| | CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND JOURNAL OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 | |
4 The City Council meets in the Council Chambers on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 and is called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr.
| Present: | Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr. | ) | |
| | 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 |
| | | | |
| Absent: | Patrick T. Caine | ) | |
The invocation is read by Councilwoman Perry and the Salute to the Flag is led by Councilman Miranda.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COUNCIL JOURNALS
May 3, 2005 – Closed Meeting Re: Council Appointees
September 6, 2005 – Closed Meeting Re: Collective Bargaining
B. CANCELLATION/ABATEMENTS (Requested by Tax Assessor)
| YEAR | AMOUNT |
| 2005 | $5,298.50 |
| TOTAL | $5,298.50 |
C. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE – Class F1 – St. Francis Xavier, 81 North Carpenter Street for October 8, 2005 and November 5, 2005
D. RESOLUTION – Town of Little Compton – resolution in support that Cities shall not exercise their power of eminent domain upon private residential property and transfer it to a private developer for the purpose of improving tax revenue or expanding the tax base or for the purpose of economic development.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to remove the minutes of the May 3, 2005 and September 6,
2005 Closed Meetings from the Consent Calendar and keep them closed. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
II. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, & INTRODUCTIONS
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Representatives from the Red Cross present certificates and backpacks to volunteers.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Without objection, motion made by Mayor Larisa to change the order of business to move up the new graffiti ordinance under Introduction of Ordinances.
ORDINANCES - FINAL PASSAGE (Given first passage September 6, 2005. Advertised-Providence Journal – September 9, 2005)
The following is an ordinance amendment regarding fence graffiti
SECTION I. Chapter 9 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island 1998, as amended, entitled “Miscellaneous Offenses: is amended by adding thereto the following:
Sec. 9-17 Fence graffiti prohibited.
Defacing the side of a fence facing a neighbor with intent to cause visual blight to the adjoining property or neighborhood shall be illegal. The offending party shall remove the graffiti within ten days of citation by the city. If not done, the city shall have the right to remove it. (Requested by Mayor Larisa and Councilman Midgley)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
Mayor Larisa states we were on thin constitutional ice with this ordinance and we have looked at many other ordinances and other cases all over the country in drafting an ordinance that I believe is much stronger than this one. Am asking that we withdraw second passage of this graffiti ordinance that is on for final passage.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to withdraw ordinance. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (If given first passage, can be referred to the next regular Council meeting to be held on October 4, 2005 for a public hearing and consideration of final passage).
The following is an ordinance amendment regarding fence graffiti
SECTION I. Chapter 9 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island 1998, as amended, entitled “Miscellaneous Offenses: is amended by adding thereto the following:
Sec. 9-17. Fence graffiti prohibited.
Graffiti shall be defined as the defacing, altering, modifying, changing, drawing, damaging, or destroying by spraying or use of paint or marking of ink, dye or any other similar substances on public and/or private buildings, structures and places, an inscription, slogan, drawing or modification.
A fence or other structure upon which the owner or agent paints or affixes graffiti for the malicious purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining properties and/or adjacent neighbors shall be deemed a private nuisance. Such nuisance shall constitute a minimum property violation and be within the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Any owner or occupant of adjoining or adjacent properties who are injured either in the comfort or enjoyment of his or her estate thereby may have an action to recover a fine and damages of up to $1,000.00 per incident and/or equitable relief ordered by the court including removal of the graffiti. (Requested by Mayor Larisa and Councilman Midgley)
Mayor Larisa states much research was done on how we could prohibit a person from vandalizing their own property and the conclusion was is that it is more difficult to do as a public nuisance than as a private nuisance, which would mean that the neighbors would have to do it themselves. This ordinance makes it very easy for them to do it themselves because it provides a cause of action in municipal court as a private nuisance. Visual blight is something within the police power of government. You can fix visual blight and we have the power to do it. Then is there a barrier in the constitution for doing it.
Those cases that involve graffiti are usually someone else putting unwanted fixtures on property where they have no right to do it. In this case, people are putting graffiti on their own property, on two different fences. We defined graffiti in this ordinance. We also have a spite fence ordinance. We have a brand new case in the Supreme Court regarding a spite fence law and it upheld the law and applied it. In that case, the neighbors were upset because another neighbor had testified against a variance. So that neighbor erected three, forty-foot bushes blocking the view of the ocean. They ruled that it was a fence and the judge went out and asked what it was its purpose and they said it was for privacy. You don’t need forty feet high for privacy and it was found that it was maliciously erected to harass or annoy the neighbors. This wasn’t a first amendment issue or freedom of expression. You cannot erect a fence with the malicious purpose or intent to annoy the neighbors of surrounding property. The rest of the statute is based on our spite fence ordinance. It would be like a minimum property violation. You would file a complaint with municipal court and if the judge finds it was malicious based on the evidence, you can have an action to recover a fine or damages or the court can order the graffiti to be removed from the fence.
There may be questions of whether it’s graffiti or first amendment right, but this is not the case here. This should mean the judge would have the power to take it down. This may or may not apply to the existing graffiti on the fence.
I also want to thank the neighbors for all of their help with this and say that this matter should not have to go to court. If all sides agree, I would be more than happy to supply the white paint and go over there and fix this. This is what being a good neighbor is. We should not have to even pass this law tonight; you should be able to work this matter out between yourselves. I will try to talk to everyone about this and go down there and let’s just fix the fences and get on with life. If you don’t get along, ok, but we shouldn’t have the eyesore on the fences and not having a way to fix it. I still have difference of opinion with the City Solicitor on the constitutionality of this ordinance.
Mr. Conley states we’ve had a number of discussions on this and exchanged a number of legal documents on this. Again, I want to be supportive of the City and try to do something positive here, but I have an obligation as the City Solicitor to express reservations based on some of the cases we reviewed on whether it could be successfully prosecuted or not.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for First Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
ORDINANCES - FINAL PASSAGE (Given first passage September 6, 2005. Advertised-Providence Journal – September 9, 2005)
The following is an ordinance amendment adding a stop sign to Bradford Avenue at Plymouth Road
SECTION I. Sec. 18-269 entitled “Stop and yield intersections designated; when stops required.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
BRADFORD AVENUE (southbound traffic) at Plymouth Road. (Requested by Director of Public Works)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
The following is an ordinance amendment adding a stop sign to Dodge Street at Vincent Avenue
SECTION I. Sec. 18-269 entitled “Stop and yield intersections designated; when stops required.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
DODGE STREET (northbound and southbound traffic) at Vincent Avenue. (Requested by Director of Public Works)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining to cross connection control and back flow prevention program
SECTION I. Article II entitled “Water” of Chapter 17 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Utilities,” is amended by adding thereto the following:
DIVISION 4. CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL
AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION PROGRAM
Sec. 17-57. Definitions.
A) Approved – Accepted by the Department as meeting an applicable specification stated or cited in this regulation, or as suitable for the proposed purpose.
B) Auxiliary Water Supply – Any water supply, on or available, to the premises other than the purveyor’s approved public water supply.
C) Backflow – The flow of water or other liquids, mixtures or substances, under positive or reduced pressure in the distribution pipes of a potable water supply from any source other than its intended source.
D) Backflow Preventer – A device or means designed to prevent backflow or backsiphonage. Most commonly categorized as air gap, reduced pressure principle device, double check valve assembly, pressure vacuum breaker, atmospheric vacuum breaker, hose bib vacuum breaker, residential dual check, double check with intermediate atmospheric vent, and barometric loop.
1. Air Gap – A physical separation sufficient to prevent backflow between the free flowing discharge end of the potable water system and any other system. Physically defined as a distance equal to twice the diameter of the supply side pipe diameter but never less than one (1) inch.
2. Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker – A device which prevents backsiphonage by creating an atmospheric vent when there is either a negative pressure or sub-atmospheric pressure in a water system.
3. Barometric Loop – A fabricated piping arrangement rising at least thirty (35) feet at its upmost point above the highest fixture it supplies. It is utilized in water supply systems to protect against backsiphonage.
4. Double Check Valve Assembly – An assembly of two (2) independently operating spring loaded check valves with tightly closing shut off valves on each side of the check valves, plus properly located test cocks for the testing of each check valve.
5. Double Check Valve with Intermediate Atmospheric Vent – A device having a two (2) spring loaded check valves separated by an atmospheric vent chamber.
6. Hose Bibb Vacuum Breaker – A device which is permanently attached to a hose bibb and which acts as an atmospheric vacuum breaker.
7. Pressure Vacuum Breaker – A device containing one or two independently operated spring loaded check valves and an independently operated spring loaded air inlet valve located on the discharge side of the check(s). Device includes tightly closing shut-off valves on each side of the check valves and properly located test cocks for the testing of the check valve(s).
8. Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Preventer – An assembly consisting of two (2) independently operating approved check valves with an automatically operating differential relief valve located between the two (2) check valves, tightly closing shut-off valves on each side of the check valves plus properly located test cocks for the testing of the check valves and the relief valve.
9. Residential Dual Check – An assembly of two (2) spring loaded, independently operating check valves without tightly closing shut-off valves and test cocks. Generally employed immediately downstream of the water meter to act as a containment device.
E) Backpressure – A condition in which the owners’ system pressure is greater than the suppliers’ system pressure.
F) Backsiphonage – The flow of water or other liquids, mixtures or substances into the distribution pipes of a potable water supply system from any source other than its intended source caused by the sudden reduction of pressure in the potable water supply system.
G) Containment – A method of backflow prevention which requires a backflow preventer at the water service entrance.
H) Contaminant – A substance that will impair the quality of the water to a degree that it creates a serious health hazard to the public.
I) Cross-Connection – Any actual or potential connection between the public water supply and a source of contamination or pollution.
J) Department – The City of East Providence Department of Public Works, Water Utilities Division.
K) Fixture Isolation – A method of backflow prevention in which a backflow preventer is located to correct a cross connection at an in-plant location rather than at a water service entrance.
L) Owner – Any person who has legal title to, or license to operate or habitat in, a property upon which a cross-connection inspection is to be made or upon which a cross-connection is present.
M) Person – Any individual, partnership, company, public, or private corporation, political subdivision or agency, or any other legal entity.
N) Permit – A document issued by the Department which allows the use of a backflow preventer.
O) Pollutant – A foreign substance, that if permitted to get into the public water system, will degrade its quality so as to constitute a moderate hazard, or impair the usefulness or quality of the water to a degree which does not create an actual hazard to the public health but which does adversely and unreasonably effect such water for domestic use.
P) Water Service Entrance – That point in the owners’ water system beyond the sanitary control of the Department, generally considered to be the outlet end of the water meter and always before any unprotected branch.
Sec. 17-58. Purpose.
A) To protect the public potable water supply served by the City of East Providence from the possibility of contamination or pollution by isolating within its customers internal distribution system, such contaminants or pollutants which could backflow or back-siphon into the public water system.
B) To promote the elimination of control of existing cross connections, actual or potential, between its customers in-plant potable water system, and non-potable systems.
C) To provide for the maintenance of a continuing program of cross connection control which will effectively prevent the contamination or pollution of all potable water systems by cross connection.
Sec. 17-59. Administration.
A) The Department of Public Works, Water Utilities Division will operate a cross-connection control program, to include the keeping of necessary records, which fulfills the requirements of these regulations as approved.
B) The Owner shall allow his property to be inspected for possible cross-connections and shall follow the provisions of these regulations.
C) If the Department requires that the public supply be protected by containment, the Owner shall be responsible for water quality beyond the outlet end of the containment device and should utilize fixture outlet protection for that purpose.
Sec. 17-60. Requirements.
A) Department
1. For all new construction or plumbing improvements and/or modifications which require a plumbing permit, the Department will review plans submitted for evaluation in order to determine the type of backflow preventer that will be required. In any case, a minimum of a dual check valve will be required for all new construction and for any plumbing modifications. The Department may require an on-site evaluation before the permit is issued.
2. For premises existing prior to the start of this program, the Department reserves the right to perform evaluations and inspections of plans and/or premises and inform the Owner by letter of any corrective action deemed necessary, the method of achieving the correction, and the time allowed for the correction to be made. Ordinarily, ninety (90) days will be allowed, however, this time period may be shortened depending upon the degree of hazard involved and the history of the device(s) in question.
3. The Department will not allow any cross-connection to remain unless it is protected by an approved backflow preventer for which a permit has been issued and which will be regularly tested in accordance with these regulations to insure satisfactory operation.
4. The Department shall inform the Owner, in writing, of any failure to comply by the time of the first re-inspection. The Department will allow an additional (15) days for the correction. In the event the Owner fails to comply with the necessary correction by the time of the second re-inspection, the Department will inform the Owner by letter that the water service to the Owner’s premises will be shut off within a period not to exceed five (5) days. In the event that the Owner informs the Department of extenuating circumstances as to why the installation has not been made, a time extension may be granted.
5. If the Department determines at any time that a serious threat to the public health exists, the water service will be shut off immediately.
6. The Department shall have on file, a list of private contractors who are certified backflow device testers. All charges for these tests will be paid by the Owner of the building or property.
B) Owner
1. The Owner shall be responsible for the elimination or protection of all cross-connections on his premises.
2. The Owner, after having been informed in writing by the Department, shall at his/her expense install, maintain, and test or have tested any and all backflow preventers on the premises.
3. The Owner shall at his/her expense correct any malfunction of any backflow preventer which is revealed by periodic testing. The Department reserves the right to require replacement of any backflow preventer that it deems unrepairable or otherwise unfit in order to provide service and operation.
4. The Owner shall not install a by-pass around any backflow preventer unless there is a backflow preventer of the same type on the bypass. Owners who cannot shut down operations for testing of the device(s) must supply an additional device on a bypass in order to allow testing to take place.
5. The Owner shall immediately inform the Department of any proposed or modified cross-connections and also any existing cross-connections of which the Owner is aware but has not been found by the Department.
6. The Owner shall install backflow preventers in a manner and location approved by the Department.
7. The Owner shall install only backflow preventers approved by and in accordance with the requirements of the Department.
8. In the event the Owner installs plumbing to provide potable water for domestic purposes which is on the Department’s side of the backflow preventer, such plumbing must have its own backflow preventer installed.
9. The Owner shall be responsible for the payment of all fees for permits, testing and retesting in the case that the device fails to operate correctly and second and subsequent re-inspection for non-compliance with the Department’s requirements.
10. Effective the date of the acceptance of this Cross Connection Control Program, all new residential buildings will be required to install a residential dual check device immediately downstream of the water meter. Installation of this residential dual check device on a retrofit basis on existing service shall be done upon the issuance of a plumbing permit for any plumbing improvements or modifications.
11. The Owner must be aware that installation of an approved backflow prevention device results in a potential closed plumbing system within his/her facility or residence. As such, provisions may have to be made by the Owner to provide for thermal expansion within the closed loop system, i.e., the installation of thermal expansion devices. The City shall not be held liable for plumbing failures associated with faulty or inappropriate installations.
12. In accordance with the Rhode Island State Building Code, Plumbing Code Regulations, “The Owner of the Owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for the safe and sanitary maintenance of the plumbing system in any building or structure at all times.”
Sec 17-61. Devices.
A) Backflow Preventers
1. All installed backflow preventers shall conform to the latest revision of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C506, the latest revision of the applicable standard of the American Society of Sanitary Engineering (ASSE) or the latest revision of the Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research of the University of Southern California standards.
B) Strainers
1. All new retrofit installations of reduced pressure principle devices and double check valve backflow preventers shall include the installation of strainers located immediately upstream of the backflow device. The installation of strainers will preclude the fouling of backflow devices due to both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances occurring to the water supply system such as water main repairs, water main breaks, fires, periodic cleaning and flushing of mains, etc. These occurrences may “stir up” debris within the water main that will cause fouling of backflow devices installed without the benefit of strainers.
C) Existing in-use backflow prevention devices
1. Any existing backflow preventer shall be allowed by the Department to continue in service unless it has been determined by a certified tester that the device is no longer effective or will result in an unreasonable risk to the public health. In the case of a residential installation converting to a business establishment, an existing backflow preventer must be upgraded to a reduced pressure principle device, or a reduced pressure principle device must be installed in the event that no backflow device was present.
Sec. 17-62. Periodic Testing.
A) Reduced pressure principle backflow devices shall be tested and inspected at least annually.
B) Periodic testing shall be performed by a certified tester. This testing will be done at the Owner’s expense.
C) Any backflow preventer which fails during a periodic test will be repaired or replaced. When repairs are necessary, upon completion of the repair the device will be re-tested at the Owner’s expense to insure correct operation. High hazard situations will not be allowed to continue unprotected if the backflow preventer fails the test and cannot be repaired immediately. In other situations, a compliance date of not more than thirty (30) days after the test date will be established. The Owner is responsible for spare parts, repair tools, or a replacement device. Parallel installation of two (2) devices is an effective means of the Owner insuring that uninterrupted water service during testing or repair of devices if and when the Owner desires such continuity of service.
D) Backflow prevention devices may be tested more frequently than specified in A. above, in cases where there is a history of test failures and the Department feels that due to the degree of hazard involved, additional testing is warranted. (Requested by Councilman Midgley)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining dismantled or junked vehicles
SECTION I. The definition of Dismantled or junked vehicles in Sec. 10-26 entitled “Definitions.” of Article II entitled “Dismantled, Junked and Abandoned Vehicles” of Chapter 10 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Nuisances” is amended to read as follows:
Dismantled, junked or inoperable vehicles shall mean vehicles legally or physically incapable of being operated or which have not been duly registered according to law, or which do not have legal evidence of said lawful registration affixed thereto, or which lack to a substantial degree the equipment in good operating condition as required by laws to enable them to be registered, and further shall be deemed to include but not limited to all major parts thereof such as bodies, engines, transmissions, and rear ends.
SECTION II. The definition of Vehicle legally or physically incapable of being operated in Sec. 10-26 entitled “Definitions.” of Article II entitled “Dismantled, Junked and Abandoned Vehicles” of Chapter 10 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Nuisances” shall be deleted.
SECTION III. Sec. 10-27 entitled “License required for storage, keeping, etc.” of Article II entitled “Dismantled, Junked and Abandoned Vehicles” of Chapter 10 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Nuisances” is amended to read as follows
Section 10-27. License required for storage, keeping, etc.
No person, firm or corporation shall deposit, store, keep or permit to be deposited, stored or kept in the open upon public or private property a dismantled, junked or inoperable vehicle unless a license for such storage has theretofore been obtained from the proper authority.
Section 10-35. Penalty.
The fine for leaving an abandoned, or dismantled, junked, or inoperable vehicle on public or private property in violation of the regulations contained in this article shall be $100.00. (Requested by: Law Department)
Mr. Conley states there were a number of enforcement issues where junked or abandoned vehicles are on private property. Changes were made to address this. Mayor Larisa asks if vehicles have to be registered. Mr. Conley states they do.
Councilman Midgley asks about provisions for people that are hobbyists and restore cars. Mr. Conley said those wouldn’t be considered abandoned because they would be working on them in progress. Those instances you describe would not come under the statute. Councilman Midgley ask about garages that have a bunch of cars not registered, they are not junk, they could be put back on the road. Mr. Conley states those would not be abandoned vehicles.
Councilwoman Perry asks where would the license be obtained? Mr. Conley states it is not a public license that would be issued. It’s a license in the sense of when you get a ticket to an event and on the back of the ticket, it says this represents a license authorizing you to use the seat at that event. It’s an agreement to validly store somewhere. Any garage or facility appropriately operating to do that would need the owner’s permission.
The following people are sworn in by the City Solicitor:
Louis Giraitis, 35 Jenks Street. Mr. Giraitis asks how will it be enforced and will it be enforced on an equal basis? In the past, some people have been targeted to have their cars removed and others are ignored. The Police Dept. is not enforcing it on an equal basis, I don’t know if someone has to make a complaint or if the police are instructed to look out for these cars.
Mr. Conley states the goal is to enforce it as fairly and equally as possible. If the Police get a complaint, they have to respond to it.
Mayor Larisa states you can complain to the Mayor, City Manager or your Councilman. Unless there is a legitimate reason for the issue, maybe they it just looks junky but is registered, you will get a response from us. The Solicitor states the way it usually happens is that we get a lot of complaints about junked vehicles in someone’s yard and the neighbors are upset about it. You can help enforce this by filing a complaint.
Mr. Giratis states your putting neighbors against neighbors. Why can’t the patrolmen go door to door and ask about it. Mayor Larisa states they have enough to do with other issues and crime. If someone makes a complaint, it will be taken care of.
Thomas Riley, 3620 Pawtucket Avenue. Mr. Riley states the word inoperable is too broad. I own a 1979 Ford Ranchero. It was towed out of my yard last year because it had a flat tire. It cost me $168 to get it back, the wrecker driver put a dent in it, the police didn’t want to know anything and I couldn’t get me money back. The car was registered and inspected. The police said because of flat tire it was considered inoperable and that’s why it was towed.
Mr. Conley states this ordinance now has a specific definition for inoperable and reads it. Mr. Riley says if the battery is dead or a flat tire, it is incapable of being operated. Mr. Conley states if you have a flat tire, that car is capable of being operated. That is a mistake in interpreting the ordinance. Mr. Conley hopes the definition now cures that concern.
Maryann Matthews, 51 Outlook Avenue. Ms. Matthews asks to define abandoned. Mr. Conley states you need to look at the definition of dismantled or junked and if it falls into one of those categories, then you’re going to be at risk. Ms. Matthew asks about people who are doing this as a hobby. If her brother is has a car in her driveway, would it be towed away? It may take time to get the car done, but if it is in a garage, it is ok?
Mr. Conley states if it lacks the substantial degree of equipment in good operating condition as required by law. If someone is working on it or restoring the vehicle, seems that it would be ok, but there may difficulties in enforcement in the gray areas. There were a number of situations where parking lots are becoming places where people are taking older cars and just keeping them there. The license to storage is you have to be a facility that is properly zoned and in the business for storage and the car that’s there has to have the license of the owner to store the car there.
Mayor Larisa states his neighbor was restoring a car he had for over two years, but it was in his garage. It was inoperable for two years. It wasn’t out in the open. If it’s in a garage, it’s not in out the open and it’s not a nuisance. If it was out in the driveway, we would have had many complaints on that.
Mr. Conley states the City Council is the licensing authority. Mayor Larisa says to leave it as it is and if someone comes before us or there are too many, we could delegate it in the future. In Ms. Matthew’s case, we either say yes we give you a license, or the chief will say you don’t need one, we know about your car and you’ve explained your plan and are all set.
Councilman Midgley asks what he meant about the license of the owner. Mr. Conley explains when you park your car in a parking garage, on the back of your ticket, is says it this is a license; it’s the same kind of agreement. It’s a very specific, narrow legal arrangement between the person putting the car there and the owner of the property. If it is a facility for that purpose, validly zoned, that agreement between them is the license agreement. Licensing from proper authority means the City Council. That is the public license, the governing authority.
Councilman Midgley states people do this, they are not abandoned or junked, they can run, may or may not be registered or inspected, these cars could be at a gas station where they are working on them. People shouldn’t be punished for having a hobby.
Councilman Miranda agrees we don’t want to hurt anyone, but we want to get the junked cars off the street. In my area, I have had some complaints where the truck was registered, but was completely damaged, it couldn’t even be moved. It wasn’t inspected. I have many friends who restore cars and it is not our intent to hurt anyone. We just want to get the junk cars off the street.
Councilman Midgley asks if we can change kept in the open to mean if it is under cover, that it is not in out the open? Mayor Larisa states the Deputy Chief is here and has heard our concerns so let’s see if it is ever enforced in a way that we don’t like. If there are any issues, they can come before the Council.
Joseph Asquino, 26 Sherman Street. Mr. Asquino states he is a hobbyist. Being under a cover should be stipulated. I agree that junked cars should be off the public streets. Also, antique cars do not need to be inspected, not with the antique plates. They are registered, just not inspected. If I have an antique car in my yard under a cover, I may have it off the wheels during the winter and the battery out, but it is covered and it is registered to me.
Mayor Larisa states we can make it the intent of the unanimous council that we interpret in the open to mean without covers of any sort, no garage, no carport, no cover over it.
Mr. Asquino also states some people leave them in their driveway all winter long with a car cover on it because the don’t have room, they may have 3 cars, and only one can fit in the garage. It could be there for the summer or winter and it’s not driven. Mr. Conley states that is clearly not a junked or abandoned vehicle with an antique plate on it.
Eugene Saveory, 11 Dearborn Drive. Mr. Saveory states his concern is the number of cars. What if someone has several cars, one breaks down, they get another, they keep stacking cars in the yard, but they cover them all up. Does that protect those wasted or junked cars? Is there a limit?
Mayor Larisa states that would be a zoning issue, whatever that number is. Mr. Saveory states he just doesn’t want them citing your ordinance against our ordinance that we have to enforce such as open storage.
Mr. Conley concurs and states you only have so much space for your cars on residential property and if it exceeds that, then it becomes a zoning violation.
Mayor Larisa states the covering rule doesn’t collide with the zoning rules. If you cover the cars, whatever the zoning rule is on the number, you’re ok because they are not deemed to be in the open. But for zoning, if you’re in the business and in a residential zone, you cannot put covers on 15 cars.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
The following is an ordinance amendment regarding nuisance abatement
SECTION I. Subsection (b) of 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 to read as follows:
(b) 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. The trespassing of any animal on private or public or property is hereby declared to be a nuisance. The owner of any such animal convicted of violating this provision may be punished by payment of the following fine:
(1) 1st offense…..………………………….$50.00
(2) 2nd offense (within 1 year)……………$75.00
(3) Upon the 3rd offense, such animal may be impounded by the animal control officer. (Requested by Mayor Larisa)
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. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
IV. CONTINUED BUSINESS
Job Performance Council Appointees (continued from August 16th meeting)
On motion is of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to go into Executive Session at the end of meeting in accordance with R.I.G.L. Section 42-46-5-(a) (1) [Job Performance] to discuss job performance of Council Appointees. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
1) Sanitation Summit September 27, 2005
Mr. Fazioli discusses the sanitation workshop and states there is a time change on it. It will start at 8 p.m.
2) Collective Bargaining Negotiations
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to go into Executive Session at the end of the meeting in accordance with Section 42-46-5 of the “Exceptions” of Chapter 46 of the General Laws, pursuant to Section 42-46-5-(a)(2) [Collective Bargaining/Litigation], to discuss negotiations. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
3) USAR Team
Chief Brassill states USAR is Urban Search and Rescue. It is run by the State’s Emergency Management. Last Friday, we had 7 members called down and from that, 5 were selected which made up a team of 40 members of firefighters and police throughout the State. These 5 individuals and a search & rescue dog all left within two hours and are working in Mississippi. Have had contact with them and everything is going well. They will be deployed there for approximately one week.
4) Crossing Guards
Mr. Fazioli states that additional crossing guards are needed. They are appointed by the City Council and just would like you to consider this for the next meeting to appoint additional crossing guards. Could use up to eight more.
5) Reopening prequalifications on dental coverage
After discussion, on motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to reconsider the prior action. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to not pre-qualify anyone at this time and that the pre-qualification process is to begin again. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
B. REPORTS OF OTHER CITY OFFICIALS
CLAIMS COMMITTEE (By William J. Conley, Jr. City Solicitor)
| Judith Blaydes, Claim No. 05-074 | Refer to Cardi Corporation |
| Cleo Lopez, Claim No. 05-077 | Approved |
| Laura Silveira, Claim No. 05-076 | Refer to RIDOT |
| City of East Providence vs. Kovatch Mobile Equip. Corp. | Refer to Law Dept. |
| Robert Fonseca, Et Al vs. City Et Al | Refer to Law Dept. |
| Saccoccia’s Construction & Landscaping vs. City | Refer to Law Dept. |
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to accept the Claims Report as presented. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
C. COUNCIL MEMBERS
(By Mayor Larisa)
1) Budget Discussion
Mayor Larisa states the dates for the budget hearings will begin at the October 4, 2005 Council Meeting, where a presentation will be made by the School Department, the City Manager, and a public discussion. This may or may not continue to the October 18th meeting, and there may be a need to meet again on October 11 and 24, depending the outcome of the discussions.
2) Toddler Equipment at Hull Street Tot Park
Mayor Larisa states he has received a number of calls from constituents surrounding Hull Street from lighting to excessive traffic concerns, along with a petition with 220 signatures asking for an upgrade of the equipment at the park. He states that he and Councilman Miranda were called regarding upgrades to Hull Street Park and a tot park for the toddlers. Mayor Larisa asks that the City Manager get a report from Joe Crook, Director of Parks and Recreation, of what the cost would be to upgrade it in terms of a tot park and to upgrade the facilities and any recommendations that he would have. He states that this is a top priority for him and Councilman Miranda for improving this park.
Councilman Miranda states he has no problem with upgrading this park at all. He says that after getting a report from Mr. Crook, it should be acted on immediately
Mayor Larisa states the City is in very difficult budget times and there is no promise of immediate funding or how to get it done. He further states that it may take a while, but it is on top of the list.
Unanimous Consent – Councilman Miranda to discuss Revaluation.
Councilman Miranda states next year is a revaluation year and would like the Council to get a resolution to our State legislature to see if we can extend this revaluation for another year. He says that we need to get by the problems we have now and if there is a tax increase and then next year revaluation, people will be very upset.
Mr. McDonald states we are required to do a revaluation as of 12/31/06. The numbers that are determined would not take effect until FY2007. The values on homes now would be the basis for tax bills we send out next May regardless of this. He says the Council can ask legislature to defer it, but because the General Assembly is not in session until January, the money should be left in the budget because it is not known if the legislature and Governor will go along with it.
Mayor Larisa states it is a major issue. If we do a revaluation and it results in any drastic change, then the Council would support that resolution.
Unanimous Consent – Mayor Larisa – to move up Communications
Julie Charpentier, 99 Don Avenue, requesting to address the council regarding permission for a block party on Sunday, September 25, 2005 between 1pm-4pm.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
(By Councilman Midgley)
Parking at sporting events
Councilman Midgley received a call about people parking on both sides of street at the Riverside Recreation Field. Recently, some residents had to actually come out and guide the fire truck down the street. He states that it is a public safety concern if we can’t negotiate our streets, and we have to come up with a solution to enforce the parking regulations there. He says there is an ordinance which prohibits parking within 3 feet of an opening of a driveway, yet people still go right to the corner of driveways and park so it gives extra parking spaces, and this creates a hazard. Mr. Midgley says he would like the Fire Department or Police Department to do a survey on these areas and come up with a plan to implement to get rid of the hazard.
D. RESOLUTIONS
The following is a resolution designating the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the basis for all incident management in the City of East Providence
WHEREAS, the President in Homeland Security Directive (HSPD)-5 directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS) which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity; and
WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security partners has been, and will continue to be, vital to the development, effective implementation and utilization of a comprehensive NIMS; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that all Federal, State, local and tribal emergency agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of incident management; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate the most efficient and effective incident management it is critical that Federal, State, local and tribal organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures, uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform standards for planning, training, and exercising, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or disasters; and
WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities and resources will improve the City of East Providence’s ability to utilize federal funding to enhance local and state agency readiness, maintain first responder safety, and streamline incident management processes; and
WHEREAS, the Incident Command System, components of NIMS, are already an integral part of the City of East Providence’s incident management activities, including current emergency training programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of East Providence does hereby establish the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the City of East Providence’s standard for incident management. (Requested by: Emergency Management Agency Director)
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to adopt the resolution. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
E. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (If given first passage, can be referred to the next regular Council meeting to be held on October 4, 2005 for a public hearing and consideration of final passage).
The following is an ordinance amendment regarding signs prohibited
SECTION I. Sec. 8-101 of Article V entitled “ Electric Poles and Wires” of Chapter 8 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Licenses and Business Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 8-101. Sign Prohibition.
No sign shall be placed upon any poles erected in accordance with this section except by the state and the city and signs for residential yard sales or unless otherwise approved by the City Manager.
SECTION II. Sec. 8-481 of Article XVII entitled “Telegraphic and Telephonic Uses” of Chapter 8 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Licenses and Business Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 8-481. Sign Prohibition.
No sign shall be placed upon any poles erected in accordance with this section except by the state and the city and signs for residential yard sales or unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. (Requested by Councilwoman Perry)
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for First Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
The following is an ordinance amendment regarding signs prohibited
SECTION I. Subsection (a) of Sec. 9-9 entitled “Property damage generally; obstruction of lawful pursuits.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9-9. Property damage generally; obstruction of lawful pursuits.
(a) No person shall maliciously, wantonly, or carelessly daub with paint, cut, break, or other wise injure or by scratching or writing with paint, blacking, chalk or in any other way or manner deface any post, light post, fence, tree, tree box, house or other building situated in or on any street, highway, bridge, wharf or public place or ground set apart for public purposes in the city or any ornament or appurtenance of such post, light post, fence, tree, tree box, house or other building.
SECTION II. Subsection (b) of Sec. 9-9 entitled “Property damage generally; obstruction of lawful pursuits.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9-18. Signs prohibited.
(a) (b) It is also unlawful for any person to post, place, or affix any sign, including political signs: Unless otherwise provided for in Chapter 19, Article VII, the following signs, including political signs, shall be prohibited in the City:
(1) Signs on any building owned, operated, or leased by a public agency.
(2) Signs on or within the confines of any public park, recreation area, or other type of landscaped grounds owned or operated by the city or other governmental agency, or upon any flagpole or tree owned by a public agency.
(3) Signs on any traffic-control sign or device, such as stoplights and their standards, stop signs, yield signs, one-way street signs, or any other type of sign or device that directs traffic, or on the supporting post of such sign
(4) Signs which in any way blocks the view of a traffic-control sign or device by motorists or pedestrians in such a manner as to create a hazard.
(5) Signs which in any way poses a hazard to motorists, pedestrians, cyclists using the public rights-of-way such as not being high enough to allow pedestrians or cyclists to pass by unobstructed, or protruding into a street or sidewalk in such a manner as to interfere with the safe passage of the public.
(6) It is also unlawful for any person to obstruct the use of the property of another or obstruct another in the prosecution of his lawful business or pursuits in any matter
(7) Signs on any telephone or electrical pole
(8) Any person found guilty of any violation of this section shall be penalized in accordance with section 1-16.
(b) Pursuant to Sec. 19-447, the requirements of this article shall be enforced by the zoning officer and/or the chief of police or his designee. The notice shall be provided by telephone or, at their discretion, written notice to the person and/or persons responsible. The chief of police shall provide notice of violation to any person who posts a sign that constitutes a traffic hazard. (Requested by Law Dept.)
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for First Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
The following is an ordinance amendment regarding mandatory spay/neuter program
SECTION I. 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:
ARTICLE IV. Spay and Neuter Program.
Sec. 3-60. Findings, purpose and intent.
(a) The City Council finds and determines that:
(1) An unacceptable number of healthy but abandoned dogs and cats are euthanized annually in Rhode Island.
(2) Due to the large number of stray and abandoned cats, euthanasia is not a cost effective, acceptable or ethical solution to the threats of public health and safety posed by large populations of stray domestic animals.
(3) Stray and abandoned pets, specifically cats, create numerous public health and safety problems, including transmission of disease and traffic hazards created by cats running loose on public streets.
(4) A permit system for breeding of cats owned or harbored in the City of East Providence combined with a program for spaying/neutering is a reasonable and effective means of reducing the population of abandoned or stray cats, and for eliminating the practice of euthanizing homeless cats except those for whom euthanasia is an escape from suffering or necessary to protect people and/or other animals from vicious behavior.
(b) Declaration of intent. The City Council hereby finds and declares that it intends to provide for the public health, safety and welfare through a program requiring spaying and neutering cats unless appropriate permits are acquired.
Sec. 3-61. Spaying/Neutering.
(a) No person shall own or harbor, within the City any cat over the age of six months which has not been spayed or neutered, unless such person holds either a license to keep an unaltered cat or a license and permit for breeding cats issued by the City of East Providence Animal Control.
(b) An "intact" permit shall be issued for an unaltered cat if the owner signs a written statement that such animal will not be allowed to breed unless the owner has first obtained a breeding permit. An "intact" permit may be issued by the ACO to an individual who refuses to spay or neuter their cat. The fee for such a permit shall be $100 per year. All funds from "intact" permits shall be deposited in the City's spay/neuter account.
(c) Any person providing care or sustenance for a period of thirty days or longer shall be deemed the owner of such animal and shall adhere to the provision of this section.
(d) Subsection (c) above shall not be interpreted to apply to a person caring for a colony of feral cats if such person:
(1) Registers (at no charge) with the City of East Providence as a caretaker for feral cats;
(2) Regularly feeds or arranges for the feeding of the colony, including on weekends and holidays;
(3) Traps or makes a reasonable effort to trap all feral cats over the age of eight (8) weeks in his/her care, and has them spayed or neutered;
(4) Has all trapped cats tested for feline aids and leukemia and has those who test positive humanely euthanized or isolated indoors;
(5) Identifies feral cats that have been spayed or neutered by means of ear notching, ear tipping, or ear tagging;
(6) Has all trapped cats vaccinated according to state and local laws.
Sec. 3-62. Breeding permits.
(a) No person shall cause or allow any cat owned or harbored in the City to breed without first obtaining a breeding permit under this Section.
(b) East Providence Animal Control shall administer a permit program to allow breeding of cats consistent with criteria and according to procedures contained in the city ordinances.
(c) Each applicant who is issued a permit to breed cats under this section shall pay a breeding permit fee of $100 per year.
(d) No person shall cause or allow the breeding of a male or female cat without first obtaining a breeding permit issued by Animal Control. Breeding permits shall be valid for twelve months, renewable on an annual basis. Fees for such permit shall be as set forth. All breeding permits shall contain the following terms and conditions and be subject to all of the following requirements:
(1) No offspring may be sold or adopted and permanently placed until reaching an age of at least eight (8) weeks.
(2) No offspring may be sold or adopted until immunized against common diseases.
(3) If within one year of placement a new owner becomes unable or unwilling to continue ownership and responsibility for an animal, the permit holder shall assist in placement of the animal. If no suitable placement can be found within six (6) months, the permit holder shall accept return of the animal if healthy and shall become fully responsible for its care.
(4) Any permit holder advertising to the public the availability of any animal for adoption or sale must prominently display the permit number in any publications in which they advertise. Further, the permit number must be provided to any person adopting or purchasing any animal bred by the permit holder.
(5) The breeding permit holder shall adhere to Minimum Standards regarding the care and keeping of animals developed and approved by the Animal Control and Rhode Island state law.
Sec. 3-63. Sale or adoption of cats.
(a) Any person who provides or offers to the public, whether or not for compensation, any pet or pet related goods (where they are the primary products) or pet services shall provide to their clients, free of charge, information relating to pet care and ownership, including information on City laws pertaining to animal control. This required information will be prepared and provided by Animal Control.
(b) Any person offering cats for sale or adoption shall disclose to any purchaser or adoptive owner information regarding the licensing or permit requirements of East Providence applicable to such animal.
(c) No person shall offer for sale or adoption any cat on any public street, sidewalk, or public park unless such person first obtains a business license to sell pets or is a recognized pet rescue/adoption.
(d) Prior to release for adoption, any animal adopted from any animal welfare agency shall be spayed or neutered as early as is medically appropriate, unless the adoptive owner obtains a certificate from a licensed veterinarian certifying as to the health reasons for failing to alter such animal.
Sec. 3-64. Revocation of permit.
(a) Any permit issued may be revoked if the Animal Control Officer has reasonable cause to believe any of the following to be true:
(1) The permittee has violated any state or local ordinances relating to the keeping, care or use of any animal.
(2) The permittee is in violation on any State health or safety law or regulation regarding animal care or control;
(3) The permittee has failed to comply with any condition or requirement of the permit or has failed to pay any fee imposed under this ordinance;
(4) The permittee refuses to allow inspection, upon forty-eight hours written notice, of any cat covered by the permit or the premises on which the animal is kept; or
(5) The permittee has transferred, sold or otherwise disposed of the cat for which the permit was issued.
(b) If, after investigation, the Animal Control Officer concludes that it is probable that one or more of the above grounds for revocation has occurred, it shall cause written notice thereof to be transmitted by mail to the address of the permittee. Said notice shall specify the grounds of possible revocation of the permit and shall specify a date and time for an informal hearing to be held before an Animal Control Officer. Said date shall be not less than five days subsequent to the date the notice is mailed. After the informal hearing, the Animal Control Officer may modify the terms of the permit or revoke the permit.
Sec. 3-65. Penalty for violation.
Any person who violates the provisions of this act shall have no more than 30 days to have their cat spayed or neutered. The ACO may inform persons subject to this law to the availability of reduced cost or free of cost spay/neuter programs sponsored by local humane organizations. If an animal is not spayed or neutered within 30 days of notice they shall be subject to a $100 fine for each 30 days the subject animal is not spayed or neutered.
Sec. 3-66. Responsibility for enforcement.
The Animal Control Officer shall be responsible for the enforcement and administration of this ordinance.
Sec. 3-67. Transition.
Persons harboring a cat subject to this ordinance on the date it becomes effective shall have 120 days from such date to comply herewith. (Requested by Mayor Larisa)
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
After further discussion, on motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve as amended for First Passage. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
On motion is of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to go into Executive Session in accordance with Section 42-46-5 of the “Exceptions” of Chapter 46 of the General Laws, pursuant to Section 42-46-5-(a)(2) [Collective Bargaining/Litigation], to discuss negotiations. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
There being no further business, on motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, the meeting recesses at 9:50 p.m. and goes into closed session.
The Open Meeting reconvenes at 10:05 p.m. and is adjourned.
Attest:
__________________________________
Dana L. Toy
City Clerk
Approved: October 18, 2005