get done with the expectation that they can kill East Providence waterfront development for the next 10, 20 or 30 years.  It would be a shame to allow a single person to kill a project that we don’t have. 

Councilman Caine says remember Alpha Beta, they promised a lot of jobs, tax revenue, all sorts of things, and in the long run, they were just promises, nothing else.  Tax revenue today projected over the next twenty-years shows an awful lot of what Dow Chemical was going to bring to Smithfield, and now they are gone.  Why are they gone, because they got a better economic deal somewhere else, five to six years into what they were doing here.  If you have someone on the waterfront paying taxes for over 50 years and they don’t want to sell, then I say don’t sell, it is your right.  You own that land and it is yours.  The economic development issue hasn’t been tracked the way it used to be tracked.  I don’t know how many jobs Fidelity has given, but they certainly got a tremendous economic benefit by moving to the State. 

There’s a building down the street that they were suppose to occupy, Citizen’s Bank occupies it now.  There is another building they were going to develop and build, and they haven’t built or developed it because they haven’t moved the employees yet. 

Councilman Midgley talks about a comment made by Mayor Larisa that a property owner being called a squatter.  Someone who owns a piece of property and doesn’t want to sell it, it is his property, and they are not a squatter.  He’s a property owner and he has rights.  I just can’t believe it came down to nine people deciding that those people in New London don’t own property.  You’re supposed to make reasonable laws that protect the citizens and they give it to nine people. And out of the nine, only five had the same opinion on whose property it was.  That is outrageous.  We need to pay more attention to the people we elect.  They have to protect us, not the special interests, not the big guy, not the guy who wants to buy off the entire waterfront.  I thought about this and if someone wanted to buy my property and I don’t want to sell it, and they say we’ll give you $300,000 for it, what’s wrong with that?  For one thing, I don’t want to sell it and second, I have to give the government capital gains on it.  If I don’t want to sell it, it’s my property; it is my right under the Firth Amendment. 

2) The Waterfront Commission and proposed legislation to change the appointment of its members.

Councilman Caine states there was a bill introduced in the House and Senate that was going to really change the constitution of our waterfront commission.  I received a phone call regarding the Senate hearing and the City Manager and I testified in front of the Senate committee that was reviewing this legislation to talk about this commission and under the guise of separation of powers, they were trying to modify the commission that was created less than a year ago and there was question where the appointments came from and whether any state official was going to be an ex-officio member or not. In my opinion, the waterfront commission works and it needs to have those ex-officio members and members appointed by the Governor.  It gives us a State feel and view when it comes to economic development because you need DOT involved.  The proposed legislation was just bad legislation.  It was scary because we didn’t know about it.  We found out about the hearing on Friday morning, the day of the hearing.  Again, I believe the waterfront commission is working well and I believe it should be left alone for the time being.

Mayor Larisa states we shouldn’t have the City Manager testify until the Council has a position on it.  My biggest problem with the bill was that they never introduce anything affecting a City or Town without them giving it to the Council in advance.  What happened here was it wasn’t a one-page bill, this was a giant bill with many commissions and they stuck us in the middle and what really happened was a legislative staffer thought this was what the Governor wanted and it turns out it was not what he wanted. 

Mr. Fazioli states the reason he wanted to testify was because the City was not consulted on this legislation.  I had seen three Council people Councilman Miranda, Midgley, and Councilwoman Perry earlier in the day and told them about the bill.  Normally, you hear about it and you have weeks to respond to it, but in this case, I did what I thought was best for the City, since we were not consulted at all and this could have changed a very successful waterfront commission and Chairman Rogers was clearly against it.  Fortunately, that portion of the bill was stricken.

(BY COUNCILMAN MIDGLEY)

1) It’s raining cats and dogs

Councilman Midgley states he will be introducing an ordinance at the next meeting to restrict that all animals must be on a six-foot or less leash so they can be under the direct control of the person that’s with them.  It is their responsibility to have a bag with them to pick up the deposits off of the property because it isn’t fair to those trying to enjoy the park.  Regarding cats, Rita Falaguerra and the Animal Control Officer say spaying is a way to get rid of the animal problem, but it doesn’t matter if you have 100 cats that are spayed or neutered, you still have 100 cats, going onto neighbors property and making their lives miserable.  I will attempt to put a limit on the number of cats people can have.  We have a limit for dogs, it is three.  If you want more than three dogs, you have to go to the Chief of Police and ask for permission.  I think three for cats is a little tight, but some sort of limit should be placed on the number of cats you can have.

2) The bill of rights – The bill of wrongs

Councilman Midgley states we have a Bill of Rights, which was one of the original ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States.  Imagine the Bill of Rights is like a ladder going across a big void and in that void there is lava, wolves, lions, tigers, every rung of the ladder is as important as the first step.  And once a rung is broken, you’re on a slippery slope to tyranny.  The vote was 5-4 to take the property away from those people in New London; they put reporters in jail for not revealing their source.  It would be a wonderful thing if people were talking bad about me and they wouldn’t tell me whom they were getting their information from and I could go to the courts and have that reporter put in jail for saying bad things about me.  Because I ran for public office, I’ll take the hits that come my way; that goes with the territory. And when the government can intimidate freedom of the press and freedom of owning property, we have to take a long hard look at what we call freedom.  Someone wrote a letter to the editor and said democracy and freedom are very fragile things.  In the beginning, we went from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and now from dependence back into bondage.  We expect the government and everybody else to do everything for us except ourselves.  And we’re on our way, look at your paychecks, look at the court decisions, look what they’re doing for everybody.  Again, we have a bill of rights and a bill of wrongs and I think what’s happening now is wrong.  We are the only people that can change it.  It is our obligation and responsibility to make this government work, to make this country work.  Freedom of democracy is a fragile thing. 

D.  INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES  (If given first passage, can be referred to the next regular Council meeting to be held on August 16, 2005 for a public hearing and consideration of final passage).