I.     CONSENT CALENDAR

A.      APPROVAL OF COUNCIL JOURNALS

May 2, 2006 – Regular Meeting

May 2, 2006 – Closed Meeting Re: Collective Bargaining

B.       ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES – CLASS F

May 27, 2006 – Cape Verdean Museum Exhibit, 1003 Waterman Avenue

June 30 & July 1, 2006 – Holy Ghost Brotherhood Mariense, 846 Broadway

June 2, 3, & 4, 2006 – Holy Ghost Beneficial Brotherhood of RI, 51 North Phillips Street

July 14, 15, & 16, 2006 – Holy Ghost Brotherhood of Charity, 59 Brightridge Avenue

June 24 & 25, 2006 – Holy Ghost Brotherhood St. Peter Micaelence, 81 North Carpenter Street

June 16, 17, & 18, 2006 – St. Francis Xavier, 81 North Carpenter Street

June 23, 24, & 25, 2006 – St. Martha’s Church, 2595 Pawtucket Avenue

July 7, 8, & 9, 2006 – Teofilo Braga Club, 26 Teofilo Braga Way

June 9, 10, & 11, 2006 – Trinity Brotherhood, 146 Sutton Avenue

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Consent Calendar minus the closed minutes of the May 2, 2006 Closed Meeting.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the closed meetings of May 2^nd closed meeting minutes and keep them closed.

II.    APPOINTMENTS  

Juvenile Hearing Board  (By Councilwoman Perry)

            Mildred Morris, 419 Dover Avenue (02915) (to fill the unexpired term of George Furtado)

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

III.   PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, & INTRODUCTIONS

Mayor Larisa and the Council present proclamations to the East Providence Wrestling Team for winning the 2005-2006 Dick Reynolds Team Sportsmanship Award. 

IV.   CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS LICENSING COMMISSIONERS

LICENSES REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING

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

Ruelas, Inc., d/b/a Margaritas, 230 Newport Avenue

*Letter of Objection received from R. Kevin Horan on behalf of The Children’s Place*

Mr. Conley states at the original hearing, parties appeared on behalf of the Children’s Place, which abuts the applicant’s property.  The question to the Council was if the Children’s Place was a private school according to RIGL 3-7-19.  This law states the license shall not be issued to any building within 200 feet of the premises of any public, private, parochial school, or place of public worship.  The Children’s Place said they were such a school and they are accredited.  Mr. Maaia on behalf of the applicants presented a letter arguing that fact.  The Council decided to ask the Dept. of Education whether or not the Children’s Place was a school within the meaning of the statute.  We received a response from the Dept. of Education and that letter states the Children’s Place is a private school as defined by RIGL 3-7-19.  Once this finding was made, the Council has no discretion and prohibits the issuance of a license.

Mayor Larisa asks about the previous license holder, Pizza Hut, having a license for beer and wine and about that Supreme Court case awarding the license.  Mr. Conley states in the previous version of the statute, the words private school were not in the statute, it was just public or parochial school.  The statute was later amended to include private school and that is the difference between these cases.

Attorney Michael Crocker is present on behalf of Mr. Maaia representing the applicants.  He states they believe that the Children’s Place is a nursery school, addressing the educational needs of children of tender years, specifically identified in Chapter 48 of Title 16, entitled Educational Services To Very Young Children.  These very young children are defined as age 2 years 8 months up to 6 years and are treated special in the statutory scheme from what we consider elementary school age children.  We do not think the opinion of the Commissioner recognizes the distinction the legislature has made between children of tender years and elementary school age children.  In Section 16-48-1, it relates to applicability of the educational services of very young children statute and separates the children of tender years from bonafide nursery kindergarten and nursery classes.  The distinction is there.  Our position is that it is not in the class of persons or entities that are entitled to objector status as a private school.  The opinion of the Commissioner recognizes they’ve approved a kindergarten program.   That action does not elevate the Children’s Place status to that of a private or secondary elementary school.  We don’t believe the commissioner has the authority to expand the statute to read that way; otherwise, any program dealing with a nursery school or daycare center that has an approved kindergarten component, would be considered to be a public or private school as well.  Ask the Council to consider the distinction in the statutory scheme before they make any decision.

Councilman Caine states we have the opinion from the Commissioner that says it is a private school and falls under that designation.  It falls outside our jurisdiction to grant the license. You would have to take this up with the Commissioner. 

Councilwoman Perry agrees that the law is clear about this.  They are accredited by the Dept. of Education and we have no authority to grant the license.

Mayor Larisa states they can appeal to get that opinion reversed.  We have no discretion to consider granting this license. 

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to deny the application based on the interpretation received from the Commissioner of Education.

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

Ruelas, Inc., d/b/a Margaritas, 230 Newport Avenue

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to remove without prejudice.

3)  Request for Removal of Stipulations from Class A License

Bethal Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Jordan’s Liquors, 199 Taunton Avenue

Alan Trow, 145 Kelley Blvd., North Attleboro, MA is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.  Mr. Trow states he and his wife Elizabeth own Jordan Liquors and is operated by his wife and daughter.  We’ve been operating since April 2004 and have been responsible operators of the business.  We want to be treated like anyone else and feel the three stipulations should be removed so we have the same standing as everyone else.

Mayor Larisa states the stipulations on the license are that no franchise is allowed, no transfer of ownership to anyone other than children, and no joint venture with a third party.  At the time it was put on, there was a lot of debate about franchises, and in 2005, the law made franchising illegal.  I believe the stipulations were also put on by objections of other Class A license holders and ask if any of the objectors are here tonight.  No one from the public wishes to speak.

Mr. Trow states he has spoken with two of the three that had objections in the past and they said they have no objection now.  The third person he was told had no objection, but he did not speak directly with them.

Mayor Larisa asks if they’ve ever been cited by DBR for any violations.  Mr. Trow states they have not.  In 2004, DBR sent out notice to license holders that said we’d have to go through an inspection process.  Inspectors visited us in the past.  In 2005, DBR sent another notice saying they were looking hard at four specific points covered by the new reinforced law and part of that has gone into effect by some stores in East Providence having to change their names because no two stores can have the same name.  We are subject to the laws just as everyone else is and that is what we’re asking tonight.

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to remove the three stipulations from the license.

LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING

4)  Carnival - June 22^nd – 25^th  2006 Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector, Fire Marshall, Electrical Inspector and State Building Code Comm.

St. Martha’s Church, 2595 Pawtucket Avenue

Reverend Douglas Spina is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

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

5)  Holiday Sales (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, and Fire Marshall.

From: Kenneth E. Carlson, d/b/a Movies and More

To: Dawn Perry, d/b/a Movies and More, 697 Willett Avenue

Dawn Perry, 18 Niverville Street, Johnston, RI is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

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

6)  Vict/Not Over 25 (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: KB, Inc., d/b/a Willett Farms

To: Sanket S. Patel, Hanuman, LLC, d/b/a Willett Farm, 185 Willett Avenue

Sanket S. Patel, 156 Vinton Street, Providence is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

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

7)  Holiday Sales (Transfer) Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

From: KB, Inc., d/b/a Willett Farms

To: Sanket S. Patel, Hanuman, LLC, d/b/a Willett Farm, 185 Willett Avenue

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

8)  Vict/Not Over 25  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

William and Theresa DeCoste, Will, Inc., d/b/a Schroder’s Deli & Catering, 204 Willett Avenue

William and Theresa DeCoste, 57 Terrace Avenue, East Providence are present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

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

9)  Holiday Sales  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.

William and Theresa DeCoste, Will, Inc., d/b/a Schroder’s Deli & Catering, 204 Willett Avenue

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

10)  Laundry/Dry Cleaner Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Zoning Officer, and Fire Marshall.

Iulia Barsegova, d/b/a Perfect Fit Tailoring & Dry Cleaning, 196 Newport Avenue

Iulia Barsegova, 123 Clifford Street, Pawtucket is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

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

11)  Peddler/Ice Cream  Subject to approvals from the Chief of Police and Health Inspector.

Jonathan Acosta, d/b/a Palagi’s Ice Cream, 55 Bacon Street, Pawtucket

Jonathan Acosta, 96 Urban Avenue, North Providence is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.

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

LICENSING COMMISSIONERS RESUME SITTING AS CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING

V.   PUBLIC HEARINGS

1)  ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (by Planning Dept.)

Advertised  Providence Journal –  April 26^th, May 3^rd and May 10^th 2006

            Notices sent by certified mail - April 25, 2006

REZONING – Recommendation for requested zoning map amendment requested rezoning from Residential 6 (R-6) to Residential 5 (R-5)

Petitioner:  City of East Providence

Attorney:  William J. Conley, Jr., Esquire

Change to: Residential 5 (R-5)

Lot:  Map 207, Block 21, Parcel 1

Location: 1169 South Broadway (former Tristam Burgess School site)

Jim Moran, Principal Planner, gives a presentation describing the proposed rezoning of the site.  After discussion by the Council, the following are sworn in by the City Solicitor:

Stephen Furtado, 17 Mason Street states in April 2005, he came before the Council with a petition from the neighbors before the RFP’s went out asking the Council to consider it for single-family use, which is cohesive with our neighborhood.  At that time, Councilman Miranda stated that we owe it to the people in the area not to do anything to hurt them.  The apartments across the street go to different schools and are also in a different political zone.  It’s not really the same neighborhood.  Also we do not know what the plan is yet, 2 or 4 units or one large building.  All these changes are being made beforehand and we ask you to think what Mr. Miranda would do.  We don’t have representation in Ward 2 and would like to postpone this until we get through the election in June.  

Mayor Larisa states he knows that Norman was for this project. Norman spoke to the neighbors in 2005 and voted for this knowing it would be a multi unit development based on 16 units.  We received $1.2 million instead of less than $800,000 because of this. 

Mr. Furtado states Mr. Miranda said there would be ample time in the planning process and the review process to voice our opinions against multi family, but he wanted to go ahead with selling the property.

Mayor Larisa states we don’t want to do anything to hurt the neighbors, but if we restrict access to South Broadway and have a sufficient buffer zone, we don’t understand why this would be different than 8 single-family houses going there.

Ms. Boyle states the development review regulations are very stringent with landscaping and buffering requirements and Mr. West will have to meet these standards.   If he comes in with a proposal that doesn’t, he would have to go to the Zoning Board to get relief from that and that would be a public process where the neighbors can express their concerns.  We haven’t seen a plan yet either, but any developer who’s endured the development plan review process would say it has very rigorous and specific standards and the motion made by the Council last year went above and beyond in requiring an architectural review because of the concerns of compatibility with the neighborhood.  The job of the Development Plan Review Committee would be to assure the standards are met and that we have a development compatible and not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.  The public has input in the development review process and a notice is sent out to everyone in a 200- foot radius so they can share their input.  We have through this process on other projects have made significant changes to a proposal as a result of the public comments and in some cases, have required the developers to go through further review.  This is just a first step to fulfilling the terms of the purchase and sales agreement.  The next step would be for Mr. West to submit those plans and go through the development plan review process.  If we can’t reach agreement with him, then the sale is null and void.

Mayor Larisa states we can’t ask developers to go through the expense of development review when they are asking for it on a zone that they don’t have and would be submitting something illegal for that zone so that’s why we have to change the zone first and then do the development review process. 

Mr. Furtado states one of the main concerns is traffic.  We have a family neighborhood here and want to keep the feel of the neighborhood.  Four Seasons Apartments across the street we don’t consider part of our neighborhood and we’re concerned because 16 units sounds like a lot, a lot of cars and a lot of people.  Seems like it’s a high-density development in an area that isn’t high-density. 

Mr. Furtado presents a petition signed by the neighbors for the record.  Motion by Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, to enter the petition into record.

Anthony DeJesus, 7 Fisher Street states there are all single family homes in the area and this isn’t compatible with the neighborhood.  Sixteen units could be 32 or more cars and 8 units would be about 16 or more cars.  The lot along the southside is zoned for 6 units an acre; west and north sides 8 units per acre so we’d be doubling that area and I can’t see this benefiting the neighborhood.  Asking you to consider the neighbors because we have to live here.  We haven’t even seen the plans and that’s our concern.

David Christie, 365 Fort Street states his house is the corner over from this lot.  The neighborhood is single-family homes and that is what we want there.

Anthony Tevo, 27 Mason Street asks what the market value of these units will be.  Mr. Moran states there has been no mention of the market value at this time.  Ms. Boyle states they would be required to submit a fiscal impact analysis as part of the development plan review process and at that point, they would have to have specific information of the asking price or what the market price would be and also what the impact on City services would be. 

Mr. Tevo asks about on site parking.  If there are 16 units with 2 cars a unit, will there be enough parking spaces on the site to accommodate 32 cars?  Ms. Boyle states that would be a requirement.  Mr. Moran states the ordinances require specific buffers and they have to be met. 

Timothy Murray, 411 Fort Street states he and his wife live across from this and in front of the house is the entrance going into the parcel.  Parking will increase on the streets and will have more trouble with cars and buses going down the street.  The apartments across are hidden.  The parking is my concern.  If 16 units are there, the property value around the units is likely to go down. 

Councilman Caine states it is hard taking any piece of land and putting something on it without an impact.  It has no value unless we sell it.  We wanted to maximize the value, how we do that without having a significant impact on the neighbors and the thought was if the zone was changed to R5, you could increase the density.  You could still get a lot of cars even if it were single-family residences being put there.  If access is only through South Broadway, it limits the curb cuts across the street.  If you make it 8 individual lots, you’d have 4 curb cuts on Mason and Fort and maybe on Public Street.  Also, if you have condominiums, you usually have fewer children in the school system than in single-family residences.  We looked at how much we could get for the property, not have it affect the neighbors, and the fiscal impact on the School and City services.  Don’t object to moving forward provided the planning process comes back to us for final approval after development plan review. 

Councilwoman Perry states that she wants to reassure all the residents that they will be part of the process.

Councilman Midgley states one issue the neighbors have is they don’t know what it will look like.  We don’t know either at this point because it hasn’t been rezoned.  Until it is rezoned and we have a plan submitted by the contractor and have them go through the public hearings to show you the proper use for the property, we can’t go anywhere with this.  On final review after everything is done and if it is not compatible with the neighborhood, it will come back to the Council.  I support Councilman Caine and Councilwoman Perry that we need to start somewhere.  There will be public hearings on this and the neighbors will be part of this.  We can’t say no right now, it isn’t fair to the City or to the residents because you may be pleased with what is going there.  Sometimes it isn’t possible not to change, we have to move forward and encourage development.  As we do that, we have boards and commissions to support you.  I would support moving forward tonight on the condition that if it isn’t good for the neighbors and the City, we hold off the final approval. 

Mayor Larisa states the neighbors are right.  Mr. Midgley says it isn’t fair to say no tonight.  It also isn’t fair to say yes tonight.  Would like to amend the motion to include that it be restricted to condominiums and developer not be allowed on initial sale to turn it into apartment development.  Have solved that by requiring that however it comes out on plan review, that it come back to the Council.  We’ll get the project started by approving the zone change tonight.  I want the neighbors to know we appreciate their valuable input.  We’ll be back here when we have real plans, landscaping, etc. and most importantly, you’ll be able to be here at the hearings where you’ll see the plans and offer your suggestions.  This does not fall on deaf ears.  We’ve had other situations with other developments where neighbors presented a list of changes to make the development better and we insisted the developer look closely at them and they agreed with some of them to make the development better for the neighborhood. 

Mr. Furtado asks what happens if zone is changed and development doesn’t go through.  Mr. Conley states you could make it revert back if proposed development does not meet the final approval of the City Council. 

2)  ORDINANCES – FINAL PASSAGE

1)  The following is an ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the City of East Providence by changing Parcel 1 on Assessor’s Map 207, Block 21 from Residential 6 District to Residential 5 District. (Advertised Providence Journal April 26^th, May 3^rd and May 10^th 2006 )

SECTION I.  Section 19-95 entitled “Districts Designated” of Article III. entitled “District Regulations” is hereby amended as follows:

Parcel 1 on Assessors Map 207, Block 21 presently located in a Residential 6 District is hereby changed to be included in a Residential 5 District.

The Zoning Map of the City of East Providence shall be amended accordingly. (Requested by: Planning Dept.)

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage including the following amendments: 

1.      Any plan for development for said parcel approved through the Development Plan Review process must be finally approved by the City Council.

2.  Any multi-family development must be in the nature of condominium ownership. Failure to meet the above stipulations will result in the parcel reverting to its previous zone of Residential 6.

VI.   NEW BUSINESS

A.  CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

1) Presentation of Fiscal Year 2005 Audit

Paul Dansereau and Joanna Laroux from Parmelee Poirier & Associates are present to discuss the audit.  Mr. Dansereau thanks everyone for allowing us to do this audit and to thank Jim McDonald, Jim Hilton, and the staff for their assistance with providing information for the audit.  Mr. Dansereau gives a summary of the audit.

2) Wampanoag Trail Improvements

Ms. Boyle discusses the joint meeting held with the RIDOT regarding improvement for the Wampanoag Trail regarding safety issues, speeding, merging, and the number of accidents that have occurred.  One recommendation from RIDOT was to look into the viability of traffic controls at the high hazard intersections at Mink Road, Forbes Street, and County Road.  RIDOT is committed to doing some short-term safety improvements, such as new guardrails and removal of some obstructions.  Received correspondence from Mr. Rocchio, the acting managing engineer at RIDOT, and he submitted for consideration some conceptual plans for roundabouts located at River Road and Mink Road and the Forbes Street intersection.  Asked that we look at this concept and respond to them as whether this is something that should be explored further.  Director Coutu has contacted RIDOT to set-up a staff-level meeting along with Fire and Police to look at this and get more information as to how they would function and how its worked in other areas.  We will be pursuing this to get more information and will bring it back to the Council so we can decide whether to endorse this concept and ask them to move forward with a more detailed analysis.  These improvements are not included in the State’s transportation improvement program.   His letter suggests that the Mink Road intersection could be incorporated in the State’s high hazard intersection improvement program.  Will get back to the Council and public when we get more information on this.

3) Silver Spring Roof Repairs

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

4) Scheduling of Joint School Committee and City Council Budget Meeting

Ms. Boyle asks for permission to proceed with the scheduling of a joint meeting with the City Council and School Committee in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding. Without objection, no vote is required.  Will work on getting available dates.

5) Update on GeoNova Project

Ms. Boyle reports the GeoNova plans were submitted to the Waterfront Commission and will begin process of reviewing the plans.  Trying to schedule an informational meeting with the design review committee.  DEM has completed the review of the remediation plan and they are ready to issue an interim letter of compliance subject to one more approval from the electric company. 

Unanimous consent for update on Crescent View Avenue.  Ms. Boyle states that the rain last Sunday caused a subsidence in the deck structure underneath the culvert and the surface above collapsed.  This is similar to the problem that happened two years ago.  The Department of Public Works was able to respond immediately and the road was closed off.  The Director of Public Works has already gotten the emergency repairs underway as of Monday and they should be repaired in about a week.  The permanent solution is to replace the culverts with concrete and to replace the bridge structure.  They’ve estimated it will cost approximately $1.5 million dollars. The Council included that item within the $5 million dollar Public Works bond issue, which will go before the voters in November.  If approved, will hopefully be able to start the permanent repairs late in 2006, early 2007.  Also have attempted to get Federal and State funds for this work, but were not successful with that.  The temporary repair from 2004 has still held, this isn’t a collapse of that repair.

6) Executive Session – Collective Bargaining

Without objection, 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)

On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to accept the Claims Report. 

2)  Update on Substance Abuse Task Force Programs (By Elmer Pina)

Mr. Pina states the task force has expanded its size and quality of programs.  Have 16 members on the task force board now and a team of five staff members.  We have new mediation programs at Riverside and Martin Middle Schools.  Would like to thank the Council for providing office space here at City Hall and at our future home, the Weaver House.  We are very excited about that and increasing our task force family and programs in the City of East Providence.  Stephanie Nichols, the after-school program coordinator, updates the Council on the success of the peer mediation programs and the after-school programs at the middle schools.

C.  COUNCIL MEMBERS

1) Filling vacancy on Canvassing Board from Provided Lists   (By Councilman Midgley)

Councilman Midgley makes a motion that we fill the expired term of Michael Solomon on the Canvassing Board and need to do this as soon as possible because we have elections coming up and need a permanent member on the board.  We are in receipt of list of candidates from the Democratic and Republican City Committees to consider for this position. 

Solicitor Conley reads the State law 17-8-1, which does state when these vacancies occur, the political parties submit lists to the Mayor and that the Mayor shall nominate the members of the Canvassing Authority from the list of party voters submitted by the chairpersons of the City Committees. 

Mayor Larisa states several issues concerning the Canvassing Board have troubled him.  I’m not troubled at all with Michael Solomon and with him continuing on in that position if that is the wish of the Council.  One issue was the use of the Teamster’s Voting place.  This issue has been resolved and it is no longer a voting place.  The second issue is that only registered voters in the City should be voting and we still don’t have a procedure in place that if any candidate for office sends out first class mailings and they get returned a week before the election, we have a voter that doesn’t live at that building and the address must be investigated immediately and not go through us being in the news because people are voting where they didn’t live.  Need to forget the past and make sure this doesn’t happen again and have procedures in place.  That has not been addressed yet.  The third issue is that the Canvassing Board hasn’t had a meeting of its three members in over a year.  There should be rules and regulations in place where any member can call for a meeting on any issue and are done consistent with the open meetings act with a posted meeting.   These issues can easily be resolved, it’s good for any candidate running for office knowing that things are running smoothly and systems are in place to make sure real voters are voting and voters who don’t live in those places aren’t.   Need to end this friction at the Canvassing Board by making sure when any significant decisions are made, that they are made at a public meeting and that is posted with all three members being notified.  There should be meetings at least quarterly or so to address any issues that someone may have.  That is why I have not done anything with the Canvassing Board appointment and have left it for now with an expired term for now.  I don’t see my putting any name forward until the latter two issued are resolved. 

Councilman Caine states we all agreed the polling place needed to be changed.  The registered letter issue and public meeting issue, I agree that we need to have the procedures in place.  I ask the Solicitor on the statue, is there discretion, I thought it said shall, once these names are received, we shall appoint.  Solicitor Conley reads the statute again.  Councilman Caine states the language once the list is received, is we shall appoint.  Anything that needs to be fixed we as a Council have the ability to direct others to fix it. 

Mayor Larisa states he shall do it, but it doesn’t say when to do it, and it will be done within a reasonable period of time.  I just want to get the issues resolved and then appoint someone.  And hopefully it will be done soon.  Haven’t had a status report yet, but they are being worked on that now and then I can pick a name.  I don’t even know whom the Council wishes to put up.

Councilman Midgley states these issues shouldn’t be prohibitive of filling the vacancy.  If there is a violation of an existing procedure, then I can see that would be trouble.  But if there are no rules or regulations in place that say there should be.  The registered voter problem hasn’t happened since the last time and in the absence of an issue, I don’t think it should be a reason to deny filling the vacancy. 

Mayor Larisa states there is a procedure for Open Meetings and it is State law.  Two members cannot meet and make any decisions without the third member being there.  I’m not saying that has ever happened.  I’ve said not having meetings because allegations have been made that by not having meetings in over a year, that certain actions have happened without a meeting.  If you have regularly scheduled meetings, then those allegations can be diffused.  There was a decision made and it was a valid and correct decision.  There is a candidate running in Ward 2 and a close family relative of the candidate works in the Canvassing Office.  There is no question that person cannot work in the office or have anything to do with that election.  That person had to be moved somewhere else.  There was no meeting called for that.  There is no process where we have an issue and call all three members for a meeting.  If we have a system that fixes this saying a meeting needs to be called by any of the board members.  A correct decision was made, but it needs to be made in a proper way.  The last time there was an election we had mail returned.  We don’t want to be in that situation again without a procedure in place for an immediate investigation.  I’m not asserting the Canvassing Board has done anything wrong or not performing up to standards.  Just want to make sure everything is set going forward. 

Motion is made by Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, to direct the Mayor to fill the vacancy as soon as possible.  Roll call vote as follows:

2) Discussion & Vote Regarding Johnston Solicitor Ruling and School Committee Counsel” (By Councilman Caine) 

Solicitor Conley state on March 3, 2006, the RI Supreme Court held a case entitled Santilli vs. Town of Johnston, that the Town Solicitor for Johnston under that charter was the sole attorney for the School Department.  The ruling of the court was based on language in the town charter that is very similar we have in our charter.  There are some differences in the two cases in that the court noted the Johnston charter had been legislatively ratified and it relied on that for concluding that legislative ratification over the general law under title 16 and also there is some additional language in the Johnston charter that addresses additional representation issues by a Solicitor.  Since that ruling by the Supreme Court, legislation has been introduced by the General Assembly to overrule the conclusion of the court and provide that School Committees have the specific authority to hire its own legal counsel.   I’ve been monitoring this for the Council to determine if the legislation will render this mute or if it gets passed in some other form that may affect the process.  There has been some testimony regarding the scope of representation by the law departments of School Committees.  Right now, in holding pattern to see what happens in legislation before we take action that may not be consistent with the legislation and will report back to the Council as soon as something takes place.

Councilman Caine states he was looking at this from a cost savings perspective since the School Committee spends money on lawyers and if there is a more cost-effective way of doing that.  We’ve talked about potentially hiring an Assistant City Solicitor to represent the School Committee exclusively and could be some cost savings with that.  It would give us more conformance between Councils.   

3) Day of Portugal Friday, June 9, 2006  (By Councilwoman Perry)

Councilwoman Perry states the Day of Portugal will be held Friday, June 9^th in the lobby at City Hall from 12-2pm and it will be dedicated to Councilman Miranda.  The public is invited to attend.

Unanimous Consent given to Councilwoman Perry regarding Crown Avenue.  She asks the Police Chief to give a report on the Crown Avenue traffic.  Chief Paquette states based on findings of the traffic division, we didn’t find truly a speeding problem in that area.  Had about 3 to 5 violations over that period.  There was high volume traffic from 3:30 to 5:45 about 85 vehicles coming through.  Maybe if the no through traffic and no left turn signs were separated, there wouldn’t be as much confusion.  Hopefully, then they’ll see they’re not supposed to be going through there.  Director Coutu states the question of the signs has been perplexing.  We have a no through traffic signs from the City and no left turn certain hours from the State.  The no left turn sign is on the road and your taking a turn before you actually see the sign.  Need to find out from DOT if they can move the no left turn sign.

Councilwoman Perry states some residents for traffic speed limits to be reduced, but if you’re saying speed isn’t an issue, I don’t think that would do any good.  Chief Paquette doesn’t think the speed is the problem.  Councilwoman Perry states there are a lot of concerns because of the number of children on the street.  Mayor Larisa states we could put a watch children or slow children sign there.  Councilwoman Perry states the signage would be a help where they can see them and to have patrols out there.

4)  “East Providence – State Leader in Defending Domestic Animals”  (By Mayor Larisa)

Mayor Larisa states we’re proud to report and congratulate our volunteers for animals on the successful passage of two new State laws modeled for the United States.  This Council first passed a ban on the gas chamber and several months later, the State passed the same ban.  We were then the first in the State to pass a mandatory spay/neuter for cats and that went to the State level and we’re the first State to have mandatory spay/neuter of our cat populations, which should, in the long run, prevent thousands of needless killings of cats every year.  Our volunteer community here, Marybeth Bowden, Kim Casci, Pier Toledo, and Rita Falaguerra have done great work here and at the State level with Defenders of Animals and Volunteer Service for Animals to get this passed.  East Providence made this happen here and now it is Statewide.

D.  COMMUNICATIONS

1)  Fred Vinhateiro, 78 Read Street.  Requesting to address Council regarding the 10^th Annual Car Show to be held on Sunday, May 28, 2006 from 10am to 3pm and permission to block off Pawtucket Avenue from Hoppin Avenue to Burnside Avenue.

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

2) George Page, 31 Forest Avenue.  Requesting to address the Council regarding Wampanoag Trail traffic.

Mr. Page states he’s concerned about Wampanoag Trail and funding for the roundabouts.  We had the meeting and we weren’t sure about these types of rotary.  Would like the representative from the State to come back and give us a better presentation about this.  Found out this work has been done by the Acting City Manager.  This road is a terrible hazard where people are exceeding the speed limit.  People in the assisted living facility are concerned for their safety when they pull out of the complex.  What can be done about this?  Can some money be used from the tickets issued to start a program where we can put a cruiser there with radar? Other communities put unmanned cruisers out there to deter the drivers.  Need a program in place to fix this and do something about.

Councilman Midgley asks about putting radar out on the Trail.  Why is it a problem to get people out there?  Chief Paquette states that isn’t what was said.  We’ve had people out there, this year from January through April we issued over 300 violations there.  We have been putting numerous hours in on the road and will continue to do that.  Councilman Midgley states people are going 75-80 miles an hour there.  The solution is to keep on issuing tickets for speeding.  That is the only way they’ll stop speeding on the Wampanoag Trail.  Don’t intend to hurt people in their pockets, but when someone is going 75-80 in a 45 mile an hour area, it’s time to come down on them.  In Pawtucket, on Prospect, School and Newport Avenue, people don’t speed there like they did before because the Police came down on them.  It is a hazard to travel the Wampanoag Trail.  If we want to stop speeding here, the only way is to enforce it with fines.  I know we’re taxed with Police working double shifts, but we need more enforcement there.  Chief Paquette states last year alone we issued over 800 violations on the Wampanoag Trail. 

            3) John F. Conley, 115 Smith Street. 

Mr. Conley states he listened with interest on the matter involving scheduled meetings at the Board of Canvassers and I agree with that and I’m going to be looking at that tomorrow to see why we can’t all meet.  I’ll talk to Mrs. Callahan and to Mr. Solomon.  I think the only way we’re going to get everything resolved here is to have everyone work together.  I do take umbrage with the comment made by Tom Riley regarding my making phone calls to the Canvassing Office.  I think people are aware that I’m not able to see and my only means of communication is the telephone.  I cannot write a letter so it is true, I call Mrs. Callahan in her back office so I’m not bothering the workers up front and as a Chairman of my party, I have a responsibility to keep my people informed as to times and datelines and all those things that form an election.  I will continue to do that and I think it’s a bit insensitive for somebody to say I’m using that phone as a hotline.  That is my mean of communication; it is the only way I can communicate with Mrs. Callahan.  I can’t drive up to City Hall and I intend to continue to call her and to ask questions that develop my organization.  It not an easy job in their and all those who work there know it.  I think the exception that was made by Mr. Riley, I know he was trying his best, but I am elected to perform a function and as long as I’m there, I will represent my people to the best of my ability as honestly and openly as possible to see that we’re both on the same page and if they are not having meetings, I can assure you that I will talk to our side and we’ll straighten that out because there should be meetings.  There should be meetings on a regular basis as to what is going on, for all sides, democrats and republicans.  I don’t want to make a big to do about this other than to say a little tacky Tom, but not going to take it too serious.  I think we all try to accomplish our jobs in different ways and I can say that perhaps he is trying in his own way and I’m trying in my own way.  Just have a little compassion for my lack of eyesight and I would appreciate that.

Mayor Larisa asks for Unanimous Consent for Mr. Riley to address the Council regarding the remarks made. Councilman Midgley objects and unanimous consent is not given.

On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, 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 11:25 p.m. and goes into executive session at 11:30 p.m.  Executive session adjourns at 11:50 p.m.; the Open Meeting reconvenes and adjourns at 11:51 p.m.

Attest:

__________________________________

Dana L. Toy

            City Clerk       

            Approved:  June 20, 2006