I.          Call to Order

II.         Salute to the Flag

III.        Public Hearings

1.   Ordinance (ID # 1351)

An Ordinance Appropriating $147,712,708  For The Support of the City Government ForThe Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 2012

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE HEREBY ORDAINS:

SECTION I.  The receipts for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2012 have been established to amount to $147,587,757 made up as follows:

SECTION II.  To defray the expenses of the City of East Providence for the fiscal year commencing November 1, 2011 and ending October 31, 2012, the sum of money, or so much thereof as are authorized by law indicated in the accompanying schedule, are hereby appropriated for the objects and purposes, and in the amounts expressed therein, provided that payments thereunder shall be subject to the provisions of the City Charter of the City of East Providence and also subject to the provisions of said City Charter relative to the manner and form of expenditures of money set forth in said Charter from the City Treasury.

SECTION III.  All monies appropriated are to be expended by the various departments in the manner and form approved by the Director of Finance.

SECTION IV.  The payment to the School Fund of the following estimated receipts, included in the appropriation of $75,035,178 for the support of the public schools for the City of East Providence fiscal year 2011-2012, shall be increased or decreased to conform with the actual amounts received from such sources during the fiscal year 2011-2012 except the City appropriation of property tax.

SECTION V.  The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt the Budget for the fiscal year 2011-2012 which begins November 1, 2011 and ends October 31, 2012 as prepared and submitted by the City Manager, and to implement the recommendations as set forth in the City Manager's Budget Message by the approval of said recommendations as contained herein, or by other ordinances or resolutions of the City Council; all in accordance with the provisions of said Article.

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shall take effect upon its passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

Requested by: Ellen Eggeman

 Ellen Eggeman explains the sections of the budget and their meaning. 

Councilman Conley asks a question regarding section 4: payment from City to School fund, did we receive a School Department Budget? 

Ellen Eggeman states they did not.  Though there is the two page item passed by the School Committee at its previous meeting which Council has.  This two page item was passed as their budget. 

Councilman Conley states this includes all the revenue we voted on previously to be sent to the Schools including all the Meals Tax funds.  We can only decide as a Council to fund up to a certain amount we cannot line item cut.  However, in the past, Council has received line items in detail so that we could make an educated decision on how to fund the budget.  Councilman Conley goes on to state that the notice in the paper reflects the notice for the tax levy.  This includes tax dollars raised when you budget but there are other sources of revenue besides tax dollars such as the sewer and water fees which go into an enterprise account but they are in the budget ordinance itself, so that we are identifying the revenue raised by adding the tax and the other revenue items and this is how we come up with the total.

Testifying with questions related to the tax/revenue portion of the budget are:

1. Michael Vanner, 18 Cushman Avenue

2. Patricia J. Fontes former East Providence resident now residing in Hopkinton

3. Tony Ferriera, Brightridge Avenue

Eileen Socha Director of Library Services is called to the podium she discusses the original 32.6% proposed budget cut to the libraries as recommended by the Interim City Manager and the Finance Director and that this item has been reduced from $660,000 to $150,000 per the Council request that the cut was too large and would affect all library programs, create layoffs, close branches and end all grant and aid monies the library receives.  This $150,000 results in a 10% cut in library funding.  We feel as though this is a cut we could live with.  It is still a cut and some programs will have to be cut however, it's much more sustainable.  The Board of Library Trustees will meet this Wednesday evening to iron out the best places to make those cuts.  The City will need to apply for a waiver for the Library to be able to receive its continued grant and aid money as the State requires that libraries receive the same amount of funding each year not less.  The State knows we have gone from a $660,000 cut to a $150,000 and so we are hopeful they will grant the waiver.  However, the regulations read that all other City departments must receive comparable cuts in order for this waiver to be allowed.  Director Socha reads from a list of regulations regarding receiving the grants and aid funding. 

Mayor Rogers stated that since the Director is just now seeing the cuts and since this still has to go before the Trustees he believes the Trustees should take a look at where and if they can sustain these cuts and still provide the same services and bring that response back to Council. 

Those testifying against the library cuts are:

1.Stanley Olbrich, 46 East Knowlton Street

2.Christopher Batrice, 38 Ide Avenue

3. Rosemarie Siransky, 163 Anthony Street

4. Ellen Goodman, 117 Waterman Avenue

5. Julia Woolen, 491 Bishop Avenue

6. Jonathan Keller, 205 Grassmere Avenue

7. Michael Caldwell, 25 Summit Street

8. Payton Lewis, 82 Miller Avenue

9. MarieAnn Chaplin, 100 Wannamoisett Avenue

10.  Freddie Rybka, 9 Cozzens Avenue

Mayor Rogers states if anyone else is present who would like to go on the record as being against the $660,000 in cuts to the library they can come up to the podium and state their name and address.  The following residents testify against the library cuts:

1. Earl and Florence Dunlap, 50 Timberland Drive

2.Jennifer Lewis, 82 Miller Avenue

3. Elizabeth Skepper, 22 Centre Street

4. Cynthia Joseph, 44 Headly Circle

5. Paula Perkins 24 Headly Circle

6. Thelma Dufresne, 840 Pawtucket Avenue

7. Ann Collins, 4 Ellis Avenue

8. Diana Reardon, 81 Taunton Avenue

9. Marsha Gerstein, 12 Rose Avenue

10. Sharon DuBois, 54 Grove Avenue

11. Elizabeth Ingram, 84 Hood Avenue

12. Courtny Johannis, 30 Oakcrest Drive

13. Karen Rose, 33 Sylvan Road

14. Pamela Goulet, 9 Westwood Avenue

15. Melissa Powers, 48 Gerald Street

16. Ida Powers, 48 Gerald Street

17. John Frontha, 78 Mary Avenue

18. Stewart Powers, 48 Gerald Street

19. Maureen Butnick, 9 Fletcher Street

20. Ellen Goodman, 117 Warren Avenue

21. Maryann Lynch, 109 Algonquin Road

22. Noel Walters, 201 Pleasant Street

23. Cindy Pierce, 17 Woburn Road

24. Brook Ahsley, 210 Pleasant Street

25. Mark Friedman, 210 Pleasant Street 

26. Dave Nevill, 1 Monmouth Drive

27. Karen Perry, 88 Algonquin Road

28. Richard Burt, 21 Indian Road

29. Gerry Spermulli, 52 Parnum Street

30. David Spermulli, 52 Parnum Street

31. Michelle Perry, 88 Algonquin Road

32. Colleen Murphy, 60 Morley Avenue

33. Irene Banner, 15 Glenn Street

34. Paula Dubord, 54 Viola Avenue

35. Phyllis Pacheco, 3048 Pawtucket Avenue

36. Sarah Capobianco, 24 Indian Road

37. Donna Monihan, 18 Knowlton Street

38. Bill Monihan, 18 Knowlton Street

39. Elizabeth Kirby, 54 Knowlton Street

40. Ilene Tinute, 54 Dover Avenue

41. Rosemary Sirensky, 163 Anthony Street

42. Karen Sid, 166 Lloyd Avenue

43. Walter Sid, 166 Lloyd Avenue

44. Mildred Moniz, 10 Brookfield Street

45. Elizabeth Vanner, 54 Cushman Avenue

46. Alice Hoffley, Riverside Drive

47. Mary Allsworth, 46 East Knowlton Street

48. Diane Swindlehurst

49. Stanley Olbrich, 46 East Knowlton Street

Also going on the record as being against the library cuts are:

50. Michael DiGioia

51. William Conley

52. Bruce Rogers

53. Katie Kleyla

54. Thomas Rose

Mayor Rogers asks for a motion to receive into the record two letters submitted by Grace Gomes age 11 of Tryon Avenue and Payton Lewis the motion is made by Councilwoman Kleyla, seconded by Councilman DiGioia and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Mayor Rogers called Director Coutu to the podium to discuss the previously proposed cuts to Animal Control as recommended by the Interim City Manager.  Director Coutu explains what the cuts would have entailed they would have eliminated the entire department leaving $150,000 for the job to be outsourced.  This would eliminate both Animal Control Officers, the Pound Keeper and the part time weekend help, as well as the facility itself along with the day to day operations.  Stating that he made his concerns to the City Manager and the Finance Director known regarding how they would be able to pick up animals and where these animals would go.  Following Council's voiced opposition the funds have been returned and the $150,000 is now fully funded again at $300,000.

Testifying against the cuts to the Animal Control are:

Mr. Grace who wanted to know how many animals are serviced, Director Coutu was unsure stating that it varies from season to season being a lower number with dogs than with  cats. 

Councilwoman Kleyla asked the City Clerk if she could shed any light on who would pick up the animals and where would they be housed if there were no Animal Control Officers or shelter and if the Providence SPCA as Director Eggeman previously stated would handle this. 

The City Clerk stated there is not a Providence SPCA, there is a SPCA located in East Providence and there is a Providence Animal Rescue League.  They are not licensed to pick up animals.  Cities and towns are responsible for staffing an Animal Control Officer even when they outsource the operation.  The facilities only house the animals.  The city or town pays them to do so.  However, we would be essentially signing our animals over to them so that they can hold them only the required two days, unlike now where our Animal Control can hold longer, East Providence has one of the lowest euthansia rates for a municipal shelter in the State. 

Director Coutu added there is revenue in the Animal Control Department, dog licensing, adoptions, RI mandated spay neuter fund and donations as well as the charges we receive for housing neighboring communities animals and fines and fees.  He added that he would be looking at this charge to see if this should be increased.  The department was once under the EPPD but after some issues arose several years back it was transferred to the Department of Public Works.

The City Manager stated that they are currently doing an analysis regarding a partial reduction to the budget as well as a more in depth look at the efficiency of the service we provide. 

Testifying against the cuts to Animal Control:

2. A resident asks if Animal Control is responsible to go out on rabies calls and if there is no Animal Control officer who will do this.

Director Coutu responds he does not know but that the SPCA is not licensed to do this or to pick up animals alive or dead. 

The resident then stated that for those who cannot afford it the City, via Animal Control offers a $40 cremation fee when an animal passes and this is a great service since a vet can charge upwards of $200. 

The sense of Council is there are many questions unanswered and to send back any cuts for further study.

Affirmative Action cuts are next on the agenda and the Mayor states that the Council provided its sense to the Interim City Manager and the Finance Director that they were not in favor of the cuts proposed to the Affirmative Action Office. 

Elmer Pina, Director of Affirmative Action is called to the podium.  Director Pina gave a brief description of the Affirmative Action officer's duties and the various programs the office sponsors, including food assistance, Thanksgiving baskets, Christmas presents, referrals for heating assistance and all types of human service referrals. In addition, he made note that each year the office of Affirmative Action has been cut, that it now only has a budget of $117,000, this amount is smaller than some department’s line items.  They have a small emergency fund to help the poor or elderly when they are in great need.  In addition, the School Committee just voted to officially retain Elmer and the Affirmative Action office to once again service the needs of the school as had been done in the past.

Mayor Rogers stated that he fought to have Affirmative Action in East Providence and voted for the creation of the office in the 1980's.

Speaking against the cuts to Affirmative Action are:

1.Onna Moniz John, 149 Anthony Street, former Affirmative Action Director, provides a brief history on the Affirmative Action Officer and the important work the office does. 

City Manager Graczykowski stated that the consolidation plan was not to eliminate the office of Affirmative Action but rather incorporate the office into the Human Resource Department which is common in other municipalities.  However, this is not the best idea for East Providence at this time due to the fact that the new position in HR will be required to also assist the HR Director and this salary will see an increase of about $20,000 so the savings created by this merger at this time will not be realized. 

Councilman Conley states that the process of this decision is very edifying and it is how this Council needs to make decisions on budget cuts.  Thank you to both Elmer and Onna Moniz John.  Onna brings to light the need to keep the office independent not to become subservient to the greater administrative needs.  She also reminds us of the clear Civil Rights violations in the 1970's which created the Office of Affirmative Action.  The EP Affirmative Action plan served as a model throughout the United States.  This is what EP was known for as a beacon in other communities and a model to follow because of this culture it now has but really it also acts as a bacon saver.  Issues in their embryonic stages are ended it serves as an independent voice and is a money saver for employee issues and for moral and efficiency standards. 

Director Pina stated he would be working with the City Manager to try to locate some possible grant monies. 

Testifying against cuts to Affirmative Action are:

2. Rosemary Santos, 195 Hull Street

Rosemary works at the Welfare Office in Pawtucket which services East Providence residents and is wondering if the City is planning again to open up an office in East Providence. 

Director Pina spoke about how he serves as the Welfare Director as well and that they do utilize the Pawtucket Office and that there is a real need in East Providence and that he would be happy to work to help set up an office in East Providence again even if only on a part time basis. 

Mayor Rogers stated this might be something we would want to go to our delegation members, State and Federal, to ask about.

Director Pina states he will draft a letter to be sent to them and bring it to the City Manager for approval. 

Testifying against the cuts to Affirmative Action are:

3. Elaine Gonsolves, 71 Centre Street

After the discussion regarding Affirmative Action has ended Mayor Rogers asks the City Manager if he has a plan on where to cut or generate revenues to make up for the monies now placed back in the budget. 

The City Manager states the majority of this comes from the consolidation of Municipal Court services.  Municipal Court would be relocated to City Hall, they would use the Council Chambers for court and the clerical service would be consolidated into the City Clerk's office.  They would lay off two Municipal Court Clerks and the one Court Administration would remain and reside in the City Clerk's Office.  They would retain the Judge and the Bailiff.  The Judge would remain independent.  The conservative savings this would generate is $230,000.  In addition to this he added he is suggesting several other cuts as well. 

Councilman Conley states that he has serious concerns regarding the ethicacy of the merger because it takes one court position under the Judge and puts it under the Clerk who is an appointee of the Council. 

The City Manager states the Council's appointed Judge remains independent and the clerical position is integrated into the Clerk's office for paperwork only. 

Councilman Conley states this is a bad idea it compromises the independence of the judicial function.  When we look at savings in the City is this who we want to be as a City? We just discussed how important it is to keep Affirmative Action separate.  Once we bring this under the auspicious of the legislative body it is rife for mischief.  We want to honor the independence of the judicial functions. Probate Court while located in the Clerk's Office is not a penal court.  We are sacrificing the independence and taking away the administration from the judge and putting it under the Council, this is a separation of powers issue.  Councilman Conley goes on to discuss the proposal of an employment agreement with the City Clerk.  This agreement extends the tenure of the City Clerk beyond the Council's tenure and is in violation of the Charter.  This is not a personal attack on the current Clerk who does a good job.  Councilman Conley reads from a draft agreement for possible acceptance for the position of City Clerk. These options include a $13,000 raise. 

The City Manager states that Councilman Conley is reading from an old draft and that the new one was provided in tonight's packet.  Councilman Conley reads from the new draft agreement.  However he would like to make note that the first draft shows a history of the decision making on the agreement.  Adding that we are asking people to make sacrifices and take cuts this cannot be made a part of the budget.  Keep a court clerk independent of the City Clerk and honor the Charter, decide what kind of a community we are going to be.  No Council in good conscience can do this in dire times. 

Mayor Rogers asks the City Manager what the function of the Administrator of the Court is. 

The City Manager states the function is purely administrative whether they report to the Judge or the City Clerk it makes no difference they are doing paperwork. The Judge makes the decision and the clerk files papers it's just a simple move to City Hall to the Clerk's Office all proceedings are directed by the Judge. 

Assistant Solicitor Craven states all legal interpretations, all adjudications/decisions are all done by the Judge and recorded in his handwriting and on audio in the file. 

The City Manager states the money on the raise given to the City Clerk reflects a study on the comparable salaries of City Clerk's in RI.  The median range is $67,000 so this salary is in that median range.  There are also additional duties being taken on with the consolidation and the administrative work.  The money savings in the consolidation comes from the former salaries and benefits, the rental of the building and the building costs.  The City Clerk's raise is a small portion of the net $232,000 and we will be able to sustain the same court functions we are paying much more for now. 

Councilman Conley raises the question on whether or not the City will be able to rent the building being that we have other properties still not rented.  He adds that the move of the Municipal Court to City Hall should be separate from the City Clerk's office and they should be in their own office. 

The City Clerk requests to speak.  The points made are regarding the salary issue of the City Clerk to those in other cities in RI and also notes the salary issue of the Clerk making considerably less than the deputy clerk.  The salary having not been raised for this position since Valerie Perry was Clerk.  She discusses what the Clerk's office can offer Municipal Court such as increased storage space for records in the vault, proper temperature control upstairs, a dry basement downstairs, a $400,000 historic fund to assist with records preservation and 10% funds from recording to assist in computer and technological upgrades.  The Municipal Court has not had a computer upgrade or database upgrade in years because they have not had the funds. The City Clerk adds that the draft of the memorandum of agreement is just that, a draft.  The Assistant Solicitor Gina DiCenso needed a starting point so she used the EPPMTEA, the Managerial Union contract, as a starting point.  Council was to decide what they were comfortable with and what they were not, the decision on the agreement is up to the Council.  The idea was that they would meet in Executive Session and hammer out the agreement as is done with all agreements.  This is the first time anyone's possible agreement has been debated in public.  In addition, this type of consolidation raise is in the same range as the other consolidations in other departments. 

Councilman Conley asks the City Manager if there are other consolidation raises and the City Manager states yes they are being worked out and Council will see them when complete, one such consolidation item is IT.  Councilman Conley states he is against raises in this budget. 

Mayor Rogers asks Assistant Solicitor Craven if the extension of a memorandum of agreement violates the Charter.  Solicitor Craven states the memorandum is independent of the Charter, it doesn't trump the Charter.  If the City Clerk was retained by the next incoming Council then the continuation of the memorandum, the agreement, would continue.  To use an analogy, in the NFL you can be granted a $50 million contract, they can still cut you the next day and get nothing.  As long as the will of the Council prevails she continues to get the benefit of the agreement until that will is to let her go or until she leaves of her own accord.   He adds that "for cause" is not defined anywhere in the contract so one would have to look elsewhere for its definition.  The agreement not only doesn't conflict with the Charter but this same type of action a "for cause" option and a "not for cause option" is contained in the City Manager's agreement which is a much more important job. 

Councilwoman Kleyla asks if grounds and maintenance is possibly one such department which is also affected by a salary change and the City Manager responds that is correct. 

Councilwoman Kleyla asks Solicitor Craven for clarification regarding the separation of powers issue.

Solicitor Craven states separation of powers is provided for in our constitution, Marbury vs Madison is the first case heard in our courts on this issue.  It means that there can be no interference with the Judiciary by any other branches of government.  The decisions made by the Judge in Municipal Court is made by the Judge the Clerk merely effectuates the orders of the Judge.  Having been a prosecutor for many years I can attest to this first hand. 

Councilwoman Kleyla states that the Director of the Senior Center has stated that he does have people already interested in renting that space. 

Mayor Rogers states he is ready to give direction to the City Manager to please continue with the Municipal Court Consolidation in this budget. 

Councilman Conley states he is opposed, the Court should come to City Hall maybe keep the layoffs but have its own office.  

Councilwoman Kleyla states that the format is appropriate and should continue to move forward.

Councilman Rose states he feels we should continue to move forward. 

Councilman DiGioia states that he is concerned regarding the possible separation of powers issue and the charter issue and he is not sure how it doesn't violate the Charter. 

The City Manager calls the Finance Director up to the podium to explain the other adjustments made since the previous budget introduction. 

Director Eggeman states that the new phone system will be paid out of asset forfeiture funds.  This would be current asset forfeiture funds not future. 

Councilwoman Kleyla asked if Animal Control was put back under the EPPD could asset forfeiture funds be used to offset costs.

Chief Tavares came to the podium to discuss Asset Forfeiture Funds and to explain how these funds can be used. 

Alba Curti Director of Parks and Recreation came to the podium to discuss the Parks and Recreation cuts.  The cuts came out of their outside services line item which has been zero'd out.  This line item pays for, summer concerts, summer playground programs, the annual payment on the field use permitting software program, it pays for Santa at the annual tree lighting ceremony, it would be where the up-front money would come from for Winterfest, it provides for a $25,000 contribution to the East Providence Heritage Days  event, the rental of the Boys Club pool for family swim, rental of portable toilets at summer park events, school bus transportation for the summer playground program and pays for fireworks. 

The City Manager stated that Parks was asked to cut 10% and their cuts did not reach that amount. 

Director Curti stated that without this money they cannot provide these programs.  This $30,000 is bare bones for us already. 

Dennis Roy the Director of East Bay Community Action came to the podium to speak in favor of receiving the $30,000 the City has been appropriating to them for 20 years.  This money has a direct affect on East Providence residents in need and the Center returns roughly $5 million in services to the City. 

Mayor Rogers stated he would like to see Mr. Roy work with Elmer Pina to develop a list on where people can go to get services, such as medical, food, heating assistant etc...so that there can be one list for referrals for people. 

Testifying on budget in general:

1. School Committee member Chrissy Rossi, 29 Woodbine Street

Ms. Rossi stated all she heard was cuts and not a lot about how to expand our base, we have met our limit now how can we get more?  How can we get a more diverse tax base, more businesses, more revenue generated for this budget?

Mayor Rogers mentioned some of the new businesses this year that we have been able to bring to fruition such as Eaton and Village on the Waterfront.  We are working on an economic team for the City. 

The City Manager stated the uncollected taxes and water fees add up to in excess of $2 million and they will be looking at ways to collect this as well as looking into a single stream automated recycling collection.

Councilman Conley stated that the big picture at hand is the issues the Auditor General is stating in their most recent letter.  These issues arose from 2005-2010, roughly 6 budget cycles when the Council only authorized contributions of 20%-30% into pensions.  We were warned that our Police and Fire pensions are at risk.  What are we contemplating funding the ARC this year? 

Director Eggeman stated 13%.  Adding that this is eye opener to fund 80% would be around $8 million for the next 4 or 5 years. 

Councilman Conley stated that if we continue doing what we are doing we will run out of money in retirements.  This is on top of the numbers we've already talked about.  When we previously voted the numbers worked on the $6.3 million but we never went any further to the next step, five years ahead to balance the budget.  When the Deficit Elimination Committee was blown up before we could get there.  The Auditor General may say $6.3 million is good but this is not a plan.  What is the status of the Auditor General's response?

Director Eggeman stated that the response is that they didn't accept it because we don't have a five year plan.  We have two weeks to resubmit and if we don't then they will come in. 

Councilman DiGioia asked how the School Committee can pass a budget with a $7.2 million hole.

Director Eggeman stated that they can say they need $7.2 million in their budget.

Mayor Rogers stated he asked the Auditor General what if the School Committee just keeps saying they need $7.2 million with no plan, can it be separated from the City and they said no it's all in one and the City is on the hook for it. 

Councilman DiGioia asked aren't they required to submit a balanced budget and the City Manager replied that to them it is balanced they are asked for $7.2 million as what they need to function.  The problem is these funds don't exist and the City cannot line item cut. 

Councilman Conley stated that in a two week time period we have to submit a balanced budget going forward. Essentially what that means is they will come in for step one with an Overseer and he takes the decisions away from the Council if he concludes it cannot be done they send in a Budget Commission.  Director Eggeman states that the Overseer is advisory while the Budget Commission strips the responsibility from the Council and the City Manager. 

Councilman Conley added that if we don't solve this problem in two weeks we've abdicated our responsibility to the voters and turned it over to someone else.  I am not in favor of delegating our responsibility of having an outsider make difficult decisions for us.  Follow the Auditor General's direction and work around the clock I am certainly willing to help if you want it.  This would be one of the worst events in our City to leave to an outsider the future of our City.  While it is not this Council's fault but the fault of those five members who were here before us who wanted to drive this City into bankruptcy, let's not let them succeed. 

Mayor Rogers stated he was present at the Auditor General's meeting and both the City and the School understand the seriousness and the direction they need to proceed. 

Councilman Conley stated he believed it was doable. 

Mayor Rogers stated that the Auditor General was confident that this was not like Central Falls.  Adding we have competent people in East Providence and that we have to show them a united group. 

Councilwoman Kleyla asked where this leaves us now.

The City Manager stated we have to work with the School Department to get a 5 year plan in action and approved by the Auditor General in two weeks time. 

IV.        New Business

A.       Introduction of Ordinances

1.   Ordinance 2011-17

An Ordinance Ordering the Assessment and Collection Of Property Tax on the Ratable Real Estate, Tangible Personal Property and an Excise Tax on Registered Motor Vehicles and Trailers

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE HEREBY ORDAINS:

SECTION I.  That the City Council of the City of East Providence hereby orders the assessment and collection of a tax on ratable real estate, tangible personal property and an excise tax on registered motor vehicles and trailers in a sum not more than  Ninety-nine Million Three Hundred Thousand ($99,300,000) dollars nor less than Ninety-eight Million Three Hundred Thousand ($98,300,000) dollars. Said tax is for ordinary expenses, for the payment of interest and indebtedness, in whole or in part, of said city, and for other purposes authorized by law.

The Tax Assessor shall assess and apportion said tax on the inhabitants and ratable property of said city as of the 31st day of December, 2011 at twelve o'clock Eastern Standard Time, according to law, and shall on completion of said assessment, date and sign same and shall make out and certify to the City Treasurer of the City of East Providence, who is charged with the duties for the collection of taxes, on or before the 15th day of June, 2012 complete list of the names of the persons taxed and of the total value of all the real estate and personal property assessed against each person, and also the amount of registered motor vehicles and trailers assessed against each person, and also the total amount assessed against each person on said real estate, personal estate and registered motor vehicles and trailers, opposite the name of the person or persons assessed.  Upon receipt of the certified tax list by the City Treasurer, he shall proceed and collect said tax on the persons and estates liable thereof; said tax shall be due and payable on and between the 1^st day of June 2012 and the 1st day of July, 2012 and provided further that if said tangible personal property, motor vehicle, and real estate taxes are paid in full on or before the 1st day of July, 2012, a discount of three per centum (3%) of the total taxes on said tangible personal property, motor vehicles, and real estate shall be granted, and all taxes remaining unpaid on the 1st day of July, 2012 shall carry until collected a penalty at the rate of twelve per centum (12%) per annum from the 1^st day of June, 2012 upon said unpaid tax, however, said taxes may be paid in four installments; the first installment of twenty-five per centum (25%) on or before the 1st day of July, 2012, the second installment of twenty-five per centum (25%) on or before the 1st day of September, 2012, the third installment of twenty-five per centum (25%) on or before the 1st day of December, 2012 and the fourth installment of twenty-five per centum (25%) on or before the 1^st day of March, 2013.

Each installment of taxes if paid on or before the last day of each installment period successively in order shall be free from any charge of interest.

If the first installment or any succeeding installment of taxes is not paid by the last date of the respective unpaid balance period or periods as they occur, then the whole tax or remaining unpaid balance of the taxes as the case may be shall immediately become due and payable and carry until collected a penalty at the rate of twelve per centum, (12%) per annum.

The City Treasurer shall, by advertisement in the public newspaper having circulation in the City of East Providence, notify all persons assessed to pay their respective taxes at his office on and between the said 1^st day of June, and the 1st day of July, 2012 both days inclusive; said City Treasurer setting forth the hours during which his office shall remain open to receive said taxes.

SECTION II.  That any of said taxes not paid on or before the 1^st day of March, 2013 shall forthwith be collected by levy upon the sale of real estate upon which it is assessed and by that or other due process of law in case of assessment upon personal property.

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

Requested by: Ellen Eggeman

2.   Ordinance 2011-16

An Ordinance Authorizing the Director Of Finance to Borrow Funds in Anticipation of Taxes

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE HEREBY ORDAINS:

SECTION I.  The Director of Finance is authorized to borrow during the fiscal year ending October 31, 2012 such sums of money in anticipation of the property taxes of the year as may be permitted by law for the purpose of meeting the current liabilities and expenses of the City and that the Director of Finance is authorized to issue the note or notes of the City therefore and to refund such note or notes and any tax anticipation notes of a prior year to the extent permitted by law.

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

Requested by: Ellen Eggeman

3.   Ordinance 2011-15

An Ordinance Authorizing the Director Of Finance to Borrow Funds in Anticipation of Revenue

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE HEREBY ORDAINS:

SECTION I.  The Director of Finance is authorized to borrow during the fiscal year ending October 31, 2012 such sums of money in anticipation of the sewer use fee revenue of the year as may be permitted by law for the purpose of meeting the current liabilities and expenses of the City and that the Director of Finance is authorized to issue the note or notes of the City therefore and to refund such note or notes and any revenue anticipation notes of a prior year to the extent permitted by law.

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

Requested by: Ellen Eggeman

V.         Adjournment

1.   Motion To:      Adjourn

Approved by Council:  March 6, 2012