Click 
to view the meeting video.
CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE
RHODE ISLAND
JOURNAL OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
August 21, 2018
6:45 P.M.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 145 Taunton Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914
6:45 P.M. Council May Call An Executive Session, Room 101
7:30 P.M. Open Session
I. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council of the City of East Providence may meet in Executive Session pursuant to RI General Laws § 42-46-5 (a)(2).
A. New Claims
1. Angela Antonian
2. Church of the Epiphany
3. Ryan Hellmann
4. HiRoad Assurance Company (Ins. Kimberly Kollett)
5. Cesar A. Lubrano
6. John Mello
7. James O’Brien
8. Patricia Olean
9. Manual A. Ulloa-Germosen; Sileny Almote DeUllo; Alan Ulloa; Seline Lopez
B. Pending Claims
1. Pierce Field Vandalism
C. Sewer Charge Abatements
1. Elizabeth Castello
2. Rhonda Cherry
3. Candido Esteves
4. Michael Gagnon
5. Derek P. Lindia
6. Jeraldine Marino
7. Jennifer Perry
8. Harold L. Ray
9. Winchester Wood & Park LLC
D. Litigation
1. Oscar Elmasian vs. R.I. Interlocal Risk Management Trust, Inc., C.A. No.PC-2017-0866
II. OPEN SESSION
III. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Briden calls the meeting to order at 7:44PM.
IV. SALUTE TO THE FLAG
V. TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Letters
1. Notice of New Property Number, 270 Newport Avenue (02916), Map 402, Block 12, Parcel 001.00
B. Cancellation/Abatements
| Year | Amount |
| 2015 | $518.99 |
| 2017 | $137.55 |
| 2018 | $2,864.34 |
| Total | $3,520.88 |
C. Alcoholic Beverage Class F
1. East Providence Elks Lodge 2337, 60 Berkeley Street (02914), Memorial Bike Run and Cookout, September 23, 2018, Marcie Mello.
2. East Providence Elks Lodge 2337, 60 Berkeley Street (02914), Neighborhood Block Party, September 29, 2018, Susan M. Costa.
D. Alcoholic Beverage Class F-1
1. EP Elks Lodge 2337, 60 Berkeley Street (02914) Outdoor Cornhole Tournament/Cookout Fundraiser, August 25, 2018, Susan M. Costa.
E. One Day Entertainment
1. Susan M. Costa for EP Elks Lodge 2337, August 25, 2018, Outdoor Cornhole Tournament/Cookout Fundraiser with small band 4:00PM-9:00PM.
F. Council Journals
1. Council Journal Regular Meeting July 24, 2018
A motion to approve the Consent Calendar is made by Assistant Mayor Britto, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
G. Council Journals
1. Council Journal Executive Session July 27, 2018
A motion to approve the Executive Session Journal from July 27, 2018 is made by Councilman Botelho, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous 4-0 with Councilman Faria not included on the roll.
It is noted that the building has been vacant for some time and the original proposal was to put 33 units and the city held a variety of community meetings. Traffic and fiscal impact was noted as well as drainage and parking and Councilman Faria calls Michael Resnick the attorney from Terrapin Properties to the podium.
Attorney Resnick notes that at the previous council meeting he provided a brief presentation and left materials for the council to review. He then left the council meeting with their request to return to the developer to adapt the project to a single family development project and this was done. The present purchase and sales is for 18 homes and a zoning change from R3-R4.
Councilman Faria addresses the size of the lots.
Attorney Resnick states this is why the zoning change is requesting.
Solicitor Dias states this would first go to the planning board and go before the zoning board and there would be a hearing at the planning board level and a recommendation would be made to the council and then the council would have to hold a hearing and vote on the zone change.
Director Feather comes to the podium.
Assistant Mayor Britto asks what happens if the zoning isn’t approved and Solicitor Dias states the agreement is void.
Mayor Briden asks Director Feather about the purchase price and asks if it has been reviewed by the city in terms of it being appropriate given the value of lots and if this is factored in with regard to other costs with the project.
Director Feather states she is not sure but she does know on site there is an underground storage tank which will need to be addressed. She adds that the assessor might want to weigh in the cost which has come down because the density of the project has come down from the original proposal which was to retain the existing buildings.
Councilman Faria notes many residents reached out to him and he did a large mailing and walked the district.
Mayor Briden notes that a threshold issue would be zoning relief at a later date but for now he would like to know how the $400,000 number was arrived at and if that is the appraised value of the lots minus the costs.
Director Feather states she has not seen anything relating to the calculations arriving at that number but the density has gone down each time the plan has come before the council and now they have added changing the zoning so the return the developer might get would also have changed but that she is not privy to the details of the purchase and sales or the total they arrived at but density may play into this.
Mayor Briden calls Attorney Resnick to the podium and Attorney Resnick states that the original offer under the town house development was $500,000 and that was a firm and final offer for that development now going down to 18 single family units it is directly related to the $100,000 reduction. The demolition is roughly $200,000 and this is a process which has been going on for a long time. He adds they have made several offers and adjustments and this is a final offer for this type of development and the purchase price is non-negotiable.
Councilman Faria notes that their first price was a million dollars and not more than $1.5 million.
Attorney Resnick states that he can only speak to the previous two offers not anything prior to that.
Mayor Briden asks about the lot size. Attorney Resnick states that there would be 18 lots and based on the materials presented at the last meeting that would be about 75% of the area.
Mayor Briden asks about the market value for 5,000 foot lots in this area and Attorney Resnick states that he does not know.
Councilman Botelho asks if his client forwarded a survey of the lot size in that area and Attorney Resnick states they presented that chart and it was a graphic depiction of the surrounding lot sizes.
Councilman Botelho notes that in terms of the value per lot even with demolition costs $400,000 is a great deal and he is still trying to wrap his head around this. He adds that there are sewers already as well as power already and these types are developments are plug and play and he was kind of was hoping the client would have come back with this understanding and adds he is a little disappointed at this point. He is curious as to what the neighbors feel.
Attorney Resnick states that the number is firm.
Mayor Briden explains that because of the open meetings laws they as a council cannot discuss items without the meeting and it’s their fiduciary duty to sell for market value. He adds that it would seem they need an appraisal assessed value as a good indicator and would need a real breakdown to understand these numbers.
Assistant Mayor Britto notes that this should have been done prior to the meeting instead of having the developer come back again and that someone from the tax assessor’s office should have been here as this is the 3rd meeting they have had with this item.
Councilman Botelho states that his thoughts are that he feels bad for the attorney but the reality is this property is worth way more than $400,000 they can stick 12 family houses on the property and comply with the current zoning. They might as well knock the buildings down and put a park there. It's a very congested area. It’s counterintuitive for a real estate guy to say this but he is thinking with his heart and head and if they can't get the price they are looking for they could knock it down and sell as a clean subdivision. He just can't even get close to supporting this and they ought to just kill it now.
Councilman Faria notes that the more he listens to residents he has to agree with all that was spoken tonight. They are really limiting themselves to what they can do. He adds that he appreciates the attorney coming and representing eloquently.
Acting City Manager Parella states that this was down for a vote at the last meeting and at some point sent back after that. At this point, if they take a vote and reject they can send it out to bid again and write the bid a different way but if it is not killed they cannot open it up for a new bid unless there are substantial changes.
Assistant Mayor Britto asks what are they looking for here a park, a dog park, homes…
Councilman Faria states the residents felt the units were too many and he feels the council is making the right decision tonight and can later collectively discuss it.
Councilwoman Sousa notes that when it comes to property the city owns they need to look at the area and decide what usage can be provided. They want to build their economy but they have to look outside the box and not be ready to sell everything to make a quick buck and they don't have a lot of parks or real activities or grassy areas.
Mayor Briden states that one approach may be to ask planning to take a look at the area and the site based on the comprehensive plan as no one on the council are planners. Then they can make a recommendation for the highest and best use as to what would increase property values in that area and be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan as well.
Councilwoman Sousa notes that maybe they need to be looking at the zoning ordinances in general as they have things that probably could and should be amended to bring in various opportunities.
Councilman Botelho states that while on this subject the fact of the matter is this city is 90% developed and is one of the most developed in the state and there is not much room to put anything else without choking what makes it a community. There is an extensive need for housing and if they put a structure on every bit of green space that doesn’t benefit the community. He understands the point of having a plan to look at but at some point they have to decide what the direction of our community is going to be. He lives here and enjoys this community and they are at a point where they ought to start looking at other directions instead of every dollar and cent.
Mayor Briden notes they could put this topic down for discussion for a subsequent meeting.
VI. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Geoffrey Smith, 14 Meadowbrook Lane, Mattapoisett MA (02739) requesting to address the Council regarding the Narragansett Bay Half Marathon and 5K on October 16, 2018.
Correction: Event is October 14, 2018
A motion to approve is made by Councilman Botelho, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Richard Ferreira, 24993 Windward Blvd, Bonita Springs, FL, 34134 – Caruso Memorial Park at Bold Point
B. Samantha Burnett, Rumford (02916) – Business Ordinances
C. Chrissy Rossi, Shore Road (02915) – Platt Watters
D. Peter Spicola, 99 Burnside Avenue (02915) – Platt/Watters Surplus Property
E. Lisa Perry, 99 Burnside Avenue (02915) – Burnside/Hoppin (Platt Watters)
F. Priscilla Leonard – Burnside Watters (not present)
G. Anne McQue Studdard – Dyer Avenue (not Present)
H. Cynthia Sephanopoulos – Smith Street (not present)
I. Tome Riley, 3620 Pawtucket Avenue (02915) – Platt Watters Property
VIII. APPOINTMENTS
A. Traffic Control (by Assistant Mayor Britto)
Harry Edmonds, 95 Lennon Avenue (02914)
A motion to approve the Appointment is made by Assistant Mayor Britto, seconded by Councilman Botelho and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
IX. COUNCIL MEMBERS
A motion to extend the meeting by 15 minutes is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
A. Proposed Addendum to 5 Year Budget Plan: Safeguarding Ability to Procure TANS in the Future (by Mayor Briden)
Mayor Briden states that he put this on for a discussion as it really began in April of 2017 when they talked about and ultimately decided not to synchronize and instead devote the annual funds to another purpose and ultimately perhaps school bond payments. It was also the topic of a joint meeting where they discussed the perfect storm and being careful of their ability to get TANs in the future.
He calls Mr. Luba to the podium. Mr. Luba states they are currently working on the budget and will be presenting this budget in early September and it is nearing the 5 year anniversary of the exodus of the Budget Commission. This is a momentous occasion because of the council and school committee and numerous city managers and department heads and workers and tax payers all worked hard. In his opinion and in the opinion of bond rating companies this city is in good fiscal shape. There is due a congratulation to all those he mentioned. It is an achievement to come back from where they were. Having said that in the next breath he would like to say watch out for what will happen in the future. There is a city out there that everyone thinks is wealthy, they have airports, hotels and shopping centers and if you go to Warwick you might assume they are swimming in cash but they are swimming in a budget crisis. Their school department has an $8.1 million deficit and the city provided $3.75 million and told the schools to find the rest. They are discussing ending middle school sports, paying for busses and other items. What he is saying is it can happen quickly. East Providence is in a situation where part of the problem was not synchronizing as the city needs TANs or it runs out of money from January to May. The city needs someone to lend that money. He was asked by the Mayor to go over some points as to what to watch out for to make sure you don't enter that budget crisis and to show bond rating agencies that you are fiscally stable. The first piece of advice is to know what to expect every time you go through a budget season. Periodically ask your financial representatives for a 5 year forecast. They hate doing it but it will show you what you have to be aware of. Keep in touch with the school department. Ask the question how are you doing making your budget are you under or over? Schools are the biggest department you have. The school deficits are what brought in the budget commission. Expect to do fiscally responsible things. You can grow the tax base and you have been but having in the back of your mind that growth is not always going to happen and sometimes expenses will exceed growth and you have to determine how you will handle it. It may be a tax increase. No one likes to take or give these so don't run deficits. If someone presents you with one tell them to cut. You can't run a deficit it ruins your bond rating and you need those ratings to borrow for your unsynchronized fiscal year. Maintain your reserves even if you can use them for whatever your want do not leave it unfilled. Bond rating agencies are independent eyes on the community they really look at the reserve levels. If you diminish or deplete these they will notice that. They like adequate reserves and it is the most important thing. The second most important thing would be that you have funded your pension and pension arc and a willingness to increase taxes sometimes when you need to. It’s been fortunate that there have been minimum tax increases for 5 years but with the freezing of the school fund formula this will not happen. Any increase in their expenditures can happen without warning with regard to special education in one year and this has to be funded by the city. They should encourage any representative or senator to increase this funding in the future. If not it has to come from taxes. The city needs to adequately provide for capital to cover old equipment as it doesn't get better it just gets older. Additionally, you should aim to get a bond increase when you can as the higher it is the lower your interest rates will be when you go out to bond. Right now the city has an A rating and Moody's is AA and Standard and Poores are also AA. This will save you a lot of interest in the future. Expect the unexpected. Pawtucket is going to lose money due to the loss of the Paw Sox but they have two years to plan for it. Warwick is having a teacher education crisis and he is convinced that if they had looked at it a year ago they would have known. Woonsocket lost their second highest tax payer and had accounting errors and pension issues. So expect the unexpected. East Providence had the perfect storm which brought in the Budget Commission and anything that threatens TANs can shut down your government as you are not synchronized. The Governor and the Department of Revenue see this as a problem and they are going to see if we can get around the borrowing money to synchronize but there are no promises. Resilient communities can bounce back but you have to do these things to maintain.
Mayor Briden notes that it is important to memorialize the last 5 years and to think of those who will be sitting here 2-4 years from now. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. We should memorialize it to create an addendum to the 5 year plan to prepare the city to preserve our ability to obtain TANs and other related issues. He asks Paul Luba to put something together to have at the next meeting as a document.
Councilman Botelho asks Mr. Luba what he sees as the immediate concerns moving forward.
Mr. Luba states that he still thinks it's the fact that the state has frozen the school funding. School costs are increasing and the school committee is a separate board from the council and they could be going in a different direction. You are going to have a lot less flexibility when the new high school comes. The debt service will cost $5-$6 million a year. What you put away for TANs plus more and there will be less available to respond to any crisis.
Councilman Botelho states that part of the concern here is that various candidates are running and have proposed to raise the homestead exemption and cut back on taxes and that can't be possible.
Mr. Luba notes that the city has a pot of expenditures and they can move stuff around but it's limited. If you reduce one you have to increase the other. It's a balancing act. Taxes are a form of social engineering and if you want to reward home ownership with homestead exemptions someone else has to pay it. He adds that East Providence’s exemptions are pretty high.
Assistant Mayor Britto states that one of the concerns he had was the synch fund and how they will shift money over for infrastructure payments. Assistant Mayor Britto asks if there is a way to maintain those reserves and Mr. Luba states that in the time left he would like to address the synch issue with the Auditor General of the State. What keeps the city from synching without the bond is the fact that you have this loss when you end your year if there was some way to show it then that would be different. He will report back on this matter.
Mayor Briden states they don’t have to continue to contribute by charter it’s a forced savings.
Councilman Botelho asks about the discussion to retain Mr. Luba through the transition.
Mr. Luba states he is not sure but they are working on it.
Mayor Briden notes that they have done well as a city for the last 5 years and that is due to the role Mr. Luba has played.
B. Rodent Control Problem (by Assistant Mayor Britto)
Assistant Mayor Britto states he is not sure whether or not other areas have this issue but in ward one there is an increasing issue and he would like to have minimum housing take a look at underground construction from national grid as a possible reason. People have complained about seeing them around their homes and backyards. He would like the City Manager to explore what they are doing and how they do it especially if they continue to have this problem.
Councilwoman Sousa states that she too had this item on the docket at the last meeting from issues in ward 2. Minimum Housing went out and everything seemed fine she thought maybe it was due to the construction on bridges and has not since that last meeting seen any.
Assistant Mayor Britto states that perhaps they could look to educate people on what to do to prevent this or perhaps step in to do something when it happens.
Councilmen Botelho and Faria both note that they do not have a rodent issue in their wards but that might be due to all the coyotes and foxes.
The public hearing is moved to this location on the docket.
X. PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCES FINAL PASSAGE
1. Request to Amend the Generalized Land Use map of the City’s Comprehensive Plan from “Retail” to “Mixed Use” and to amend the official Zoning Map from Commercial -3 to Commercial Mixed use.
Zoning Map Amendment: Map 501, Block 3, Parcels 1 & 2 - 0 and 52 Narragansett Park Drive (Newport Avenue) from Commercial 3 to Commercial Mixed Use.
Petition for Zoning Map Amendment: 444 Bullocks Point Avenue
Petitioners: Amalgamated Financial Group IV
Attorney: Moses Ryan
Advertised East Providence Post – 7/19/18, 7/26/18, 8/2/18
Notices served on Abutters
A motion to dispense with the reading of the ordinance is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Thomas Mosses from Mosses and Ryan and President of Carpianto, Kelly Coates are both present.
Mr. Coates speaks and explains this property is 1/3 located in Pawtucket and 2/3 located in East Providence. Mr. Coates hands out books breaking everything out.
Assistant Mayor Britto notes that he was at the last planning board hearing and Mr. Coates provided a good presentation.
Mr. Coates states that they will try to make it a shorter presentation tonight as the Council has a lot more items on this docket. He brings boards forward to show the audience. He notes it’s a shift in community development away from just one thing commercial or residential etc...rents are less in those and as you travel you will see live, work, play projects such as at South County Commons or Chapel View. Those were built during a terrible recession and those condos sold out at $578,000. Owners and offices for businesses are all there. There is everything one could need or want to do. This Narragansett Park Plaza is large enough with 22 acres to have elements of this. It encourages more development and better planned development and East Providence Commons is zoned for this.
Councilman Botelho asks if this will have a tax incentive and Mr. Coates states it will not.
Councilwoman Sousa asks if this new zoning ordinance is specific to this site or for the whole city.
Mr. Coates states that while the city may choose to use it elsewhere it is specific for this vote on this site. He adds that he has a traffic and civil engineer present tonight if there are any questions for them. They have agreed that a project of this size can work at this location, on this street, so before you would approve these changes elsewhere you would need to research. There were no wetlands here.
Assistant Mayor Britto notes that Simpson Pharmacy had some concerns and he would like to know if those have all been addressed.
Director Feather states that as Mr. Coates indicated at the planning board for recommendation to city council on the comprehensive plan amendment, the map amendment and the zoning amendment the project received a favorable recommendation. During one of the meetings they referred to the project as a mini Chapel View. They worked closes with Pawtucket on the planning and are looking for phasing-in of the project as they go forward. The ordinance changes are for this property only.
Councilman Botelho asks if this blueprint could be used or does it only apply to this project and Director Feather states it only applies to this. It is a sophisticated developer who has the capacity to pull this off.
Council asks questions regarding the permitted uses.
Director Feather states that it was a new challenge and they enjoyed working with Pawtucket on the project and they all learned a lot.
Mayor Briden requests that all documents be submitted as part of the record.
Testifying:
1. Carol Smith and Cheryl Stakitis owners of Simpson Pharmacy – they note they are not against the project but still have a couple of issues they would like addressed in the planning phase having to do with traffic and entering and exiting the pharmacy. There were some initial concerns regarding the intersection and that was addressed the concern now is with another intersection. There will be a traffic signal and that should address the issue. The property is state owned and privately owned and they have spoken about the greenspace and how to make it work and it is still very conceptual nothing is in the final stages of planning until the road is approved who is caring for that and the green space. They want their curb cuts to remain and they are here to show their desire to be part of the phases of development of the whole concept. They would like to be part of phase one they have been there 90 years.
2. Bob Rodericks, 70 Plum Road (02915) - strongly in support
3. Dan Landry, 19 Larchwood Drive (02916) - in support
4. Thomas Riley, 3620 Pawtucket Avenue (02915) – in support
Assistant Mayor Britto notes this is the gateway for that part of the city and would light up the entire Newport Avenue and set the tone for other businesses to come as a way to the future development of this part of the city and he predicts they will see a lot of good projects in the near future for the Newport Avenue area.
A motion to submit all documents as part of the official records is made by Councilman Faria seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
A motion to approve the Ordinance is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
1. AN ORDINANCE IN AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE 2010-2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
A motion to dispense with the reading of the ordinance is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
SECTION I. Map 2 of the City of East Providence 2010-2015 Comprehensive Plan Update entitled “Northern East Providence Generalized Land Use,” is hereby amended to identify the property designated as Assessor’s Map 501, Block 3, Parcels 1 and 2 as “Mixed Use.”
The Northern East Providence Generalized Land Use Map (Map 2) of the City East Providence 2010-2015 Comprehensive Plan shall be amended accordingly.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Requested by: Amalgamated Financial Group IV
A motion to approve the Ordinance is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
2. AN ORDINANCE IN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 1998, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED “ZONING”
A motion to dispense with the reading of the ordinance is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
SECTION I. Section 19-95 entitled “Districts Designated” of Article III entitled “District Regulations” is hereby amended as follows:
Parcel 01 and Parcel 02 on Assessor’s Map 501, Block 03 presently located in the C-3, General Retail Business District and that portion of Narragansett Park Drive abandoned by the City of East Providence on January 16, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 38 presently having no zoning designation are hereby changed to “Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)” District.
The Zoning Map of the City of East Providence shall be amended accordingly.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Requested by: Amalgamated Financial Group IV
A motion to approve the Ordinance is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
3. AN ORDINANCE IN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 1998, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED “ZONING”
A motion to dispense with the reading of the ordinance is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
WHEREAS, an ordinance entitled “Zoning” of East Providence, Rhode Island, designated as Chapter 19 of the ordinances of the City of East Providence was approved in 1998, as amended, and
WHEREAS, by the terms of said Section 19-71, the regulations, restrictions, and boundaries set forth in the ordinance may, from time to time, be amended, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed appropriate that certain changes be made to the zoning ordinance and zoning district maps and that the public convenience and general welfare will be served thereby, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning district map have followed the procedure set forth in Sections 19-71 through 19-77, and
WHEREAS, the East Providence City Planning Board has reviewed the proposed amendments and found that they are in conformance with the East Providence Comprehensive Plan for Land Use as amended and the general purposes of zoning.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. Section 19-1 entitled “Definitions” of Article I entitled “In General” of Chapter 19 entitled “Zoning” is hereby amended by adding thereto the following:
Electronic Vehicle Charging Station means a public or private parking space(s) that is (are) served by battery changing equipment with the purpose of transferring electric energy to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle.
Kiosk, Free Stating Exterior means a freestanding exterior structure of less than five hundred (500) square feet for drive-up or walk-up window services or retail sales.
Outdoor Retail – Accessory means retail activity that takes place in an open lot, tent, trailer, motor vehicle, enclosure or structure that is not permanently affixed to the land.
SECTION II. Subsection (a) of Section 19-95 entitled “Districts Designated” of Article III entitled “District Regulations” of Chapter 19 entitled “Zoning” is hereby amended by adding thereto the following:
| Abbreviation | District |
| CMU | Commercial Mixed Use |
SECTION III. Article IV entitled Supplementary District Regulations of Chapter 19 entitled “Zoning” is amended by adding thereto the following:
Division 20. Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) District
Sec. 19-360.1. Purpose and Objective.
- Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). The purpose of the Commercial Mixed Use district is to encourage more active use and redevelopment of oversized multi-tenant commercial properties by promoting more flexibility of uses and design that is well suited for active economic activity along Newport Avenue.
- Qualification. On the date any parcel of land is placed into a CMU Zone, it shall be part of one or more contiguous parcels of land containing a minimum of 45,000 square feet of land that is adjacent to Newport Avenue and that are under common control/ownership, unless otherwise waived by the City Council and the Planning Commission. The term “common control/ownership” means and relates to either one person or entity, or separate entities in which the underlying ownership is held in part by one or more of the same person, persons, or entities.
Sec. 19-360.2. Dimensional Regulations; Permitted Uses; Additional Criteria.
- Dimensional regulations. Dimensional regulations, as presented in Sections 19-131 through 19-145 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended below for the Commercial Mixed Use District, shall apply to all uses in the CMU Zone.
| | Minimum Lot Size | Minimum Lot Frontage | Maximum Lot Coverage | Minimum Yard Setback Line | Maximum Height of Structures | |||
| Zone and Use | | | | Front | Side | Rear | Main | Accessory |
| | (square feet) | (square feet) | (percentage) | (feet) | (feet) | (feet) | (feet) | (feet) |
| Commercial Mixed Use | 45,000 | 50 | 50% | | | | | |
| Main structures between 46 and 100 feet | | | | 10 | 20* | 10 | 100 | |
| Main structures up to 45 feet | | | | 0 | 0 | 5 | 45 | |
| Accessory structures | | | | 0 | 0 | 5 | | 45 |
*Minimum side yard setback requirement when directly abutting residential zoning districts only, minimum side yard setback of 10 feet applies when abutting Commercial or Industrial zoning districts. Minimum side yard setback of 0 feet applies for contiguous parcels under the same ownership.
- Permitted uses.
(1) Uses permitted by right in the Commercial Retail Business (C-3) District are permitted in the CMU Zone.
a. The following uses, listed in the Schedule of Uses Table, are also permitted in the CMU Zone:
1) Three-family dwelling* and multi-family dwelling*;
2) Hotel*;
3) Sportsmen’s club;
4) Salesroom for display of motor vehicles, trailers, building supplies, boats, or machinery: (2) With storage and repair facilities;
5) New or used motor vehicle sales lot shall be limited to the display of a maximum of ten (10) vehicles.
6) Retail services for employees as detailed in section 19-364, business/technology* development;
7) Sale of business and/or industrial equipment and supplies;
8) Wholesale showroom: (2) With Storage and repair facilities;
9) Wholesale distribution or warehouse, excluding truck terminal facility;
10) Automotive repair shop*;
11) Animal or veterinary hospital or kennel;
12) Business or industrial services: (2) With storage and repair facilities;
13) Child day care centers*;
14) Data processing centers*;
15) Gasoline filling stations*;
16) Amusement game centers*;
17) Radio, television or wireless telecommunication towers and antennas (see definition of antenna in section 19-348)
18) Communication services and broadcasting offices;
19) Industrial trade schools
*As currently defined in section 19-1
b. The following uses, not listed in the Schedule of Uses Table, are also permitted in the CMU Zone:
1) Residence Above First Story Business Use;
2) Mixed Use*;
3) Small Fabricating Shops;
4) Previously Owned Goods and Merchandise Shops, including Antiques, Collectibles, Coins, Consignment And Stamps;
5) Electric Vehicle Charging Station;
6) Kiosk, Free Standing Exterior;
7) Outdoor Retail – Accessory;
8) Music and Dance Studio;
9) Garden Center;
10) Adult Day Care
*As currently defined in section 19-1
(2) Uses allowed by special use permit in the Commercial Retail Business (C-3) District are permitted by special use permit in the CMU Zone, unless allowed by right above.
(3) Uses permitted as accessory uses in the Commercial Retail Business (C-3) District are permitted in the CMU Zone.
- Number of buildings on a lot.
(1) More than one commercial or mixed-use primary structure located on a single lot is permitted in the CMU Zone.
- Signs. Any permitted signs for the Commercial Retail Business (C-3) District as set forth in Section 19-438 through 19-446 shall be permitted in the CMU Zone. Any electronic messaging centers (EMC signs) shall only be permitted by special use permit. Defined in section 19-442.
- Additional criteria for approval.
(1) There is no maximum requirement for off-street parking in the CMU Zone. Parking design standards as set forth in Section 19-282 shall apply.
(2) Minimum parking requirements in the CMU Zone are: Residential: 1.5 spaces/unit; Office: 4 spaces / 1,000 SF; Retail/Restaurant: 4.5 spaces / 1,000 SF.
(3) Maximum impervious coverage is 90%.
(4) Off-street loading minimum requirements:
Size: Length: 55 feet; Width: 12 feet.
Number: 4,000SF to 20,000 SF = 1 space;
20,000 SF + = 1 space per 20,000SF or fraction thereof
Office uses are excluded from off-street loading requirements.
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall take effect upon passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Requested by: Amalgamated Financial Group IV
A motion to approve the Ordinance is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
C. Follow Up to “National Night Out” (by Assistant Mayor Britto)
Assistant Mayor Britto states that National Night Out was a success one and one of the biggest crowds ever. He thanked Sgt. Norton and all those who volunteers and he looks forward to next year.
D. Congratulations on a Great Season to Riverside Little League (by Councilman Faria)
Councilman Faria provides congratulations to Riverside Little League on an outstanding job and an undefeated season and he invites them to next Council meeting as he would like to recognize them.
E. Burnside and Hoppin Avenues Discussion and Update (by Councilman Faria)
F. Pubic Clarification of Lawsuit (by Councilman Faria)
Councilman Faria defers this item.
The licenses were moved to this location on the docket.
XI. LICENSES REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
A. B Full Privilege Vict
William M. Lewis, Lucky’s Bar & Grille, 1175 Warren Avenue (02914)
William Lewis, 112 Prescott Avenue (02915) and Jay Kern, 223 Pleasant Street, Rehoboth as well as Attorney Douglas Durand from Scheckman Law Office are all present to testify.
A motion to approve the License is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
B. Dance/Entertainment
William M. Lewis, Lucky’s Bar & Grille, 1175 Warren Avenue (02914)
A motion to approve the License is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
XII. LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
A. Vict Over 50
William M. Lewis, Lucky’s Bar & Grille, 1175 Warren Avenue (02914)
Present to testify:
William Lewis, 112 Prescott Avenue (02915)
Jay Kearn, 223 Pleasant Street, Rehoboth, MA
Attorney Douglas Durand
A motion to approve the License is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
B. Vict Not Over 25
Proud Mary’s, LLC DBA Proud Mary’s Donuts, 326 Bullocks Point Avenue (02915), Ruarri Miller, 64 Channing Avenue (02915)
The license holders mention David Bachrach and all the great things he has been doing in Riverside and how it is helping the area and the businesses and they would encourage the Council to provide him more funds as he could really do a lot more good.
A motion to approve the License is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
C. Vict Not Over 25
May-Plumflower, LLC DBA Asian Taste 2, 656 Bullocks Point Avenue (02915), Huan Fei Mei, 155 James Street (02914)
A motion to approve the License is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
D. Vict Not Over 25 - Transfer
Pizza Amore, 2792 Pawtucket Avenue (02914) transfer from Kheir Wali to Haytham Chahed, 112 Warman Avenue, Cranston.
A motion to approve the License is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
G. Status of LED Conversion Update/Presentation (by Councilman Faria)
The Acting City Manager’s LED item and presentation was combined with this item.
Acting City Manager Parella states that Seimans is present and they provide a brief presentation.
Councilman Faria notes they should turn on the lights by trial and error because they are so much more vibrant.
It is noted they can control the brightness.
Councilman Faria states he is impressed as the low bidder who uses their own employees not subcontractors and that one person is assigned as the primary liaison to answer questions and help out with issues.
It is noted there will be a four month time line for software training.
Director Coutu explains there are 5000 lights and currently 865 lights are off. There had been 1100 turned off which was about 20% of the system.
Councilman Faria asks City Manager Parella if there is a buyout fee and City Manager Parella responds there is $218,000 and they are prepared to purchase those lights but he wants the council to see this and ask a lot of questions and would like to bring this item back in two weeks for a purchase and sales to national grid and a contract that they will have negotiated fully with Seimans. They would like to have the conversation and the whole city done by Christmas. There are a lot of variables in the equation.
Councilwoman Sousa asks if that the total cost including all city properties.
Director Coutu states no and adds it is essentially the streetlight system from national grid.
Assistant Mayor Britto asks for a copy of the presentation and Director Coutu replies he will forward it to the Council.
City Manager Parella adds that if the city wants it can change in the future by adjusting what is plugged into the top of the light. There is no service plan once this is in it doesn't include a maintenance fee the bulbs are warranted and they will be able to monitor them and the vendor has noted they will reduce a few percent a year in brightness.
H. City Email (by Councilman Faria)
Councilman Faria defers this item.
I. Constituent Issues (by Councilman Faria)
1. Drainage Issues Robinson Avenue/Brook (by Councilman Faria)
2. Small Area of Broken Sidewalk on corner of Willett and Winslow Avenues (by Councilman Faria)
Councilman Faria defers these items to do the late hour of the meeting.
J. National Arbor Day Tree City USA Award (by Councilwoman Sousa)
Councilwoman Sousa reads the letter from Senator Reed regarding the City of East Providence being awarded the Tree City of the Year designation again this year.
K. Culvert Project Delay (by Councilwoman Sousa)
Councilwoman Sousa states this project has been in the works since she was elected in 2016. It is a devastated area when it rains and has been for decades. She worked hard for last 2 years for grant monies to reduce the devastation in that area and work was supposed to start August 1st and she was told if there was a hiccup they would catch it and unfortunately this wasn't the case. She would like to know why, how and when will it be back on track and in progress.
Director Coutu explains it's a complex project and there are a lot of agencies involved. Lynch gave a start date of July 30th and they sent out a press release and 100 plus notices that the road would be closed July 30th. They said there was going to be a delay via Lynch so the city did not close the road. It was delayed one week. They notified all the agencies. RIDOT used message boards on the highway and there were minor design questions which had to go back before their Conservation Commission. There are some downstream flooding questions and he has been asked to do additional analysis. Some questions are valid and it’s unfortunate it was not brought to our attention just before we were planning to begin.
Councilwoman Sousa states that she doesn’t want to go another year and not get this done.
Director Coutu states there was concern about the flooding further downstream and what the analysis has shown and that is being addressed.
4. 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”
A motion to dispense with the reading of the ordinance is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
SECTION I. Subsection (b) of Sec. 18-269 entitled “Stop and yield intersections designated; when stops required” is amended by adding thereto the following:
Fifth Street (northbound and southbound traffic) at Juniper Street
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Requested by: Councilwoman Sousa
A motion to approve the Ordinance for Final Passage is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
5. AN ORDINANCE IN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 8 OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, 1998, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED “LICENSES AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS”
A motion to dispense with the reading of the ordinance is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
SECTION I. Sec. 8-142 entitled “Application; issuance; expiration” of Article VII entitled “Hawkers and Peddlers” of Chapter 8 entitled "Licenses and Business Regulations" of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 8-142. Application; issuance; expiration.
(a) All persons desiring a peddlers or hawkers license as required in section 8-141 shall make application to the city clerk for such license, and the city clerk, after granting of the application by the council, may issue a license subject to the approval of the chief of police and the state health inspector if food is involved, to such persons to sell the articles and substances mentioned in section 8-141 in such manner as shall be specified in the license and in the permitted area as is designated by the city council and is approved by the chief of police for reasons relating to public health and safety for the period from the date of such license until December 1 next ensuing such date. No licensee shall hawk or peddle in any other area than that to which he/she is permitted under the license granted by the city. Violations of such may result in loss of license and/or fines pursuant to section 8-148 of this chapter.
(b) An applicant for a peddlers or hawkers license may apply to the city clerk for a temporary license, and the city clerk, after approval by the chief of police, may issue the license allowing the licensee to operate under the same terms as a full license as described in subsection (a) of this section. The temporary license shall expire on the date of the next city council meeting following the date of the issuance of such temporary license, at which time the city council shall either grant or deny a full license as described in subsection (a) of this section.
(b) (c) The applicant shall, upon approval for a license required under this chapter, provide two so-called passport-size photographs of the individual authorized to act under such license. The city clerk shall, in addition to the license specified above, issue an identification badge containing one of the photographs of the authorized individual along with the effective dates of the license and such other information as the city clerk shall deem appropriate.
(c) (d) All hawkers are required to submit with their application a list of up to ten locations where they propose to stop and remain for any period of time so the police chief and the city council can review and approve the locations before the license is approved. If the hawker wishes to add locations at a later date, they must appear again in front of the city council for approval by the police chief and the council of the new location(s).
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Requested by: Councilman Botelho
A motion to approve the Ordinance for Final Passage is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
XIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Managers Report (by Acting City Manager Christopher J. Parella )
1. Purchase and Sales Agreement Hoppin and Burnside Avenues – Old Platt Waters Property – Review and Possible Approval
This item was discussed earlier on the docket.
2. 2018 Budget Timeline and Submission of Proposed Capital Budget Plan
8/29 – 6:30PM Capital Budget Workshop
9/13 – 7:00PM Full Budget Workshop
9/19 – 6:30PM Full Budget Workshop
9/26 – 6:30PM Full Budget Workshop
3. LED Streetlight Presentation by Seamans
This item was discussed earlier on the docket.
B. Reports of Other City Officials
1. Claims Committee Report (by City Solicitor Gregory Dias)
Pursuant to R.I.G.L. § 42-46-5(a)(2), a motion is made by Councilwoman Sousa and seconded by Councilman Botelho to convene in closed session for the purposes of discussing claims & litigation. Upon a roll call vote: Councilman Botelho – Aye, Assistant Mayor Britto – Aye, Councilman Faria – Aye, Councilwoman Sousa – Aye, Mayor Briden – Aye, the motion is approved 5-0.
EAST PROVIDENCE CLAIMS COMMITTEE
CLAIMS & LITIGATION REPORT
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2018; 7:00 P.M.; ROOM 101
====================================================================
NEW CLAIMS
ANGELA ANTONIAN Unspecified
RM No. 18-073, Claim No. 18-046
Claim for personal injuries sustained as a result of a trip and fall on a sidewalk on Amaral Street. Recommend referral to the insurance carrier.
Motion by: Councilman Britto Seconded by: Councilwoman Sousa
Motion: Refer the claim to the insurance carrier.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
CHURCH OF THE EPIPHANY $3,495.00
RM No. 18-082, Claim No. 18-050
Claim for reimbursement of snow removal costs at St. Michael & Grace (Church of the Epiphany). A Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the church states that the City is responsible for the snow removal and maintenance of the parking lots.
Motion by: Councilman Faria Seconded by: Councilman Britto/Councilwoman Sousa
Motion: Refer the claim to the Law Department.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
RYAN HELLMANN $433.10
RM No. 18-085, Claim No. 18-051
Claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of striking a pothole on Carlton Avenue. See recommendation of the Director of Public Works.
Motion by: Councilman Botelho Seconded by: Councilwoman Sousa
Motion: Approve the claim in the amount of $300.00.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
HIROAD ASSURANCE COMPANY $7,688.71
(INS: KIMBERLY KOLLETT)
RM No. 18-077, Claim No. 18-049
Claim for property damage sustained when a City vehicle struck insured’s parked/unattended vehicle. Recommend referral to the insurance carrier.
Motion by: Councilman Faria Seconded by: Councilwoman Sousa
Motion: Refer the claim to the insurance carrier.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
CESAR A. LUBRANO $982.65
RM No. 17-110, Claim No. 18-045
Claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of a sewer backup due to roots from a City tree. See recommendation of the Director of Public Works.
Motion by: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Botelho
Motion: Approve the claim in the amount of $982.65.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
JOHN MELLO $650.00
RM No. 18-074, Claim No. 18-047
Claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of a sewer backup due to roots from a City tree. See recommendation of the Director of Public Works.
Motion by: Councilman Botelho Seconded by: Councilman Faria
Motion: Approve the claim in the amount of $650.00.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
JAMES O’BRIEN $525.91
RM No. 18-086, Claim No. 18-052
Claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of striking a manhole cover in the area of 970 Willett Avenue. See recommendation of the Director of Public Works.
Motion by: Councilman Faria Seconded by: Councilman Botelho
Motion: Deny the claim.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
PATRICIA OLEAN $1,585.84
RM No. 18-055, Claim No. 18-033
Claim for property damage to vehicle sustained as a result of striking a pothole on Narragansett Park Drive. See recommendation of the Director of Public Works.
Motion by: Councilman Britto Seconded by: Councilwoman Sousa
Motion: Approve the claim in the amount of $300.00.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
MANUAL A. ULLOA-GERMOSEN; SILENY ALMONTE DeULLOA $100,000.00
ALAN ULLOA; SELINE LOPEZ
RM No. 18-078, Claim No. 18-053
Claim for personal injuries sustained as a result of an accident involving a police vehicle. Recommend referral to the insurance carrier.
Motion by: Councilman Botelho Seconded by: Councilman Britto
Motion: Refer the claim to the insurance carrier.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
PENDING CLAIMS
PIERCE FIELD VANDALISM $2,023.90
RM No. 17-075
Discussion of claim for damages to Pierce Field.
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion: Deferred to the next meeting.
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
All sewer charge abatements were deferred to the next meeting.
SEWER CHARGE ABATEMENTS
ELIZABETH CASTELLO $755.40
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 108 Legion Way in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
RHONDA CHERRY $113.41
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 24 James Street in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
CANDIDO ESTEVES $415.53
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 24 Baker Street in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
MICHAEL GAGNON $1,257.65
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 267 Forbes Street in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
DEREK P. LINDIA $243.69
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 33 Milburn Road in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
JERALDINE MARINO $25.51
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 99 Sherman Street in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
JENNIFER PERRY $60.90
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 91 Vine Street in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
HAROLD L. RAY $108.74
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 253-255 Waterman Avenue in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
WINCHESTER WOOD & PARK LLC $64,150.23
Request for a sewer charge abatement for the property located at 125 Village Green North in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 17-183(g).
Motion by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden Seconded by: Botelho Britto Faria Sousa Briden
Motion:_______________________________________________________________________
| VOTE | COUNCILMAN BOTELHO | ASST. MAYOR BRITTO | COUNCILMAN FARIA | COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA | MAYOR BRIDEN |
| Aye | | | | | |
| Nay | | | | | |
| Abstain | | | | | |
| Absent | | | | | |
A motion is made by Councilman Botelho, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. and reconvene in open session. Upon a roll call vote, the motion is approved 5-0.
A motion to approve the Claims Committee Report is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
C. Report of School Committee Liaison
There is no report.
D. Resolutions
1. RESOLUTION REQUESTING AND SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO AMEND TITLE 44, CHAPTER 5 OF THE RHODE ISLAND GENERAL LAWS REGARDING MUNICIPAL TAXATION OF REAL ESTATE
WHEREAS: in 1997, the R.I. General Assembly enacted legislation (P.L. 1997, Ch. 179, §1) which overhauled the statutory revaluation process for municipal taxation of real estate, to require that “each city and town shall conduct a revaluation within nine (9) years of the date of the prior revaluation and shall conduct an update of real property every three (3) years from the date of the last revaluation”; and
WHEREAS: the new revaluation process was based on the General Assembly’s recognition that the prior ten (10)-year cycle was “the longest revaluation cycle in the country;” the new revaluation cycle, with its three (3)-year updates, was designed “to provide more reliable and up-to-date property values in each of the cities and towns” and “to ensure that all taxpayers in Rhode Island are treated equitably”; and
WHEREAS: in 2001, the General Assembly enacted legislation (P.L. 2001, Ch. 365, §1) amending R.I. Gen. Laws §44-5-15 regarding the filing of an annual account and R.I. Gen. Laws §44-5-26 regarding tax appeals; and
WHEREAS: as amended, §44-5-15 requires that a taxpayer, as a prerequisite to seeking relief from a tax assessment, must file with the assessor an annual account “specifying the value of every parcel of the real estate as of December 31 in the year of the last update or revaluation and personal estate as of December 31 of the tax year”; and
WHEREAS: as amended, §44-5-26 requires that the mandatory statutory form for appealing a tax assessment give a taxpayer a right to appeal an assessment “if your property is: (1) OVERVALUED (assessed value is more than the fair market value as of December 31 in the year of the last update or revaluation for real estate and as of December 31 of the tax year for personal estate for any reason, including clerical and data processing errors” and further requires the applicant to state the taxpayer’s “opinion” of the property’s value “as of December 31 in the year of the last update or revaluation for real estate and as of December 31 of the tax year for personal estate”; and
WHEREAS: on May 2, 2018, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued an Opinion in Michael A. Balmuth et al. v. David E. Dolce, in his capacity as Tax Assessor for the Town of Portsmouth, Supreme Court Case Nos. 2017-6-A, 2017-8-A, 2017-9-A, 2017-11-A, and 2017-12-A (“Balmuth”); a copy of the Balmuth Opinion is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS: in Balmuth, a group of Portsmouth taxpayers challenged their real estate tax assessments on December 31, 2008 (for tax year 2009) and on December 31, 2009 (for tax year 2010). The taxpayers conceded that the Assessor did not overvalue their properties on December 31, 2007, when he conducted a full revaluation of all real estate in the Town; rather, the taxpayers alleged that they were entitled to relief because their property values had fallen following the last revaluation due to a declining real estate market; and
WHEREAS: the Tax Assessor and the Tax Assessment Board of Review denied the taxpayers’ appeals based on the provisions of R.I. Gen. Laws §44-5-15 and §44-5-26, as amended in 2001, because the properties were not overvalued as of the date of the last revaluation on December 31, 2007; and
WHEREAS: the taxpayers filed appeals to the Newport Superior Court which ultimately entered judgment for the taxpayers in five consolidated cases; and
WHEREAS: the Tax Assessor appealed from the Superior Court to the R.I. Supreme Court, seeking a de novo interpretation of the intent and effect of the 2001 amendments to R.I. Gen. Laws §44-5-15 and §44-5-26; and
WHEREAS: the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns as Amicus Curiae submitted a brief to the Supreme Court which supported the Tax Assessor’s statutory interpretation and positions; and
WHEREAS: on a vote of 3-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgment for the taxpayers, ruling that the taxpayers were not confined to the property values established at the last revaluation of December 31, 2007 and were permitted to appeal their assessments for tax years 2009 and 2010 based on valuations of the properties as of December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS: the majority opinion found that it was unclear “whether plaintiffs are, as defendant argues, confined to the values of their properties as of December 31, 2007. Based on our thorough review of the language contained in Chapter 5 of Title 44, the only thing that appears clear to us now is just how unclear the conflicting language is…. [T]here is no shortage of doubt about whether the General Assembly intended to restrict plaintiffs to the values of their properties as of December 31, 2007, the year of the revaluation at issue. Unfortunately, neither the 2001 amendments to §44-5-15 and the form required by §44-5-26(b), adding the phrase ‘in the year of the last update or revaluation[,]’ nor the legislative findings contained in §44-5-11.5 are determinative in discerning legislative intent…. [B]ecause we are confronted with a tax statute so plainly afflicted with significant ambiguity, we are firm in our view that we are best guided by the maxim which directs that ‘taxing statutes are to be strictly construed’ with doubts resolved in favor of the taxpayer;’” and
WHEREAS: the dissenting opinion stated: “Our review of the relevant tax statutes leads us to conclude that real estate property taxpayers are not entitled to appeal the valuation of their property each year, but may only challenge it ‘in the year of the last update or revaluation….’”; and
WHEREAS: the dissenting opinion considered the “possible ramifications of the majority’s interpretation. Some taxpayers could seek a revaluation every year, requiring municipalities, such as defendant, to expend funds in justifying them. Interpreting the statute in that manner would unnecessarily burden already strained municipal budgets, ultimately passing the costs on to taxpayers. Likewise, loss of revenue, which occurred in this case, would leave cities and towns attempting to recoup their losses by, again, looking to remaining property owners. In these times when most owners do not have expendable income, we cannot fathom the General Assembly wanting to do that”; and
WHEREAS: the majority opinion noted the dissent’s “cautions of such a descent into fiscal disarray. Besides noting that appealing a tax assessment is in and of itself rather cost-prohibitive, we nonetheless conclude that such a policy concern is best addressed by the General Assembly, not this Court”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the East Providence City Council hereby urges the Rhode Island General Assembly to draft, introduce and pass legislation to amend the provisions of Chapter 5 of Title 44, as necessary, to address the ambiguities noted by the Supreme Court in Balmuth, in order to provide with clarity that real estate property taxpayers are not entitled to appeal the valuation of their property each year, but may only challenge the value in the year of the last update or revaluation, as indicated in the 2001 amendments to §44-5-15 and §44-5-26; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk submit a copy of this Resolution to the City of East Providence’s State Senators and Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, the Rhode Island Governor, and every Rhode Island municipality.
Requested by: Councilman Botelho
This item was continued to the next meeting.
2. RESOLUTION CORRECTING SCRIVENER’S ERRORS IN THE EAST PROVIDENCE CITY CHARTER
WHEREAS, throughout the recent process which amended and the City Charter, including but not limited to the Charter Review Commission review, the East Providence City Council’s review, voter ratification, and Canvassing Authority review, many sections of the Charter were altered or otherwise codified; and
WHEREAS, this process altered the numeration of several sections of the Charter; and
WHEREAS, scrivener’s errors are defined as typos or instances whereby superseding authority such as the Rhode Island Constitution or Supreme Court or some other state authority regarding elections, requires an amendment to the Charter in order for the Charter to be a legally supported and accurate document; and
WHEREAS, the correction of a scrivener’s error has no legal impact whatsoever on the interpretation the Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Solicitor’s office has discovered and identified scrivener’s errors in the Charter, said scrivener’s errors are detailed below; and
WHEREFORE, the following are scrivener’s errors identified by the City Solicitor’s office:
· Table of Contents
o Corrections to Update the Numbering and Labeling of the Sections of the Charter to reflect the Charter Amendments Passed by the voters of East Providence.
· Article II – City Council Section 1, Number, selection and term.
o The Council shall have five [5] members, one to be elected from any by the electors of each of the four [4] wards of the City, and one to be elected at large, for a term of four [4] two [2] years or until a majority of the newly elected Council have qualified and have taken office.
o This codification reflects a finding and decision issued by the East Providence Canvassing Authority
· Article III. Mayor
o The Section header labels and numbering needed to be updated to reflect the ratified Charter Amendments, no language changes were made.
· Article V. Budget
o The Section header labels and numbering needed to be updated to reflect the ratified Charter Amendments, no language changes were made.
· Article IX. Personnel
o The Section header labels and numbering needed to be updated to reflect the ratified Charter Amendments, no language changes were made.
· Article XI. Election Procedure
o The Section header labels and numbering needed to be updated to reflect the ratified Charter Amendments, no language changes were made.
· Article XI. Election Procedure, Section 15 “Recall”
o Recall is authorized in the case of a Mayor, Council member, or School Committee member who has been indicted or informed against for a felony, convicted of a misdemeanor, or against whom a finding of probable cause of violation of the code of ethics has been made by the ethics commission or who has committed a willful violation of any provision of the Charter as determined by a preponderance of the evidence by the ethics commission or a state court of competent jurisdiction. Recall shall not, however be instituted at any time during the last nine (9) months of an individual's term of office. Such a recall may be instituted by filing with the canvassing authority an application for issuance of a recall petition against said Mayor, Council member, or School Committee member which is signed by duly qualified electors equal to three percent (3%) of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for that office.
The canvassing authority shall within seven (7) days from the date of the filing of such application petition examine it and shall from the voters registered determine the sufficiency thereof. If, upon verification by the canvassing authority the application is determined to contain signatures of the required number of electors, the canvassing authority shall, forthwith, issue a recall petition.
o A close inspection of the first paragraph above will show that the use of the word “petition” within the second paragraph, instead of the word “application”, creates a procedural loophole that could allow for the indefinite extension of the timeline. A review of both the Charter Commission and City Council meetings shows that such loophole was not intended but instead an enforceable “Recall” provision was desired. Upon information and belief this application/petition substitution error was addressed at the Charter Commission level and recommended passage included this proposed language correction, however, the language as presented to the Council did not include this correction and therefore did not reflect the Charter Commission’s vote and recommendation. This substitution conforms with the language passed by the Charter Commission and as presented to the Council, it conforms with the Council’s intention to pass an enforceable recall provision, and it conforms with the ballot question proposed to and ratified by the voters of the City of East Providence.
· Article XIV. Courts
o The Section header labels and numbering needed to be updated to reflect the ratified Charter Amendments, no language changes were made.
WHEREFORE, the City Council hereby finds that codifying the Charter to correct for these scrivener’s errors will have no legal impact on the Charter because either superseding authority requires the Charter to be updated accordingly or the change has no impact on the interpretation of the Charter; and
WHEREFORE, if any Court or Quasi-Judicial body with competent legal authority and jurisdiction finds that any of said scrivener’s errors does somehow impact the interpretation of the Charter or otherwise does not accurately reflect superseding authority, said scrivener error corrects shall be void ab initio; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that these proposed corrections to scrivener’s errors within the Charter be codified.
Requested by: Law Department
This item was continued to the next meeting.
E. Introduction to Ordinances
1. AN ORDINANCE IN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 8 OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, 1998, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED “LICENSES AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS”
SECTION I. Section 8-5 entitled “Closing hours for businesses” of Article I entitled “In General” of Chapter 8 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Licenses and Business Regulations” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 8-5. Closing hours for businesses.
(a) Generally. No shop, store or other place of trade or entertainment in the city, with the exception of licensed taverns, pharmacies, victualing houses, laundromats, gasoline stations (including gasoline stations with victualling), and bowling alleys, and such other businesses as may be approved by the city council, shall be kept open between 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 6:00 a.m. during the last six days of the week.
(b) Victualing houses and bowling alleys; Permit required for extension of closing hours. No pharmacies, licensed victualing house, laundromat, gasoline station (including gasoline stations with victualling), or bowling alley, or such other business as may be approved by the city council shall be kept open between 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 6:00 a.m. during the last six days of the week without first obtaining approval a special permit from the city council extending the closing hour beyond 1:00 a.m. Such special permit may be granted for a probationary period or with such conditions and terms as the city council may provide. The city council shall make any inquiry, inspection and investigation as it considers reasonably required to ensure that the health, safety, welfare, peace and tranquility of the public will not be adversely affected by any such permit and the city council may fix such conditions to the permit as it deems reasonably required for the protection of the public. The fee for such permit shall be $100.00 $125.00 per annum, payable to the city clerk.
(c) Bowling alleys on Sunday. No bowling alley shall be licensed to operate on the first day of the week between 1:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon of the first day.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Requested by: Councilwoman Sousa
This item was continued to the next meeting.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
A motion to Adjourn at 11:45PM is made by Assistant Mayor Britto, seconded by Councilman Botelho and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Approved By Council: September 4, 2018
Attest:______________
City Clerk