I.          CONSENT CALENDAR

A.  APPROVAL OF COUNCIL JOURNAL

1.   January 6, 2009 Regular Meeting

Motion to approve the Consent Calendar is made by Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Coogan and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

II.        APPOINTMENTS

A.  Beautification Committee (by Councilman Cusack)

Frank Dias, 94 Mowry Avenue (02914)

Motion to approve is made by Councilman Cusack, seconded by Councilwoman Perry and it is unanimous.

III.       PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.  Ordinances-Final Passage

1.   The following is an ordinance pertaining to a removal of a handicapped parking sign at 55 Leonard Avenue.

AN ORDINANCE IN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE
REVISED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, 1998, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC.", which amends Section 18-315 entitled "Same—Handicapped parking." by deleting there from the following:

Leonard Avenue in front of house number 55

Anthony Shepard, 40 Rosemere Drive, requests to speak asking the City to consider changing the existing ordinance so that it doesn’t require a new ordinance to remove a handicapped parking sign, thus saving the Council time and the City the cost associated with placing an ad in the Providence Journal.   Mayor Larisa agrees and states the City is going to have an ordinance on this soon.  Mayor Larisa directs the City Solicitor to look at how to remove handicapped signs without an ordinance, perhaps allowing the Director of Public works to remove at his discretion. 

Motion to approve by Councilman Cusack, seconded by Councilwoman Perry and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

IV.       NEW BUSINESS

A.  CITY MANAGERS REPORT

1.   Municipal Vehicles and Vehicle Policy

The City Manager asked the Council for the endorsement of the items in his memorandum.  Taking action to reduce the number of vehicles in the Police Department with the assistance of the Fleet Manager, Council concurrence for the use policy for take home vehicles to be used for City work only with a limited amount of travel time for personal use, one mile or less, and for the Council to concur and maintain the current assignment of take home vehicles.

Mayor Larisa asked how employees know that these vehicles are only to be used for City work and not personal use.

The City Manager replied there have been several policies in the past that have gone out indicating this but when council concurs tonight the policy will be distributed to all departments and to those employees that are assigned those vehicles.

Mayor Larisa stated according to your memo an employee will be taxed according to IRS rules for any compensatory benefit received from the city vehicle use.  It is my understanding there is not going to be any private compensatory benefit.

The City Manager replied under IRS regulations for a vehicle going to and from work for just the commuting value itself there is that compensatory use. 

Mayor Larisa stated he thought we were giving the vehicle out not for the commuting value but  for the possibility the vehicle might need to be used at any time.

The City Manager stated that for non public safety personnel there is an IRS value we have to withhold on. 

Mayor Larisa asked if there was any objection to having this policy put on a form and each employee assigned a vehicle would sign the form and the City Manager stated yes that is what we will do.

Mayor Larisa confirmed the total cars at 21 to be removed and the City Manager replied yes.

Councilman Cusack stated the vehicle policy is to remind city employees the use is for city work only and not personal but to let them that on the way to or from work or to lunch within a mile or so, to make a stop, that is a reasonable exception but the primary reason for the vehicle is city use. 

Mayor Larisa reiterated people would not expect to see any vehicles far away on a vacation or elsewhere and the City Manager replied yes.

Councilman Coogan asked why a policy was never in place and what is the penalty if someone uses a city vehicle and for example to go to Fenway Park?

The City Manager stated there was a policy in place.  The extent of the violation will determine what the discipline will be.  If someone egregiously violates the policy then the discipline would be more severe.  We would also look at whether or not the person new or didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.

Mayor Larisa asked if there is a single policy anywhere with a signature on it.

The City Manager replied that policies exist from previous administrations but not actually a written signed policy.  It will now be a part of the package for anyone who might be assigned a vehicle.

Councilwoman Perry asked if employees are required to report the mileage on the vehicles if they take them home.

The City Manager replied the mileage is recorded every time they fill up their vehicle at the city station.  We keep a record of it and Bill McMahon keeps an eye on it. 

Councilman Coogan asked for a history of all vehicles in the city from Mr. McMahon the report to include who has a vehicle and how many miles was on the vehicle when they received it and how many are there now. 

The City Manager replied he will speak with Mr. McMahon and find a way to get that information to the Council.

Councilman Cusack asked if all the vehicles are marked, have the seal of the city or some other clear marking by which one could tell it’s a City of East Providence vehicle. 

The City Manager replied not all vehicles are marked especially in the police fleet.  All non public safety vehicles are marked.

A motion to adopt the policy as outlined tonight with signature and written documentation provided as drafted by the City Manager is made by Councilman Cusack, seconded by Councilman Coogan and it is unanimous.

Mayor Larisa announced the next topic for discussion is the removal of 21 cars from the Police Department Fleet. 

Councilman Coogan asked how the City Manager arrived at that number. 

The City Manager said he determined it by information given to him by the Police Chief. 

Councilman Coogan said as he understands it there might be a couple of cars in there that should stay and others that should be removed. The ones that are listed may be the wrong cars. 

The City Manager said in the body of the memo he states there would be additional discussions with the fleet manager and police over specific vehicles it is a subject which will need further refinement.

Councilman Coogan raised his concern for the safety of the men and women on the front lines at the Police Department and that is why he wanted the new cars to begin with, for those on the front line with cars running 24/7. He further stated he believes Sgt Grant should be involved in

the decisions because he is the fleet administrator for the Police Department and he has concerns that some cars on the list should be shifted to other cars. 

The City Manager stated that is a discussion he will have with Sgt. Grant and Chief and other appropriate people.  

Mayor Larisa asked if the City Manager needs a motion approval of the specific types of vehicles or is he going to work with the police on that.

The City Manager replied he would meet with Sgt. Grant and the Chief and McMahon to come up with a selection of which vehicles should be removed. 

Councilman Coogan stated maybe the cars should be shifted around and the Captains who take Crowne Victorias home use different cars and let the Crowne Victorias go to those in detectives.  He further asked that Sgt. Grant attend all these discussions.

Mayor Larisa asked the City Manager if there was any reason why Sgt. Grant would not be there and the City Manager replied no I affirmed he would confer with Sgt Grant as well.

Councilman Coogan stated he thought the Council should have Sgt. Grant come to the next council meeting to explain the car situation to the Council because they don’t want to hurt the police officers or the department in any way and want to make sure they are making the right choices.

Mayor Larisa asked the City Manager for a report to the City Council after speaking with Sgt. Grant on the particular cars that are slated for removal and the City Manager replied yes.   

Councilman Cusack spoke regarding the use of city vehicles as one item which came about when the Council was previously informed that the Police Department had a fleet of 94 vehicles. From that meeting an inquiry arose and the Chief was able to identify a number of cars that were perhaps not needed.  It’s good this process was started because we are asking people to take cuts in pay and pay more in their health care costs and this is a big sacrifice and so we owe it to cut costs whereever we can.  I’m glad there is a recommendation that 21 vehicles be removed from the Police Department fleet and I am glad we asked the question but I must say to the City Manager I would hope the department involved would have already identified items that were not needed.  I wish that this had been done without our direction to you asking you to look into it. You have asked the Council to specifically endorse the recommendation to maintain the current assignment of take home vehicles and which would include the Captain’s vehicles. I think it’s appropriate to ask what those vehicles are for.  It is included in your memo that those cars are part of the compensation for those officers, used to commute and for personal use.  They are a perk, like your car and the Chief’s car and the Fire Chief’s car.  The Council needs to think about that because we are asking people to make a cash sacrifice and we are enforcing an idea which may have been great years ago and now I question whether it is still a good idea. Why is this part of their compensation?  The rational is because they have no overtime pay option and the loss of these vehicles would discourage the Police Department’s opportunities to promote personnel to management positions. I infer from this that officers wouldn’t want to be promoted if the promotion didn’t include a car but I tend to disagree with that. 

Councilman Coogan stated in doing some quick math using the spread sheet the City Manager gave us that mileage is approximately 1,855 miles a week which the taxpayers are paying for. That’s about 20,000 miles a year.

The City Manager explained that the sheet shows the assignment and the mileage but elsewhere in the package Council will see the actual assignment of the mileage which is less than that due to the fact that the City had made some cuts since then. 

Mayor Larisa asked if Councilman Coogan and Councilman Cusack’s postion is that the captains cars should be removed.

Councilman Coogan stated yes and added that in North Providence they just took away the captains cars as part of their collective bargaining agreement.

Councilman Cusack stated at a certain level there might be reasoning for a car being offered at a certain level but I can’t support people having cars just for their personal use as part of their compensation. 

Mayor Larisa stated that it looks like the cars have been limited to fire and police and the City Manager as the only ones who receive a car with the exception of those that are on call, those appear to be 2 in the water department and 2 in the highway department.  The question in the police department is the captain’s lower level compensation and was it intended to counteract that and this the reason why the captains keep the cars?  The last point is that now every city worker has to sign a pledge form that they will not use their city vehicle for personal use.

Councilman Cusack stated then it would be assumed that now a captain cannot use their cars for personal use so the car shouldn’t be seen on weekends and away at trips.  What would be the rationale then for no city markings on those cars?

The City Manager stated that generally command staff will drive unmarked vehicles but that he will look into it further.

Councilman Coogan stated why not get rid of the old mileage cars and get the 5 new cars for those on the front line?  It really shouldn’t matter if a captain gets a car for commuting purposes we should be concerned about the safety of those on the front line. The captains live out of state how are we going to know if they are driving the cars even if they sign the form?

Councilman Cusack stated regarding the 5 new cars no one has yet explained how badly they are needed.  Someone needs to manage the police fleet and tell us if the 5 oldest cars are not safe.  The Chief needs to tell us and justify why these vehicles are needed.

Councilman Coogan stated Sgt. Grant had a program to flush out the older cars and get the new cars.  Councilman Cusack is right someone needs to explain this flushing out process and the warranty issues on these cars.

Councilman Cusack stated it is not my intent to micro-manage but how much faith can we have in the management when we ask them if they can reduce cars and suddenly they find 21 cars they didn’t need.  Why weren’t they removed prior to this? 

Mayor Larisa stated we are again talking about spending $160,000 when we may have to have 5 fewer officers because we don’t have the funds.  We may not have the officers to put in the cars. Soon we have to focus on major concessions from unions or cutting personnel so I don’t think adding 5 new cars make it easier especially without any rationale on the danger issue of the old cars.

The City Manager stated he will be coming back at the next council meeting with information which may be more appropriate for the discussion.  The reduction of the 21 vehicles was not made by the Chief he presented information to me that had good justification for the alignment of vehicles.  The recommendation was mine and it is my feeling that we can make this work. The Chief acknowledges it makes it more difficult to do what they were doing ie: detail cars make money, vice cars needs to be switched out regularly. 

Councilman Coogan stated the Chief should be the one coming up with the 21 cars.

The City Manager stated that is part of the process, the department makes a recommendation to me and I make a decision and in this case I added the proviso that we do have to have additional discussions about vehicles.

Mayor Larisa finalized the agenda stating the City Manager is coming back to the Council with the list of cars that are suggested to be removed. The rationale on real discrepancies in pay which allows the captains to keep cars and the possibility of switching the captains cars around ie: the Taurus’and the Crowne Vics.

2.   SRF funding for water main cleaning and funding

This is the state revolving loan fund for low interest loans for water and sewer projects.  The City has a number of water projects that we are considering as part of the economic stimulus package as part of the upgrade of our water system.  The City is going to be putting together the package to pursue this type of funding however any specific funding will come back to Council. 

Mayor Larisa asked if there is a need for a resolution tonight.  The City Manager stated no he believes when the city pursues the specific projects then a resolution will be needed at that time. 

B.  CLAMS COMMITTEE REPORT

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY      $11,031.49

(INSURED: KAREN R. ROWE)

RM No. 08-097, Claim No. 09-001

Claim for property damage sustained when a City tree limb fell on the insured’s vehicles.  Recommend referral to insurance carrier.

Motion by:  Councilwoman Perry                   Seconded by:  Councilman Cusack

Motion:  Refer the claim to the insurance carrier.

MISCELLANEOUS

CHRISTOPHER MORRA

Oral Status Report

Motion by:  Councilman Coogan                    Seconded by:  Councilwoman Perry

Motion:  Refer the matter to the City Manager and Assistant City Solicitor Robert Craven for further action.

C.  COUNCIL MEMBERS

1.   Annual Problem of Snow Removal  (by Councilwoman Perry)

I have received a lot of calls and I am sure other Council members have too the sidewalks are not passable.  High School students are walking in the street and even elementary children. We have an ordinance in the city and every year we remind people it’s your responsibility as a property and business owner to keep your sidewalks clear. We talk about this every year. 

The City Manager stated he is working on updating the ordinance with the City Solicitor the present ordinance doesn’t do the job because there is a minimal fine.   An updated ordinance with a higher fine will create more incentive. 

Councilwoman Perry asked if the elderly cannot shovel their sidewalks will they get assistance.  The City Manager said yes we do this with recycling bins taken out to the street, we work with the High School and the School Committee on a program with the youth, the program is run though our Affirmative Action Program.  If you come across someone genuinely incapable of shoveling and they have no one who can help then we try to pair them up with the youth program.

Councilwoman Perry added the law states sidewalks must be cleared within 12 hours after a snow storm.  You have to keep the sidewalks cleared of snow and ice. 

Mayor Larisa asked the City Manger to look into differing penalties between businesses and home owners as businesses know the law and have the means to clear the sidewalks. 

The City Manager added that in addition a city can sometimes go door to door when necessary and remind people they need to clear sidewalks.  

2.   Update on Budget Crisis – School Side (by Mayor Larisa)

The Mayor asks if the Council could change the order of business to move the docket around and handle the resolution first.  The Council vote is unanimous. The Cities and Towns have asked that if the Governor’s cut in the middle of the year was to happen the cities needed the tools to reduce city government now and in the years to come.  There are  multiple State laws that prevent us from adjusting salaries and benefits.  Examples would be, a minimum 25% co-pay, the inability to bargain over the types and number of vehicles in Fire Dept. Very powerful lobbyist’s were able to get these mandates passed and they cost a lot of money.  Several cities and towns have already passed this resolution which asks the General Assembly to step up to the plate and help our beleaguered taxpayers and to get rid of a number of mandates and State laws costing the taxpayers a lot of money. I understand from the City Clerk that there are a number of people here to speak on the resolution, it is not a public hearing but we could ask the Council for consent for those who wish to speak.  Unanimous Council consent is given.  A number of people came up to speak regarding the resolution.

Morris Holmes 50 Willet Ave (02915) had a concern regarding when a safety official is injured on the job and how a change to the mandate would affect that.

John Rossi 29 Woodbine St (02915) had a concern regarding the mandates usurping current collective bargaining laws.

Valarie Lawson 15 Wood Hollow Lane (02916) had a concern regarding the mandates usurping current collective bargaining laws.

Dave Nelson 21 Cedarwood Dr (02915) had a concern regarding how the teachers are being treated and why the city won’t accept the arbitrator’s decision.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

City of East Providence

Resolution Supporting Necessary Municipal Tools

Contained in the FY 2009 Supplemental Budget Proposal

WHEREAS, at a joint meeting of the East Providence City Council, School Committee and Legislative Delegation on Friday, January 23, 2009 the City Council and School Department discussed various Budget Articles intended to protect the public treasury and result in improved municipal collective bargaining agreements protecting East Providence taxpayers; and

WHEREAS, the East Providence City Council finds that cities and towns are being faced with ever increasing demands upon their finances centered upon personnel costs; and

WHEREAS, the League of Cities and Town has recommended a number of necessary Budget Articles, many incorporated by the Governor in the proposed FY2009 Supplemental Budget – to serve the laudable purpose of reducing the cost of local government; and

WHEREAS, the East Providence City Council finds that the management tools contained in the supplemental budget proposal are needed to help reduce the cost of local government; and

WHEREAS, the City Council opposes the Governor’s proposal to eliminate aid to cities and towns in the middle of a budget cycle – which elimination would cost our City over $2.2 million of previously budgeted revenue to pay for City services; and also cost the School Department significant revenue.

WHEREAS, if these cuts in State aid are to be made, they are only sustainable if the tools proposed in the Supplemental Budget are passed along with the drastic aid reduction; and

WHEREAS, the property taxpayers of East Providence expect, deserve and demand that during these terrible economic times, salaries and benefits for City employees reflect economic reality; and    

WHEREAS, the East Providence City Council finds that the current state of the law in Rhode Island imposes unfair burdens upon municipal government and taxpayers of Rhode Island’s cities and towns as a result of a statutory scheme that:  1) precludes or severely hampers the ability of local governments to produce fair and equitable collective bargaining agreements

reflecting the economic times; and 2) imposes mandates that are no longer affordable or just; and 3) contains provisions that increase taxpayer costs without persuasive justification; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Supplemental Budget contains the following specific provisions to assist Rhode Island taxpayers overcome the proposed revenue cuts:

1.   Article 18.  School Bus Monitors; This Article will help to reduce the East Providence school budget and is appropriate for East Providence.

2.   Article 20.  Statewide Purchase System; East Providence has benefited from the statewide purchasing system.  Further expansion of this program will be beneficial to the City.

3.   Article 21. School Budget Resolution; This Article will provide incentive to the School Departments to work with the Town Councils to develop affordable budgets.

4.   Article 23 – 6. School related Articles; These Articles will improve the management and operations of the East Providence School System.

5.  Article 41. School and Municipal Realignment Commission; this is an important initiative for smaller communities like East Providence.  Shared Municipal services are a mechanism to reduce program costs that are difficult for smaller municipalities to carry.

6.  Article 42. Firefighters and Municipal Police Arbitration; the allowance of three (3) year arbitration awards and limitation of awards due to the tax levy cap will place municipalities in a much stronger position in collective bargaining.

7.  Article 43.  Firefighters and Municipal Police manning; the elimination of minimum manning provisions is an important step to reining in the East Providence Collective Bargaining Agreement.

8.  Article 44.  Municipal Health Insurance Cost Sharing; A State required cost-share eliminates a critical negotiating point in collective bargaining and provides a great financial benefit to the City of East Providence.

9.  Article 45.  Municipal Retirement; This Article will provide a number of benefits to the City of East Providence.

10.  Article 46.  Police and Firefighter Injured on Duty; this article will provide financial and managerial benefits to the City.

11.  Article 47.  Pre-Judgment Interest; This Article has a number of provisions that will benefit East Providence. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the East Providence City Council respectfully request that the General Assembly oppose the elimination of our local aid and support these Articles within House Bill H-5019.

BE, IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East Providence City Clerk is hereby instructed to submit a copy of this resolution to the City of East Providence State Senators and State Representatives in the Rhode Island General Assembly and the leaders of all Rhode Island municipalities.

A motion to approve passage of the resolution by Councilman Cusack seconded by Councilwoman Perry, Councilman Coogan votes in the negative and the resolution passes 3-1.

Prior to seconding the motion Councilwoman Perry stated that when the 3.5% tax cap was passed a mechanism was put in place in case of an emergency, to override the tax cap.  We are in an emergency now but I am getting call after call from people begging me not to increase the taxes because they have lost their job and have no health insurance and can’t make ends meet. We don’t look at any city employee as a second class citizen.  I worked for the City for 26 years before retiring and know the good job city workers, teachers and the school department do but this is a time when we all have to make sacrifices. This isn’t going to be the end because we have to rein in the deficit, the whole state and the whole county is in the same situation.  We all have to work together everyone has to sacrifice.  Things will get better but until that time we have to share in the burden and help each other and stop the negativism.

The Mayor continued with the docket with the Update on the School Side. 

Stating, the taxpayers are winning because the majority of the City Council and School Committee are hearing you and have your best interest at heart.  The ad in the Providence Journal today, paid for by the Teacher’s union asks what is the truth?  The truth is it isn’t what the arbitrator considers it’s what he doesn’t consider.  He doesn’t have to consider the fact, that the City can’t deficit spend, that the taxpayers don’t have money, that we have a 3.5% tax cap in the City or that the State tax cap is 5%.  What the arbitrator says is that’s not my problem, it’s not my job to consider state law, local ordinance or to consider the taxpayers ability to pay.   How is that fair and neutral?  It’s the Council’s job to consider that and so right off the bat we knew there was no way the Arbitrator was going to come up with something fair and equitable. What his decision creates is a double digit tax increase.  The ad asks who has the right answers, you be the judge. I say yes you be the judge, in the back of the room tonight I have placed copies of a spreadsheet which is a fiscal analysis of the arbitrators award.  The savings would generate $274,000 in year one, we need to save over $3 million in year one, we have a $4 million dollar debt and the taxpayers would have to pick up the dime the next year as it costs $500,000 with a 2% pay increase in year 2.  When you look at year 3 the salaries go up another 3% making a grand total of $1.7 million in costs.  There is no money to pay the additional amount.  What School Committee is asking is to undo the previous pay increase which is 5%.  The answer to why the teachers are being asked to do this is because that is the only part of city government the School Committee has control over. Yes teachers in 2004 took a 1% pay increase but by the end of the 3rd year of that contract they had a $5 million increase so for a $900,000 savings in year

one the city paid $5 million dollars. Yes the City has to pay an attorney to protect the taxpayer because the teacher’s union is refusing to accept the agreement which would save the money we need to get the $3 million savings.   The attorney if he succeeds will save the City millions.  It is important to note the City will have a $9 million problem and is only asking the teachers to come up with the $3 million so even with the $2 million in stimulus monies, which will help, however they will not change the savings we need from the teachers. If the City does not prevail in the legal action then it gives heightened attention to possible bankruptcy due to the fact that we may have no other choice.

3.   Update on Budget Crisis – City Side (by Mayor Larisa)

The Governor’s $2.2 million dollar cut is most likely going to happen.  The General Assembly needs to consider giving the cities and towns the tools we need to balance our budget at the same time they are cutting our funds.   Where the stimulus monies might help is at the state level so they don’t have to cut aid to cities and town. The City Manager is working on a report on how we can cut costs on the City side.

The City Manager confirmed this and stated they are trying to come up with a methodology to maintain services and lower the cost of government.

Mayor Larisa stated these are tough choices and they are not going to be pretty to try to find the cuts to balance the $2.2 million in cuts coming down from the State.  

The City Manager stated it’s a big alteration in how we do business.

D.  COMMUNICATIONS

1.   Thomas Riley, 3620 Pawtucket Avenue (02915) requesting to address the Council regarding the Fire Department, Police Department, cell phones, City Manager.

Regarding the Fire Department change in schedules, as a taxpayer I am concerned with the department not only running properly but running efficiently.  Regarding Police vehicles and purchase order requirements, if this has been a business practice for the last 9 years then the reason why the vendor hasn’t sued the city is not because they don’t have grounds but because they don’t want to poison the relationship.  I think it’s a bad way to deal with someone you have done business with for 10 years. What is the approximate annual value for the leases for those vehicles?

The City Manager stated over a 5 year period it’s around $30,000.

Mr. Riley stated per the city charter we are required to go to competitive bidding for over $100,000 and the Police Chief did not adhere to the $100,000 limit and I am upset because one of the City Manager’s jobs is to manage the finances of these items and to make sure not only the letter but the spirit of these statutes are upheld. 

Mayor Larisa explained that the item in question actually did go out to bid. 

How many cell phones do we have out?

The City Manager replied 70-80.

Mr. Riley stated one suggestion would be reverse billing on the cell phones.  This would help eliminate personal usage.  Allowing an employee to get a cell phone and present the highlighted city calls to be reimbursed. 

The City Manager stated they did recently go through cell phone assignments and went to a new contractor and drove down the cost.  They also removed a number of cell phones.  The City also

looks at the cell phone bills which have a maximum number of minutes and have the ability to roll over minutes, when we see usage that doesn’t appear to be the normal then we ask the employee to pay that portion of the bill that might be personal use.  Sometimes an employee may lose the phone privilege.

Mr. Riley stated with the city cars it seems everyone has a Crowne Victoria when a Ford Focus would work just as well.  Maybe they can get a car allowance and then they can pay for the rest and drive what they want. 

The City Manager stated we are looking at the idea of reimbursement of mileage for personal cars.  Our reimbursement rate is well below the federal level. The reason why they drive Crowne Victoria’s is because when the car goes off the line from the police department they cycle down to the other deptartments.  We are not buying new cars in the manner in which you think.  But when we do purchase we are going to be looking at other types of vehicles.

2.   John J. Rossi, 29 Woodbine Street (02915) requesting to address the Council regarding City vehicles. 

Not sure if the Police Chief is unwilling or unable to defend the vehicle policy at the Police Department but I am willing to do that.  I am not saying there can’t be a reduction but 21 vehicles would seem to be an arbitrary number.  Some of these detail cars were bought 5 years ago.  We don’t even change the tires on these cars they are used generate money.  Out of this pool of money the car purchasing system has been self sustaining.  The new frontline cars are needed because in the long run buying the 5 instead of the 10 will just cost more money.  These cars run 24/7, 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week.  In the open market a detail car is probably worth about $300-$400, they have tons of miles and running time on them.  These cars have generated a lot of money in years past.  The cost savings to reduce the number of vehicles is negligible.  The captains taking the cars home has been an ongoing process since 1956. They are emergency vehicles and are fully loaded as such and they are used as emergency vehicles. The claim that they have been misused is unfounded. As far as these vehicles being seen out of state a claim should be made and it should be investigated and if true it should be punished.  Internal affairs would handle any investigations.  In narcotics for example, they had 10 junk cars as seizures which were worth maybe the price of one decent car and they held onto them then traded them in to get a decent car.  No tax dollars were used.

Councilman Coogan stated that due to the safety of the men and women they should have the 5 new frontline cars. 

Det. Rossi stated that detective cars stay in the fleet because they don’t get used as much.  The cars that are being used right now are going to become more unsafe and cost more in repairs. The detail money was used to purchase the cars. 

Mayor Larisa stated the detail money doesn’t belong to the officers generating it, it all goes into the general fund so that we don’t have to raise taxes to pay for items.

3.   Anthony Shepherd, 40 Rosemere Drive (02914) requesting to address the Council regarding bicycles.

The problems that the City is having right now didn’t happen yesterday or with the City of East Providence, our loss of manufacturing, the buying value of the dollar.  My oldest daughter lives in Germany and there are probably 2 bicycles for every car, it is a way of life.  I propose the City

of East Providence request federal funding to establish a citywide bicycle environment to emulate Europe.  With stimulus money I think it could be justified just by the carbon footprint. 

Identifying space on roadways for traffic and the concept would include 6^th graders up to Seniors in High School and utilizing bicycles as part of their physical activity requirement.   A basic frame bike and it can say East Providence on it and brands it as being a generic bike.  They would be massed produced for the City of East Providence.  Sidewalks would be marked appropriately.  We could become a target City to create this program. By being the first city to adopt this, funded by a federal grant, you could create a bicycle building facility in the city.  Benefits would be carbon credits to the city, physical education credits to the students participating. The city could have a bicycle patrol. For this to work it would require on the city side some sort of certification and agreement to enter into a program. 

V.        ADJOURNMENT

At 10:35pm a motion to adjourn made by Councilwoman Perry and seconded by Councilman Cusack and it is unanimous. 

Attest:

___________

Kim A. Casci                                                                          Approved:  March 17, 2009

City Clerk