| | CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND JOURNAL OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 15, 2006 | |
The City Council meets in the Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 and Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr. calls the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
| Present: | Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr. | ) | |
| | Patrick T. Caine | ) | Council Members |
| | Peter F. Midgley | ) | |
| | Valerie A. Perry | ) | |
| | Bryan P. Silva | ) | |
| | | | |
| | Richard M. Brown | ) | City Manager |
| | William J. Conley, Jr. | ) | City Solicitor |
| | Dana L. Toy | ) | City Clerk |
| | | | |
| Not Present: | Patrick T. Caine | ) | Council Member |
The invocation is read by Councilwoman Perry and the Salute to the Flag is led by Councilman Midgley.
Lori Merolla from Merandi Reporting is present to record the proceedings of the public hearing.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL JOURNALS
July 11, 2006 – Regular Meeting
July 11, 2006 – Closed Meeting Re: New City Manager
July 21, 2006 – Special Council Meeting
July 26, 2006 – Closed Meeting Re: Collective Bargaining
August 2, 2006 – Joint Council/School Committee Meeting
B. CANCELLATION/ABATEMENTS (Requested by Tax Assessor)
| YEAR | AMOUNT |
| 2002 | $191.80 |
| 2003 | $218.15 |
| 2004 | $275.28 |
| 2005 | $2,785.47 |
| 2006 | $12,195.57 |
| TOTAL | $15,666.27 |
C. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE - Class F – August 12, 2006
Crescent Park Carousel Annual Steak Fry, 700 Bullocks Point Avenue
D. RESOLUTION – Town of East Greenwich – Resolution from Town Council of East Greenwich seeking support by asking us to adopt a similar resolution opposing the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island to grant to a single private company the right to a no-bid license for a casino in the Town of West Warwick.
E. RESOLUTION – City of Newport – Resolution opposing the expansion of gambling, and specifically, the proposed constitutional amendment to allow for a casino in the Town of West Warwick.
F. LETTER OF RESIGNATION – Donna Drapeau - East Providence Public Library Trustees
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Silva, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Consent Calendar minus the minutes of the June 11th and June 26th Closed Meetings. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Silva, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Closed Minutes from the June 11th and June 26th Closed Meetings and keep them closed. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
Mayor Larisa asks the City Clerk to send a letter of appreciation to Donna Drapeau for her years of service on the East Providence Public Library Trustees.
II. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, & INTRODUCTIONS
A citation is presented to Alexandra Fayne by Councilwoman Perry and Councilman Silva for her actions in helping the troops in Iraq.
III. APPOINTMENTS
East Providence Waterfront District Commission (By Councilman Midgley)
William J. Fazioli, 229 Quarry Street (02914)
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
IV. CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS LICENSING COMMISSIONERS
LICENSES REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
1) B-Full Privilege Victualer (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector, Div. of Taxation, and Fire Marshall.
From: James Dillenbach d/b/a 305 Club
To: Denise Laidlaw, DL Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a East Bay Tavern, 305 Lyon Avenue
Denise Laidlaw, 150 Bloodgood Street, Pawtucket, RI and Steven Fay, of ? are present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
2) Vict/Over 50 (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector, Div. of Taxation, and Fire Marshall.
From: James Dillenbach d/b/a 305 Club
To: Denise Laidlaw, DL Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a East Bay Tavern, 305 Lyon Avenue
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
3) Dance/Entertainment (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector, Div. of Taxation, and Fire Marshall.
From: James Dillenbach d/b/a 305 Club
To: Denise Laidlaw, DL Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a East Bay Tavern, 305 Lyon Avenue
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
4) Pool Table (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector, Div. of Taxation, and Fire Marshall.
From: James Dillenbach d/b/a 305 Club
To: Denise Laidlaw, DL Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a East Bay Tavern, 305 Lyon Avenue
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
5) Pool Table Sunday (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector, Div. of Taxation, and Fire Marshall.
From: James Dillenbach d/b/a 305 Club
To: Denise Laidlaw, DL Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a East Bay Tavern, 305 Lyon Avenue
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
6) Cape Verdean Progressive Center, 329 Grosvenor Avenue
To add the following stipulation to their existing Dance/Entertainment License and Vict/Over 50 License: “Clubhouse on the property is part of the premises”. This stipulation is already on their B-Full Priv. License.
Mr. Conley states that the stipulation regarding the clubhouse was already on their Class B Full Privilege license and was an oversight at the time of licensing to put the stipulation on their Dance/Entertainment and Vict/Over 50 licenses. Wanted to make sure the stipulation appears on all three licenses. The clubhouse is not operated separately, but the activity can take place in the clubhouse as well and that was the original intent.
Dr. Isadore Ramos is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor and speaks on behalf of the club.
Councilwoman Perry asks if there was a complaint about this recently. Dr. Ramos states for many years, they’ve had some light music out in the back, not live music, and a new neighbor moved into the area and complained about it. The Police came out and we just want to get it corrected.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
7) Vict/Not Over 25 Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
Meaghan A. Cordeiro, d/b/a Cordeiro’s Mart, 82 Warren Avenue
Meaghan Cordeiro, 19 Armstrong Avenue, Providence, RI is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
8) Holiday Sales Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
Meaghan A. Cordeiro, d/b/a Cordeiro’s Mart, 82 Warren Avenue
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
9) Vict/Not Over 25 (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
From: Virginia Loughnan d/b/a Sunshine Creamery
To: Martin F. Leyden d/b/a Marty Leyden’s Sunshine Creamery, 305 North Broadway
Martin Leyden, 704 Woodhaven Court, Cranston, RI is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
10) Holiday Sales (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
From: Virginia Loughnan d/b/a Sunshine Creamery
To: Martin F. Leyden d/b/a Marty Leyden’s Sunshine Creamery, 305 North Broadway
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Midgley, it is unanimously voted to approve. It is noted for the record that Councilman Caine is absent.
LICENSING COMMISSIONERS RESUME SITTING AS CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORDINANCES – FINAL PASSAGE (Given First Passage July 11, 2006. Advertised-Prov. Journal – July 14, 2006)
1) The following is an ordinance amendment regarding stop sign at State Street (northbound and southbound traffic) at Luther Avenue
SECTION I. Sec. 18-269 entitled “Stop and yield intersections designated; when stops required.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
STATE STREET (northbound and southbound traffic) at Luther Avenue. (Requested by: Director of Public Works)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Silva, 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.
Click here to view ordinance
Councilman Caine arrives at the meeting at 8:00 P.M.
2) The following is an ordinance amendment regarding stop sign at Miller Street (eastbound and westbound traffic) at Pleasant Street
SECTION I. Sec. 18-269 entitled “Stop and yield intersections designated; when stops required.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
MILLER STREET (eastbound and westbound traffic) at Pleasant Street. (Requested by: Director of Public Works)
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Silva, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage.
Click here to view ordinance
Motion by Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, to change the order of business to move up item #3 under Communications.
Judith E. Phillips, 124 Pavilion Avenue. Requesting permission to hold a block party on Sunday, September 10, 2006 from 1pm–4pm and to block the street from Ray Street to Goff Street.
No one is present to speak on the block party . Motion is made by Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman Caine to defer until the September 5, 2006 meeting.
Motion by Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, to return to the regular order of business.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Mayor Larisa states on September 5th at 6pm prior to the Council Meeting outside of the Council Chamber, we’ll have a meet and greet time with the new City Manager, Richard Brown, for the public to meet the new City Manager.
1. State Aid Update
Mr. Brown states this was requested at the last meeting. It shows the amounts received in 2006 approved for 2007 and the differential amount. Increase of about 6% total increase in State Aid of approximately 2.1 million dollars.
2. Matching Funds
Mr. Brown states he has a report from the Director of Finance on matching funds, which was also requested at the last meeting. Mayor Larisa states if we have the money this year and allocate money to match the DEM grants for projects at Sabin’s Point, Hunt’s Mills, and Hull Street. The total match for over $250,000 of State money is about $45,000 for those three projects and the prior City Council approved $50,000 to dredge Bullock’s Cove. According to Jim McDonald’s memo of 5/18/06, we had an extra $338,000 and $344,000 above the original budget for a total of $682,000. $500,000 of that went towards the School Department leaving $182,000 and my proposal was to fund the $95,000 for the four projects from this.
Councilman Caine states that even with the allocation made to the schools, there will be a slight surplus this year. The question is how much and if we can reallocate it and asks the Finance Director for clarification.
Mr. McDonald states money can come from current funds, but to do what we did with the School Department would mean readvertising the budget. We could also use sales of City property money and the advantage to this is we don’t have to worry about time sensitivity of having it done by October 31st. If we allocate the money within this year and we don’t get projects done by October 31st, then the appropriation expires and we’d have to reappropriate the money next year assuming there will be a surplus in next year’s funds. The auditors last year slapped our wrist for encumbering money with open purchase orders with a person’s say so that we were going to spend the money in the future. We agreed as part of our agreement that we wouldn’t do this in the future. If you want to take it out of current funds, either FY2006 or FY2007, if you direct me to do that, we’ll find the funds to do this. We’ll analyze where funds may be available. Or it could be taken from the sales of City property account, whichever you choose. By agreeing to accept the grants, we accept the fact we are assuming the responsibility of the City’s matching portion of that. The dredging is similar. The Council in 2004 approved the application of the grant and the acceptance that the City would allocate $50,000. That was two years ago and the project is coming together now.
Mayor Larisa states he thinks it is a bad idea to take money from the sale of surplus property account. The intent was to take capital money and buy new City land with it, not for matching funds or on-going expenses. Otherwise, there would never be any money in there. It was expanded to include capital needs, we take land and take the money and put it into long term capital needs, but it’s never been used it beyond that. We have $182,000 identified in money not estimated and not in the budget that can be allocated for this fiscal year now. The dredging is going to happen this fiscal year. The other projects, whether they’re completed or not this fiscal year, a check can be due to DEM for the match and under accounting principles, properly allocated and ready to go to DEM for our portion this year. And if not, then it’s carried over to 2007. If a new Council comes on and doesn’t want to fund any of these projects in 2007, they can un-fund the whole thing. It’s just honoring the prior Council’s commitment to this.
Councilman Caine states he believes by having the prior Council approve that, we have committed ourselves and the question is where is the money coming from. I agree not using the capital assets for this sort of projects. From a funding perspective, I don’t know if we can go back and modify the School budget as Mr. McDonald stated because that is part of our approval of the budget.
Mayor Larisa states there is $182,000 of unallocated revenue for fiscal 2006. It is unexpected money. The motion I’m asking for is for direction from the Solicitor and City Manager to use whatever money is found in the budget for these projects.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to approve.
3. Executive Session – Collective Bargaining Negotiations
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, 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 collective bargaining negotiations.
B. REPORTS OF OTHER CITY OFFICIALS
1) CLAIMS COMMITTEE (By William J. Conley, Jr. City Solicitor)
| Allstate Ins. (Insured:Roland A. Watts, Sr.), Claim No. 06-30 | Refer to insurance carrier |
| Raymond Blinn, Claim No. 06-37 | Refer to insurance carrier |
| Kerrie Discuillo, Claim No. 06-29 | Deny |
| Laurie Johannis, Claim No. 05-105, 06-32 | Refer to insurance carrier |
| Lisa McGuirk, Claim No. 06-34 | Refer to RIDOT |
| Mary Reis, Clain No. 06-31 | Deny |
| Nicholas Rosenblum, Claim No. 06-033 | Approve |
| Stephanie Thistle, Claim No. 06-035 | Approve |
| East Prov. Water Poll. Control Facility, No. R10100048 | Received as information |
| Brook McGregor, et al vs. City, et al, No. 04-6791 | |
| City of East Providence vs. RI Interlocal Risk Management | |
| Trust, No. 05-1044 | Received as information |
| Status/Review of pending arbitrations | Approve the filing of lawsuit |
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to accept the Claims Report.
2) VOTER INITIATIVE MEMORANDUM (By William J. Conley, Jr. City Solicitor)
Motion to move until later in the meeting.
C. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (If given First Passage, can be referred to the next regular Council Meeting to be held on September 5, 2006 for a public hearing and consideration of Final Passage).
1) The following is an ordinance amendment pertaining to spay/neuter programs
SECTION I. Section 3-35 entitled “Dog License; fees; penalty.” 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:
(a) Every owner or keeper of a dog shall annually in the month of April cause that dog to be licensed from the ensuing May 1 in the office of the city clerk; and shall pay the city clerk for the license, so issued, ten dollars. Additionally, there shall be a one dollar ($1.00) surcharge for each dog license issued by the municipality which shall be deposited in the city’s spay/neuter account to fund low-cost spay/neuter programs. All licenses issued shall be valid in every city or town during the then current year; provided that any person, who shall become the owner or keeper of a dog, shall cause such dog to be licensed as aforesaid within 30 days after the person becomes the owner or keeper; provided further, that the city clerk shall not issue any license under this section unless the dog has been inoculated against rabies for the period during which such license would be valid.
(b) Every person, owner or keeper of a dog not licensed and/or not collared according to the provisions of this chapter, shall be fined $10.00 to be applied to the support of the city, and that fine shall be in addition to all other lawful fees.
SECTION II. Subsection (a) of Section 3-61 entitled “Spaying/neutering.” 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:
(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 animal control officer, or the owner submits to the animal control officer a letter from a licensed veterinarian stating that it would be inappropriate to spay/neuter the cat due to age, health, or illness. The owner of any cat over the age of six months is responsible to provide proof of spay/neuter through records or certificate of examination by a licensed veterinarian to the animal control officer within seven days of a request for said records by the animal control officer.
SECTION III. Subsection (c) of Section 3-62 entitled “Breeding permits.” 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:
(c) Each applicant who is issued a permit to breed cats under this section shall pay an annual breeding permit fee of $100.00 per year cat.
SECTION IV. Subsection (b) of Section 3-64 entitled “Revocation of permit.” 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:
(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. If the health or well-being of the animal is in danger, the animal control officer may take custody and control of the animal until such time that a hearing is conducted. After the informal hearing, the animal control officer may modify the terms of the permit or revoke the permit.
SECTION V. Section 3-65 entitled “Penalty for violation.” 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:
Any person who violates the provisions of this act shall have no more than 30 days to have their cat spayed or neutered or provide proof from a licensed veterinarian indicating that arrangements have been made to spay or neuter their cat(s). 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 $100.00 fine for each 30 days the subject animal is not spayed or neutered. (Requested by: Law Dept.)
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Silva, it is unanimously voted to approve for First Passage.
Click here to view ordinance
2) The following is an ordinance amendment regarding unfit dwellings
SECTION I. Division 5 entitled “Minimum Residential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
Subdivision X. Dwellings Unfit for Human Habitation
Sec. 4-284. Designation, placarding and vacation of unfit dwelling .
Any dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming house or rooming unit which shall be found by the chief inspector to have any of the following defects shall be condemned as unfit for continued occupancy and human habitation, shall be so designated and placarded by the chief inspector and shall be vacated within such reasonable time as the chief inspector may specify in the compliance order:
A. One which, according to the provisions of sections 4-137 to 4-200 and sections 4-267 to 4-278, is so lacking in sanitation, heating, lighting, or ventilation facilities that it creates a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or of the public.
B. One which, according to the provisions of sections 4-211 to 4-216 and section 4-281, and which, because of its general condition, number of occupants or location, is so unsanitary, overcrowded or otherwise dangerous or detrimental that it creates a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or of the public.
C. One which, according to the provisions of sections 4-231 to 4-240, section 4-280, section 4-282 and §4-283, is so decayed, damaged, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe or infested that it creates a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or of the public.
Sec. 4-285. Order to vacate, imminent danger to public health, safety or welfare.
When, in the opinion of the chief inspector, there is imminent danger of failure or collapse of a building or structure or any part thereof which endangers life, or when any structure or part of a structure has fallen and life is endangered by the occupation of the building or structure, the chief inspector is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the same forthwith. The chief inspector shall cause to be posted at each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: “This Structure is Unsafe and its Occupancy has been Prohibited by the Chief Inspector.” It shall be unlawful for any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of making the required repairs or of demolishing the same.
Sec. 4-286. Notice of intent to condemn.
Whenever the chief inspector determines that a dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming house or rooming unit is unfit for continued occupancy as provided herein, he or she shall include within the notice of violation provided for in section 4-93 a statement of his or her intent to condemn and placard the dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming house or rooming unit as unfit for continued occupancy and to require it to be vacated if the provisions of the notice of violation are not complied with. A copy of such notice of violation shall be served on the owner, operator and the occupant in the manner provided in section 4-93.
Sec. 4-287. Order to vacate.
Whenever a notice of violation, as provided for in section 4-422, has not been complied with, the chief inspector may include within the compliance order a finding to the effect that the dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming house or rooming unit is unfit for continued occupancy, and such finding shall constitute an order to vacate. Such compliance order shall be served upon the owner, operator and the occupant in the manner provided for in section 4-94, and service shall be made at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of the order to vacate. An appeal from such compliance order may be taken to the property standards board of review in the manner provided for in sections 4-96 to 4-100.
Sec. 4-288. Use of condemned dwellings prohibited, removal of placard on condemned dwelling prohibited.
A dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming house or rooming unit which has been condemned and placarded as unfit for continued occupancy shall remain uninhabited until the chief inspector provides written approval of habitation and grants permission to remove the placard..
Additionally, no person shall deface or remove the placard from any dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming house or rooming unit which has been condemned as unfit for continued occupancy and placarded as such, except as provided in section 4-425.
Sec. 4-289. Securing of vacated dwellings and structures.
A. Whenever any dwelling or accessory structure shall become vacant and open at any door or window, leaving the interior of the building exposed to the elements or accessible to entrance by trespassers, such building will be deemed to be dangerous or unsafe.
B. When a vacant dwelling or accessory structure becomes hazardous to the safety, health or welfare of the public by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence or abandonment, such building shall be deemed to be dangerous and unsafe.
C. When a vacant dwelling or accessory structure has been damaged, vandalized, or deteriorated to such an extent as to be unfit or unsuitable for occupancy, such building shall be deemed to be dangerous and unsafe.
D. When the whole or any part of any dwelling or accessory structure is deemed to be in a dangerous or unsafe condition, the chief inspector shall issue a notice of the dangerous and unsafe conditions to the owner of record, requiring the appearance of such owner of a record at a hearing before the chief inspector within fourteen (14) days to show cause why the dwelling or accessory structure should not be demolished or otherwise made safe. All notices shall be in writing in accordance with section 4-93.
E. When it is determined at the hearing that the dwelling or accessory structure should be demolished or otherwise made safe, the chief inspector shall issue a compliance order to the effect that such dwelling or accessory structure shall be demolished or otherwise made safe within a time not to exceed ninety (90) days. Where no emergency exists, the owner may either consent in writing to rehabilitate the dwelling so that it complies in all respects with this chapter within six (6) months and must provide, if required by the chief inspector, a performance bond guaranteeing that the work will be done; or the owner may put the dwelling up for sale on terms, conditions, and limitations which would provide for the rehabilitation of the dwelling thereon within a six-month period. The owner shall further agree that if rehabilitation or sale does not occur within the six-month period, the chief inspector may thereafter demolish the dwelling without further notice or proceedings. In either case, such dwelling shall be secured in accordance with Subsection H of this section.
F. Should the owner of record fail to appear at the hearing, the chief inspector shall take action to demolish or otherwise make safe the dwelling or accessory structure as may be found to be necessary or warranted by the evidence in his or her file.
G. The chief inspector shall place a lien against the real property for the cost of demolition or otherwise making the building or structure safe in accordance with the provisions of section 4-432.
H. Any building which is boarded for any reason shall comply with the following specifications: all openings (including doors and windows) from cellar to second floor inclusive, and all windows above the second floor leading to fire escapes, porches or structural appurtenances on all floors must be covered from the exterior with one-half-inch-thick plywood secured with either 10d common nails or screws of a minimum length of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches, placed twelve (12) inches on center. All other windows shall be secured from the exterior with either plywood or seven-eighths (7/8) inch matched boards.
Sec. 4-290. Notice of intent to demolish.
A. Whenever the chief inspector determines that a dwelling or dwelling unit is unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy, and that the cost necessary to alleviate the violation is not reasonably related to the value of the dwelling, he or she shall include within the notice of violation provided for in section 4-93 a statement of his or her intent to order the demolition of the dwelling, provided that the owner, at his or her discretion, may repair, alter or improve the dwelling in order to alleviate the violation, regardless of whether or not the cost is reasonably related to the value, or may demolish the dwelling at his or her own expense pursuant to the provisions of section 4-104; provided further, that the owner shall alleviate the violation within the time specified in the notice of violation.
B. A copy of such notice shall be served on the owner, occupant, lessee, mortgagee and all other persons having any interest in such dwelling, as shown by the records of the Recorder of Deeds, in the manner provided for in section 4-93 provided that in the event that any such person is not identified or located, service may be made upon him or her by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once a week for two (2) successive weeks.
C. For the purposes of this section, any repair, alteration or improvement that is determined by the chief inspector to cost more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed valuation of the dwelling shall be deemed to be not reasonably related to the value of the dwelling.
Sec. 4-291. Order to demolish.
Whenever a notice of violation provided for in section 4-428 has not been complied with, the chief inspector may include within the compliance order a finding to the effect that the dwelling is unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy, and such finding shall be an order to demolish the dwelling. Such compliance order shall be served upon the owner, occupant, lessee, mortgagee and all other persons having any interest in the dwelling, as shown by the records of the Recorder of Deeds, in the manner provided for in section 4-104, provided that in the event that any such person is not identified or located, service may be made upon him or her by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once a week for two (2) successive weeks, and service shall be made at least three (3) months prior to the effective date of the demolition provisions of the order. An appeal from such compliance order may be taken to the property standards board of review in the manner provided for in sections 4-96 to 4-100.
Sec. 4-292. Power of chief inspector to alleviate violation; limitation.
Whenever a compliance order to repair, alter or secure a dwelling found by the chief inspector to be unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy has not been complied with, the chief inspector may, at the expense of the person responsible for alleviating the violation, take such direct action as is necessary to alleviate the violation, if the cost of such action is reasonably related to the value of dwelling. For the purposes of this section, any repair, alteration or securing that is determined by the chief inspector to cost fifty percent (50%) or less of the assessed valuation of the dwelling shall be deemed to be reasonable. The power of the chief inspector to repair or alter shall be limited to the alleviation of conditions which affect occupied dwellings or dwelling units.
Sec. 4-293. Demolition of structure at owner’s expense.
Whenever a compliance order issued pursuant to the provisions of sections 4-96 to 4-100 providing for the demolition of a dwelling has not been complied with and the cost of repair has been determined by the chief inspector to be more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed valuation of the dwelling, the chief inspector may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a demolition order to undertake the demolition at the expense of the owner. The court may grant the order when no reconsideration or hearing on the matter is pending.
Sec. 4-294. Liens and charges to cover expenses.
Whenever the owner fails to comply with an order to repair, alter, improve or demolish a dwelling which has been determined to be unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy, and the chief inspector has taken direct action pursuant to the provisions of sections 4-430 or 4-431, the costs incurred by him or her in such action shall be a lien against the real property, and such lien shall be enforced in the manner provided or authorized by law for the enforcement of common law liens on personal property. Such lien shall be recorded. If the dwelling is demolished by the chief inspector, he or she may sell the materials of such dwelling, and the net cost of the demolition shall be charged to the owner, and if any balance remains, it shall be held for the owner or any other parties entitled thereto. In every case, the cost of direct action shall be the costs necessary to perform the required work as expeditiously as possible, together with a ten-percent service charge in addition thereto.
Sec. 4-295. Relocation of occupants.
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Division, no dwelling shall be required to be vacated or demolished by the chief inspector under the powers granted to him or her by the provisions of this chapter until persons occupying the dwelling at the time the compliance order is issued have been offered housing accommodations in a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling which meet the requirements of this chapter. The expense of providing alternate housing for persons ordered to vacate the dwelling shall be borne by the owner of the dwelling. Should the owner fail to pay for such alternate housing, the City of East Providence will accommodate said occupants for up to one week, and will seek reimbursement for such accommodations from the property owner.
SECTION II. The title of Subdivision VI. Unfit Dwellings of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision VI. Unfit Structures.
SECTION III. Sec. 4-406 entitled “Grounds generally.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-406. Grounds generally. Designation and placarding.
Any nonresidential structure, dwelling or dwelling unit which shall be found by the chief inspector to have any of the following defects shall be condemned as unfit for continued occupancy and human habitation and shall be so designated and placarded by the chief inspector:
A. One which, according to the provisions of sections 4-156 through 4-183 and sections 4-196 through 4-200 this chapter, is so lacking in sanitation, heating, lighting, or ventilation facilities that it creates a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or of the public.
B. One which, according to the provisions of sections 4-211 through 4-234 this chapter and which, because of its general conditions, number of occupants or location is so unsanitary, overcrowded or otherwise dangerous or detrimental that it creates a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or of the public.
C. One which, according to the provisions of §§ 4-231 to 4-240, § 4-280, § 4-282 and §4-283 this chapter, is so decayed, damaged, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe or infested that it creates a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or of the public.
SECTION IV. Sec. 4-407 entitled “Roominghouses, etc.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” 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 deleted in its entirety.
Sec. 4-407. Roominghouses, etc.
Any roominghouse or rooming unit which shall be found by the chief inspector to be in violation of any provisions of sections 4-266 through 4-393 which violation creates a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or the public, shall be condemned as unfit for continued occupancy and habitation and shall be so designated and placarded by the chief inspector in accordance with the provisions of sections 4-408 and 4-409.
SECTION V. Sec. 4-408 entitled “Notice of violation and intent to condemn” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-408 4-407. Notice of violation and intent to condemn.
Whenever the chief inspector determines that a nonresidential structure, dwelling, or dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit is unfit for continued occupancy as provided in this article, he shall include within the notice of violation provided for in section 4-93 a statement of his intent to condemn and placard the nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit as unfit for continued occupancy and to require it to be vacated if the provisions of the notice of violation are not complied with. A copy of such notice of violation shall be served on the owner, operator and the occupant in the manner provided in section 4-93.
SECTION VI Sec. 4-409 entitled “Order to vacate.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-409 4-408. Order to vacate.
Whenever a notice of violation as provided for in section 4-408 4-407 has not been complied with, the chief inspector may include within the compliance order a finding to the effect that the nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit is unfit for continued occupancy, and such finding shall be an order to vacate. Such compliance shall be in the manner provided for in section 4-94 and service shall be made at least ten days prior to the effective date of the order to vacate. An appeal from such compliance order may be taken to the property standards board of review in the manner provided for in sections 4-96 through 4-100.
SECTION VII. Sec. 4-410 entitled “Vacation required and issuance of order.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-410 4-409. Vacation required and issuance of order.
Any nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit condemned as unfit for continued occupancy shall be so designated and placarded and shall be vacated within such reasonable time as the chief inspector may specify in the compliance order.
SECTION VIII. Sec. 4-411 entitled “Occupancy of condemned building prohibited without written approval.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-411 4-410. Occupancy of condemned building prohibited without written approval.
No nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit which has been condemned and placarded as unfit for continued occupancy shall again be used for habitation occupied until written approval therefore and for removal of the placard is secured from the chief inspector.
SECTION IX. Sec. 4-412 entitled “Removal of notice of condemnation” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-412 4-411. Removal of notice of condemnation.
No person shall deface or remove the placard from any nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit which has been condemned as unfit for continued occupancy and placarded as such, except as provided in section 4-411 4-410.
SECTION X. Sec. 4-413 entitled “Duty of owner to secure condemned dwelling.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-413 4-412. Duty of owner to secure condemned dwelling.
The owner of every nonresidential structure dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit which is condemned as unfit for continued occupancy and vacated shall make such nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse, or rooming unit safe and secure in whatever manner the chief inspector may deem necessary so that the nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit shall not be dangerous to human life and shall not constitute either a fire hazard or a public nuisance. Any such vacant nonresidential structure or dwelling open at doors and windows, if unguarded, shall be deemed dangerous to human life as a fire hazard and a public nuisance within the meaning of this provision.
SECTION XI. Sec. 4-414 entitled “Duty of owner to secure abandoned and/or unoccupied dwelling” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-414 4-413. Duty of owner to secure abandoned and/or unoccupied dwelling.
(a) Generally. The owner of every nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse or rooming unit which is abandoned and/or unoccupied shall make such nonresidential structure, dwelling, dwelling unit, roominghouse, or rooming unit safe and secure in that all windows, doors, bulkheads or entryways shall be covered in a workmanlike manner with at least half-inch plywood or equal material; such covering must be painted or stained to match the present color of the structure. The nonresidential structure, dwelling unit, roominghouse, or rooming unit shall not be dangerous to human life and shall not constitute either a fire hazard or a public nuisance. Any such abandoned and/or unoccupied structure or dwelling open at doors and/or windows, if unguarded, shall be deemed dangerous to human life as a fire hazard and public nuisance within the meaning of this provision.
(b) Violation; penalty. All violators of this section who fail to meet the above standards after notice thereof of not more than ten days shall be fined $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists. The minimum property standards board shall have the right to review, suspend or waive all fines levied under this section.
SECTION XII. Sec. 4-415 entitled “Notice of violation and intent to demolish” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-415 4-414. Notice of violation and intent to demolish.
Whenever the chief inspector determines that a nonresidential structure, dwelling or dwelling unit is unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy as provided in this article and that the cost necessary to alleviate the violation is not reasonably related to the value of the nonresidential structure or dwelling, he shall include within the notice of violation provided for in section 4-93 a statement of his intent to order the demolition of the nonresidential structure or dwelling; provided, however, that the owner at his discretion may repair, alter or improve the nonresidential structure or dwelling in order to alleviate the violation regardless of whether or not the cost is reasonably related to the value or may demolish the nonresidential structure or dwelling at his own expense pursuant to the provisions of section 4-91; provided further, that the owner alleviate the violation within the time specified in the notice of violation. A copy of such notice shall be served on the owner, occupant, lessee, mortgagee and all other persons having any interest in such nonresidential structure or dwelling as shown by the records of the recorder of deeds in the manner provided for in section 4-93; provided that in the event that any such person is not identified or located, service may be made upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once a week for two successive weeks. For purposes of this section, any repair, alteration or improvement that is determined by the chief inspector to cost more than 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the nonresidential structure or dwelling shall be deemed to be not reasonably related to the value of the nonresidential structure or dwelling.
SECTION XIII. Sec. 4-416 entitled “Demolition order.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-416 4-415. Demolition order.
Whenever a notice of violation as provided for in section 4-415 4-414 has not been complied with, the chief inspector may include within the compliance order a finding to the effect that the nonresidential structure or dwelling is unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy, and such finding shall be an order to demolish the nonresidential structure or dwelling. Such compliance order shall be served upon the owner, occupant, lessee, mortgagee and all other persons having any interest in the nonresidential structure or dwelling as shown by the records of the recorder of deeds in the manner provided for in section 4-94; provided however, that in the event that any such person is not identified or located, service may be made upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once a week for two successive weeks, and service shall be made at least three months prior to the effective date of the demolition provisions of the order. An appeal from such compliance order may be taken to the property standards board of review in the manner provided for in sections 4-96 through 4-100 and the notice of violation and order to demolish shall so state.
SECTION XIV. Sec. 4-417 entitled “When chief inspector to make repairs.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-417 4-416. When chief inspector to make repairs.
Whenever a compliance order to repair, alter or secure a nonresidential structure or dwelling found by the chief inspector to be unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy has not been complied with, the chief inspector may, at the expense of the person responsible for alleviating the violation, take such direct action as is necessary to alleviate the violation if the cost of such action is reasonably related to the value of the nonresidential structure or dwelling. For the purposes of this section, any repair, alteration or securing that is determined by the chief inspector to cost 50 percent or less of the assessed valuation of the nonresidential structure or dwelling shall be deemed to be reasonable. The power of the chief inspector to repair or alter shall be limited to the alleviation of conditions which affect occupied nonresidential structures, dwellings or dwelling units.
SECTION XV. Sec. 4-418 entitled “When chief inspector to proceed with demolition, liability for expense of demolition.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-418 4-417. When chief inspector to proceed with demolition; liability for expense of demolition.
Whenever a compliance order issued pursuant to the provisions of section 4-416 4-415 and providing for the demolition of a nonresidential structure or dwelling has not been complied with and the cost of the repair has been determined by the chief inspector to be more than 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the nonresidential structure or dwelling, the chief inspector may demolish the nonresidential structure or dwelling at the expense of the owner.
SECTION XVI. Sec. 4-419 entitled “Liens and charges to recover expense of demolition by chief inspector.” of Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-419 4-418. Liens and charges to recover expense of demolition by chief inspector.
Whenever the owner fails to comply with an order to repair, alter, improve or demolish a nonresidential structure or dwelling which has been determined to be unfit for human habitation and continued occupancy and the chief inspector has taken direct action pursuant to the provisions of sections 4-417 and 4-418 4-416 and 4-417, the costs incurred by him in such action shall be a lien against the real property, and such lien shall be enforced in the manner provided or authorized by law for the enforcement of common law liens on personal property. Such lien shall be recorded. If the nonresidential structure or dwelling is demolished by the chief inspector, he may sell the materials of such nonresidential structure or dwelling, and the net cost of the demolition shall be charged to the owner. If any balance remains, it shall be held for the owner or any other parties entitled thereto, and in every case, the cost of direct action shall be the costs necessary to perform the required work as expeditiously as possible, together with a ten percent service charge in addition thereto.
SECTION XVII. Subdivision VI entitled “Unfit Dwellings” of Division 6 entitled “Nonresidential Standards” of Article III entitled “Minimum Property Standards” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations.” is amended by adding thereto the following:
Sec. 4-419. Order to vacate; imminent danger to public health, safety or welfare.
When, in the opinion of the chief inspector, there is imminent danger of failure or collapse of a building or structure or any part thereof which endangers life, or when any structure or part of a structure has fallen and life is endangered by the occupation of the building or structure, the chief inspector is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the same forthwith. The chief inspector shall cause to be posted at each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: “This Structure is Unsafe and its Occupancy has been Prohibited by the Chief Inspector.” It shall be unlawful for any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of making the required repairs or of demolishing the same.
Sec. 4-420. Notice of intent to condemn.
Whenever the chief inspector determines that a nonresidential structure is unfit for continued occupancy as provided herein, he or she shall include within the notice of violation provided for in section 4-93 a statement of his or her intent to condemn and placard the nonresidential structure as unfit for continued occupancy and to require it to be vacated if the provisions of the notice of violation are not complied with. A copy of such notice of violation shall be served on the owner, operator and the occupant in the manner provided in section 4-93.
Sec. 4-421. Order to vacate.
Whenever a notice of violation, as provided for in section 4-422, has not been complied with, the chief inspector may include within the compliance order a finding to the effect that the nonresidential structure is unfit for continued occupancy, and such finding shall constitute an order to vacate. Such compliance order shall be served upon the owner, operator and the occupant in the manner provided for in section 4-94, and service shall be made at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of the order to vacate. An appeal from such compliance order may be taken to the property standards board of review in the manner provided for in sections 4-96 to 4-100.
Sec. 4-422. Placarding and vacation of unfit nonresidential structures.
Any nonresidential structure condemned as unfit for continued occupancy shall be so designated and placarded and shall be vacated within such reasonable time as chief inspector may specify in the compliance order.
Sec. 4-423. Use of condemned nonresidential structures prohibited.
A nonresidential structure which has been condemned and placarded as unfit for continued occupancy shall remain unoccupied until the chief inspector provides written approval of occupancy and grants permission to remove the placard.
Sec. 4-424. Removal of placards from condemned nonresidential structures.
No person shall deface or remove the placard from any nonresidential structure which has been condemned as unfit for continued occupancy and placarded as such, except as provided in section 4-425.
Sec. 4-425. Securing of vacated and nonresidential structures.
(A) Whenever any nonresidential structure shall become vacant and open at any door or window, leaving the interior of the building exposed to the elements or accessible to entrance by trespassers, such building will be deemed to be dangerous or unsafe.
(B) When a vacant nonresidential structure becomes hazardous to the safety, health or welfare of the public by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence or abandonment, such building shall be deemed to be dangerous and unsafe.
(C) When a vacant nonresidential structure has been damaged, vandalized, or deteriorated to such an extent as to be unfit or unsuitable for occupancy, such building shall be deemed to be dangerous and unsafe.
(D) When the whole or any part of any nonresidential structure is deemed to be in a dangerous or unsafe condition, the chief inspector shall issue a notice of the dangerous and unsafe conditions to the owner of record, requiring the appearance of such owner of a record at a hearing before the chief inspector within fourteen (14) days to show cause why the nonresidential structure should not be demolished or otherwise made safe. All notices shall be in writing in accordance with section 4-93.
(E) When it is determined at the hearing that the nonresidential structure should be demolished or otherwise made safe, the chief inspector shall issue a compliance order to the effect that such nonresidential structure shall be demolished or otherwise made safe within a time not to exceed ninety (90) days. Where no emergency exists, the owner may either consent in writing to rehabilitate the structure so that it complies in all respects with this chapter within six (6) months and must provide, if required by the chief inspector, a performance bond guaranteeing that the work will be done; or the owner may put the nonresidential structure up for sale on terms, conditions, and limitations which would provide for the rehabilitation of the structure thereon within a six-month period. The owner shall further agree that if rehabilitation or sale does not occur within the six-month period, the chief inspector may thereafter demolish the structure without further notice or proceedings. In either case, such nonresidential structure shall be secured in accordance with Subsection H of this section.
(F) Should the owner of record fail to appear at the hearing, the chief inspector shall take action to demolish or otherwise make safe the nonresidential structure as may be found to be necessary or warranted by the evidence.
(G) The chief inspector shall place a lien against the real property for the cost of demolition or otherwise making the building or structure safe in accordance with the provisions of section 4-432.
(H) Any building which is boarded for any reason shall comply with the following specifications: all openings (including doors and windows) from cellar to second floor inclusive, and all windows above the second floor leading to fire escapes, porches or structural appurtenances on all floors must be covered from the exterior with one-half-inch-thick plywood secured with either 10d common nails or screws of a minimum length of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches, placed twelve (12) inches on center. All other windows shall be secured from the exterior with either plywood or seven-eighths (7/8) inch matched boards.
Sec. 4-426. Notice of intent to demolish.
(A) Whenever the chief inspector determines that a nonresidential structure is unfit for human occupation, and that the cost necessary to alleviate the violation is not reasonably related to the value of the structure, he or she shall include within the notice of violation provided for in section 4-93 a statement of his or her intent to order the demolition of the nonresidential structure, provided that the owner, at his or her discretion, may repair, alter or improve the structure in order to alleviate the violation, regardless of whether or not the cost is reasonably related to the value, or may demolish the structure at his or her own expense pursuant to the provisions of section 4-104; provided further, that the owner shall alleviate the violation within the time specified in the notice of violation.
(B) A copy of such notice shall be served on the owner, occupant, lessee, mortgagee and all other persons having any interest in such nonresidential structure, as shown by the records of the Recorder of Deeds, in the manner provided for in section 4-93 provided that in the event that any such person is not identified or located, service may be made upon him or her by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once a week for two (2) successive weeks.
(C) For the purposes of this section, any repair, alteration or improvement that is determined by the chief inspector to cost more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed valuation of the nonresidential structure shall be deemed to be not reasonably related to the value of the structure.
Sec. 4-427. Order to demolish.
Whenever a notice of violation provided for in section 4-428 has not been complied with, the chief inspector may include within the compliance order a finding to the effect that the structure is unfit for human occupation, and such finding shall be an order to demolish the nonresidential structure. Such compliance order shall be served upon the owner, occupant, lessee, mortgagee and all other persons having any interest in the structure, as shown by the records of the Recorder of Deeds, in the manner provided for in section 4-104, provided that in the event that any such person is not identified or located, service may be made upon him or her by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once a week for two (2) successive weeks, and service shall be made at least three (3) months prior to the effective date of the demolition provisions of the order. An appeal from such compliance order may be taken to the property standards board of review in the manner provided for in sections 4-96 to 4-100.
Sec. 4-428. Power of chief inspector to alleviate violation; limitation.
Whenever a compliance order to repair, alter or secure a nonresidential structure found by the chief inspector to be unfit for human occupation has not been complied with, the chief inspector may, at the expense of the person responsible for alleviating the violation, take such direct action as is necessary to alleviate the violation, if the cost of such action is reasonably related to the value of structure. For the purposes of this section, any repair, alteration or securing that is determined by the chief inspector to cost fifty percent (50%) or less of the assessed valuation of the nonresidential structure shall be deemed to be reasonable. The power of the chief inspector to repair or alter shall be limited to the alleviation of conditions which affect occupied structures.
Sec. 4-429. Demolition of structure at owner’s expense.
Whenever a compliance order issued pursuant to the provisions of sections 4-96 to 4-100 providing for the demolition of a structure has not been complied with and the cost of repair has been determined by the chief inspector to be more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed valuation of the structure, the chief inspector may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a demolition order to undertake the demolition at the expense of the owner. The court may grant the order when no reconsideration or hearing on the matter is pending.
Sec. 4-430. Liens and charges to cover expenses.
Whenever the owner fails to comply with an order to repair, alter, improve or demolish a nonresidential dwelling which has been determined to be unfit for human occupation, and the chief inspector has taken direct action pursuant to the provisions of sections 4-430 or 4-431, the costs incurred by him or her in such action shall be a lien against the real property, and such lien shall be enforced in the manner provided or authorized by law for the enforcement of common law liens on personal property. Such lien shall be recorded. If the nonresidential structure is demolished by the chief inspector, he or she may sell the materials of such structure, and the net cost of the demolition shall be charged to the owner, and if any balance remains, it shall be held for the owner or any other parties entitled thereto. In every case, the cost of direct action shall be the costs necessary to perform the required work as expeditiously as possible, together with a ten-percent service charge in addition thereto. (Requested by: Law Dept.)
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, it is unanimously voted to approve for First Passage.
Click here to view ordinance
D. COMMUNICATIONS
1) Thelma Dufresne, 2407 Pawtucket Ave. To discuss property line being kept up year round and space between a person’s fence and hedges if property is being damaged year round.
Ms. Dufresne further discusses changing the ordinance requiring property owners to have set back requirements when planting things on their property.
Mayor Larisa states that the law you want amended, 34-10-15, is a State law. You can write to your elected representatives to see if they will amend it, but it is not a City ordinance. Also, boundary issues are not government related. This is a private right of action between two neighbors. What has happened here is wrong, but as we said before, it is not a City matter.
Mr. Conley states it is a private right of action; it is not regulated by government. Ms. Dufresne has property rights and the right to enforce them through civil means, but not through any government action or enforcement. He lets the Council know that after the last time Ms. Dufresne appeared here , we did send out inspectors to the property to see if there were any conditions in which we could cite under our ordinances and were advised they were unable to find anything to cite in violation of any building codes or minimum property standards.
2) The following residents are requesting to address the Council regarding Tropical Ilhas, 472 Waterman Ave.:
Acirto Mandelli, 15 Martello Street.
Nelia Carvalho, 51 Martello Street
Jose Leite, 42 Martello Street
Manuel Rezendes, 29 Martello Street
Leubelia Rezendes, 29 Martello Street
James Rogers, 22 Martello Street
Alda DeAndrade, 25 Martello Street
The City Solicitor swears everyone in and the following people speak on the matter:
Acirto Mandelli of 15 Martello Street reads a letter he sent to the Council. He states it is a violation of City ordinance having live entertainment without a license. He states the patio was built without a permit, that the streets are crowded, and they do not have adequate parking at the club.
Mr. Conley states they do not have a license for Dance Entertainment at this time so they do not have the license required for that type of activity. I’ve asked for reports from the Building Official because of the construction without a permit and Police Department because Dance/Entertainment taking place without a license.
Officer Thomas Aquiar states he has spoken at length to Mr. Mandelli about this matter and based on discussions, I did not find any evidence of any violations. Mr. Mandelli didn’t have any specific dates or proof of when this activity was going on. Prior to this, I already had an open report monitoring this situation, specifically the Dance Entertainment License, and whether they we operating Dance/Entertainment at the club. I did not find any violation of City ordinances. All those times including this past Saturday when I did a surprise visit with another officer, I did not find any violations. One time, I saw a DJ setting up and told them it was illegal to do this without the proper license and they didn’t set up that night. I did find a stereo above the bar with small speaker mounted on the wall playing music. The noise was not excessive and was reasonable. The Chief directed me to document my observations. Ask for clarification of whether a deejay or karaoke is considered live entertainment or not. Mr. Conley states that a deejay and karaoke is considered live entertainment. A stereo over the bar is not. Officer Aquiar states that he hasn’t heard excessive noise standing outside, but people do go out more frequently to smoke now that they cannot smoke inside the building.
Isadore Ramos states this started over fifteen years ago. My sister and I grew up in that area. We’ve never done anything to disrupt the community. There was a man there in the community who doesn’t like Cape Verdeans and made accusations in the community that the club would be shut down. A Councilman we grew up with told us you are grandfathered in; don’t worry about it. My sister, the Councilman, and Mr. Conley discussed it and nothing was done and she was wrong for not going down herself. Since the Zoning Board asked her to make corrections, she did not break the law.
Alda DeAndrade of 25 Martello Street states she has lived there since 1968 and didn’t have a major problem, until recently with more parking along the street. It has improved and if they continue to do so, I have no problem with them.
Elaine Briggs, owner of Tropical Ilhas, states the last two years, they’ve had to go out the backdoor to smoke. We put a sign up no smoking in the back after 10pm, which alleviated that problem. The problem is people have to park. We never had any problems until about four years ago and people started complaining about the cars parking. Now because one person moved in and complained, the complaints have started. We have a nice establishment. The Police have been to the club 117 times in the past four years. If things were that bad here, they would have closed us down. Nothing can be heard outside. We have older people that come in and the majority are Cape Verdean, Portuguese, Brazilian, and Spanish. It’s not just a place to drink. We teach them how to fill out job applications, help find housing and jobs for them. I don’t believe any one of the people who have complained ever stepped inside the club to see what it is all about. We try to help the community. When I came before the Council twelve years ago, we asked Mr. Conley if entertainment was included and he stated he thought it was probably grandfathered in. I never heard anything after that from anyone until four years ago when this gentleman went to court. I had no idea. Then they sent me a letter and I went to City Hall again and they said we’ll check it. Got another letter and talked to the City Manager and Solicitor and they said they’d check it. I thought it was all settled. The last time I heard was at the Zoning meeting when they brought up the entertainment with the kitchen they don’t want us to have. Now we’ve spent money going to court. We have a nice establishment with no problems. The other place has loud motorcycles late at night; no one can sleep because of the noise out there. When you walk outside there, you hear vulgarity and we don’t have that at ours. If you go down Martello Street now, you can’t even get down the street. Everyone who lives there has three or four cars. One person who complained has a landscape truck parked on the street everyday that takes up 3 parking spaces. This has gone on for four years now. We need to sit down, talk and have some peace with this.
Mayor Larisa asks if they had live entertainment. Ms. Briggs states we’ve had it since we started in 1994. Mayor Larisa asks after you received the letter in March 1, 2005, did the live entertainment stop? Ms. Briggs states we play the record player. A record player would be loud as any music. Mayor Larisa asks if she’s had any bands or karaoke there? Ms. Briggs states no bands are there. We had a violin player in the beginning. We used to have a band or karaoke or record player. Mayor Larisa states the license for live entertainment was denied by the Zoning Board on May 17th. Have you abided by that? Ms. Briggs states we don’t have live entertainment.
Mr. Conley reiterates that a disc jockey or karaoke would be live entertainment. Mayor Larisa asks if they’ve had a disc jockey or karaoke? Ms. Briggs said we have had karaoke. But that was before. They’re stopping everything from us; they’re stopping the kitchen, stopping the entertainment. Our business is falling apart since this happened. The same thing is going on for the last twelve years and nothing has changed. We’ve spent a lot of money renovating and soundproofing so it won’t affect the neighbors. If they say we can’t have an entertainment license, we may as well go out of business.
Mayor Larisa asks about the patio and awning. Ms. Briggs states if we take it down, they’re they’ll be out on the sidewalk. Mayor Larisa states the issue here on the law was whether you had a permit to put it up or not. Ms. Briggs says we didn’t, but no one else around their does either. We can take it down and then get a permit to put it back up. They’re making this a bigger issue than it is.
3) Charles Mello, Jr., 8 David Street. Reexamination of the issue of placing the question of local voter initiative on the November ballot and a response to the scheduled City Solicitor’s report to the Council regarding the aforementioned question.
Mr. Conley states he prepared a memo on voter initiative, which responds to the issues discussed previously. The first issue was what voter initiative is and its constitutional origins. The second issue is whether or not voter initiative was constitutionally required and then what the relationship between voter initiative and amending the charter is and the relationship between voter initiative and local taxation.
Mr. Mello states he was asking for voter initiative to be on allowed on the ballot. He reads some of the memo and is asking this be done on the local level. Just providing people with the question during the November election for the community to decide.
Mayor Larisa states the question of whether voter initiative in East Providence, getting a certain number of signatures and using it to amend the East Providence Charter and changing our Charter to do that, could be put on the ballot. People could vote it up. Then as the Solicitor points out it would be of no force and effect. You could have it there, but when anyone tries to amend the Charter through a petition, it would be unconstitutional and violate the RI Constitution. That is the problem here. The only way we can amend the Charter under the RI Constitution is for the Council to do what we’ve done with respect to school funding and say all collective bargaining agreements must be approved by the School Committee and City Council and send it directly to the people or we can form a Charter commission as was done in 1991 and have people develop a new Charter and then send that to the people. What some have proposed, as executive chairman of the Voter Initiative Alliance, is to amend the RI Constitution to allow voter initiative at the State level. Until that happens, it is unconstitutional to do it at the City level.
Mr. Mello states 19 communities in the State of RI have voter initiative and/or some form of referendum in the Charter. Mayor Larisa states the only way they could do that is if they are not a home rule Charter municipality. If they are a home rule Charter municipality, they cannot have voter initiative. Mr. Mello states it reads “they can provide legislative proposals for consideration by the Council”. Mayor Larisa states consideration by the Council is a far cry than change the Charter of the municipality by voter initiative. We already have that. People have the right to petition their City Council to consider changes of ordinances in the City of East Providence. One person has the right to come before the City Council and speak about whatever the issue is and that is represented democracy. Mr. Mello says that is different than initiative and referendum. Mayor Larisa states you don’t need 500 signatures to initiate legislative proposals for consideration by the Council, you can come yourself and ask us to consider a proposal and we will.
Mr. Midgley asks decide what? What is it that you want decided? Mr. Mello states he doesn’t have a paramount issue other than voter initiative and people having a greater say and having enough signatures to put it on the ballot and to circumvent the Council. Mayor Larisa states that none of those communities circumvent the Council. They can’t if they’re a home rule Charter municipality. None of those things you’ve read circumvent the Council. In some of those places, you may need a certain number of signatures to do things, but we recently had 10 people come before us with a graffiti issue, they didn’t have to go out and get a certain number of signatures to get us to pass an ordinance. Make a presentation on your issue and the Council will consider it. I agree we do need more citizen participation with people sharing their ideas. We listen to everyone. And I don’t think we need a Charter amendment at the local level to enhance the rights of citizens in East Providence. And if you think we do, what is the issue we’re not addressing that the people want addressed? You already have the right to do this now. What you don’t have the right to do because it is unconstitutional at the State level is to mandate the Council to do it or bypass the Council and change the Charter. The only way to change that is a constitutional amendment at the State level. Real voter initiative is the ability for people to gather signatures and force the legislative body to make a change or go around them. I support this at the State level. At the home rule charter level, it violates the provision of the RI Constitution that says you cannot bypass the City Council. You cannot amend our Charter without it coming through the five Council members or the people appointed to a Charter commission to amend the entire Charter and sending it to the people for revision.
Councilman Midgley states you don’t need 1,000 signatures. I’ve raised many issues on one phone call I’ve gotten from a constituent and we try to get them resolved. To petition the government has never been denied to any resident in East Providence. If someone is not on the docket, on occasion may have been denied council consent to speak. They put their name on the next docket and come back and speak at the next meeting. To me, it’s never been an issue in East Providence. The issues are addressed and the Council takes a serious attitude towards any issue brought before us. Some issue can’t be addressed by us or isn’t in the responsibility of what we can do. Mr. Mello believes addressing a council is more than petitioning one’s government. To ask for consideration is different than voters in booths voting on an issue.
4) John M. Fahey, 2535 Pawtucket Avenue. To discuss the disconnect between the body politic, i.e. Council/School Committee and the citizens and taxpayers of the City of East Providence.
Mr. Fahey gives the Council two handouts. The first issue is an e-mail I received and the other is from a public publication. If this is so, then the Council needs to take immediate corrective action and address the route cause that is addressed in these documents. They speak to administrative, legal, and management issues that you have authority on. You have a duty to correct these issues if they are true. This also has raised eyebrows at the State level.
Mayor Larisa reads an e-mail from May 8th. The e-mail involves a Canvassing Board member, Tom Riley, and his interaction with another Canvassing Board member, Maryann Callahan, and his attempt to get information from the September 2004 voter list based on a request of the list of people that voted in the primary. His complaint was that the downloaded information he received was blank. He then says it was altered. I don’t understand how it can be both blank and altered. The next sentence says he went to the Secretary of State’s Office with the disc and asked Mike Nardozzi to open the disc and said the disc was blank. The next sentence says Mike then downloaded the requested information to a disc for me. I guess the information came from the Secretary of State’s Office and not from upstairs because that one was blank and Mike must have downloaded it from the Secretary of State’s Office. Then Mr. Riley says the information on the voting list has been altered. The list came from the Secretary of State’s Office, not from us, but it reads altered by the Canvassing Office. Both Keith and Richard Costa have been removed from the list of people who voted in the September 2004 primary. I forwarded the e-mail to the City Solicitor, and he asked for a report on the alteration. Mr. Conley states he does not have the response here with him, it goes back a few months now, but we sent it to the Canvassing Authority and got a response on it. Will get the response and report back to the Council and to Mr. Fahey on this.
Mr. Fahey discusses the issue of eminent domain. Mayor Larisa states we did discuss this previously after the Kelo decision came out. There is nothing pending or proposed now. Policy matter is the City Council has to make the choice on any condemnation and we’ve never been called on to make any choice of taking private property for public use.
Councilman Caine states for public uses, the City normally goes out and buys property. Mayor Larisa states there would be full public hearings before any condemnation would take place.
Councilman Midgley states there may be thoughts and rumors out there that we hired a City Manager, the Council will deny any culpability and say it wasn’t us, it was him. All power and authority rests with the five Council members. I assure you, I wouldn’t think of taking someone’s property and giving it to someone else to make a buck on. I don’t think anyone on the Council would support doing that. And I assure you, that is not why we hired the new City Manager. We hired him because he was the most qualified person for the job.
Mayor Larisa states when you condemn, you have to pay fair market value for it and we don’t have the money now to be going out and condemning homes for anything.
Mr. Fahey asks the other Council members where they stand on the issue. Councilman Caine states private-to-private does not work. Private to public could potentially work, but it depends on fair market value. Right now, we have no plans or funds to do this. Under the traditional use, I would think about it. Councilman Silva states he would deal with each case on an individual basis and make his decision at that point.
Mr. Fahey wants the Council to declare that the abuse of eminent domain will not occur and asks it be put in a resolution or an ordinance.
Councilman Caine states you’re asking us to nullify any eminent domain condemnation proceeding that may or may not happen and we cannot make that decision. There’s already an eminent domain statute and you have the opinions of this Council. I’m not going to pass anything that would nullify something we or another Council may or may not do at a later date.
Mr. Fahey discusses his concerns for lack of three-year budget forecasting, which is a statutory requirement and why we aren’t using it. Title 16, Section 16-2-21.2 and reads the highest elected official of each town or city shall submit to the School Committee the estimate of a three-year budget forecasting process. Mayor Larisa states the highest elected official in the City would be the City Manager. We’ll have the Solicitor and City Manager look into that to get us an answer. It sounds like no one has ever followed this because the Dept. of Administration has never promulgated the guidelines upon which to act. There are many State statutes that aren’t acted on.
Mr. Fahey discusses reorganizing and consolidating services. Mayor Larisa states every member of the Council favors reorganization and consolidation, but there are gigantic hurdles in doing this. You have all this parochialism at the State level, but internally there are different union contracts, bargaining agreements, and arrangements. At the last meeting, we talked about purchasing, using the School Department to purchase paper, pencils, etc. The IT Director is shared with the school. On healthcare, we’re looking at a repurchase for the entire City. We’re moving toward consolidating. The end of September we should have more information on healthcare. If legally we can do it, there shouldn’t be any turf war over it, we’re one City; let’s get the best deal for the taxpayers. We are making progress.
Councilman Caine states the initiatives come from many areas. The IT Director has already identified a number of areas she’s worked on and we can maybe provide a report on a monthly basis that shows these things. There is no projection until that professional takes a look at the systems in place that we can look at the save money. We’re working on healthcare again this year. By October, we’ll know what kind of savings we’ll have there. Last year, we saved around $720,000. The phone systems and computer purchases are being looked at as well.
Mayor Larisa states we always talk about a bottom up audit of the City and analyzing everything the City does. We now have a new City Manager with a totally fresh look at things with decades of experience in government who doesn’t know how East Providence operates. He’ll be looking at things from a different point of view to see what we can do better.
Mr. Fahey states there is no more money. This system is unsustainable. It needs to be overhauled. Reform the administration. Benefits, retired people, pension plans, cost of living increases, and healthcare. Collectively, the school and Council have unrealistic expectations. We have a wastewater treatment plant expenditure in the future, road maintenance, etc. There is no more money. We need to tighten up on all areas. The buck stops here with the Council.
Mayor Larisa talks about an article about public employee unions, healthcare, and pension. It reads there’s no more money, no way out, there has to be radical change. Let me tell you what this Council did because the buck doesn’t stop here. Why can’t we get a flat co-pay on healthcare, that is a great idea. In Massachusetts, you can’t even negotiate healthcare costs; it’s 30% for everyone. We have binding arbitration, which is their right. We won big with this negotiation. If we went to arbitration with Police and Fire, they would probably have gotten 3 ½ to 4 ½ % this year with no co-share. Instead, they ended up with 3 ½ % and we got a co-share in a wage reopener year where they weren’t even obligated to step up to the plate. The problem is the School side. They have no co-share. The Police, Fire and City employees pay 20, 25, & 30% of their prescription drugs. Over $1.3 million dollars would be saved if the school employees would say we’ll do that small bit on co-share on the prescription drug plan, we probably wouldn’t have a tax increase next year. The Police and Fire really stepped up to the plate compared to the school and the agreement we got on cost share is probably one of the best in the State. Some others pay a flat 10% or 20%. Then you read the fine print and it’s for their new employees only. If there are only 2 new employees paying 20% and the rest are not paying anything, where is the taxpayer savings? It looks good, but ours says everyone pays the same amount. And it goes from $10 to $14 per week, that’s an increase over the three years. I agree with you, we would we have liked more, but if we tried to push beyond the best deal in the State, we would have been in arbitration costing the taxpayers money. Is the system broken? Yes, it is. But with binding arbitration, the arbitrator picks a number. We’re trying to fix the school side with the ratification. Don’t underestimate what we were able to do with the cooperation of Police, Fire, Department Heads, and all employees on the City side. If the school side did the same thing, we wouldn’t have this budget mess. The under funding, the city needs you identified, the goal is to use the economic growth to fund these things, but when the other side is taking the money, how are we going to do the roads, sewers, the new schools, how will we do all this? We need to dedicate the economic growth to these. Things do have to change.
Mr. Fahey states he thinks 50-50 is fair for healthcare premiums when we have an unsustainable situation. Mayor Larisa states Police and Fire unions think that is grossly unreasonable. They are coming from no co-share. So we’re at a stalemate here. State law lets them go to an arbitrator and the arbitrator says it is not fair and reasonable, look around the State, no one pays anywhere near that amount, so I’m not going to make them pay that. We’re trying to do something reasonable. How about the buybacks? There are people who think it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money to challenge that system. To go after that and say the taxpayers can’t pay several hundred thousand dollars a year to people who don’t take healthcare. But people think it’s a contract. We’re trying to do the best we can with all these constraints involved.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Silva 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.
The open meeting recesses at 10:44 p.m. and goes into executive session at 10:45 p.m.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to ratify the proposed contract settlement with the East Providence Professional, Managerial, and Technical Employees Association (EPPMTEA).
The City Council adjourns the executive session and meets in open session at 10:55 p.m. Mayor Larisa reports the executive session vote ratifying the contract settlement with the East Providence Professional, Managerial, and Technical Employees Association (EPPMTEA).
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, the Open Meeting adjourns at 10:59 p.m.
Attest:
_________________________________
Dana L. Toy
City Clerk
Approved: September 5, 2006