Click to view the entire meeting or click any video icon below to jump to that section of the meeting.

CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE

RHODE ISLAND

JOURNAL OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

September 4, 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. Richard & Carol Cappuccio

2. James J. Corbett

3. Amy M. Johnson

B. Pending Claims

1. Church of the Epiphany

2. 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

II. OPEN SESSION

III. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Briden calls the meeting to order at 7:44PM

V. TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Letters

1. Notice of New Property Number, 28 Arbor Street (02916), Map 201, Block 3, Parcel 004.00, Zoning R4

2. Notice of New Property Number, 30 Arbor Street (02916), Map 201, Block 3, Parcel 004.10, Zoning R4

3. Notice of New Property Number, 275 Massasoit Avenue (02914), Map 305, Block 06, Parcel 001.04, Zoning C2.

4. Notice of New Property Number, 277 Massasoit Avenue (02914), Map 305, Block 06, Parcel 001.03, Zoning C2.

5. Notice of New Property Number, 279 Massasoit Avenue (02914), Map 305, Block 06, Parcel 001.02, Zoning C2.

6. Notice of New Property Number, 277 Massasoit Avenue (02914), Map 305, Block 06, Parcel 001.01, Zoning C2.

B. Cancellation/Abatements

Year	Amount
2017	$135.49
2018	$49,138.79
Total	$49,274.28

C. Council Journals

1. Council Journal August 21, 2018

2. Council Journal Executive Session August 21, 2018

A motion to approve the Consent Calendar is made by Councilman Faria, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

VI. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

A. Proclamations for the Riverside Girls Major Softball Team and the Riverside Boys Minor Baseball Team - by Councilman Faria

A. Donald T. Cunard and Sherry A. Clarke, 3040 Pawtucket Avenue, Apartment 104-A requesting to address the Council regarding Cedarhurst Apartments - Bayview School – Bradley Children’s Hospital traffic issues, very dangerous area, speeding and running of stop signs.

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT

There are no public comments.

IX. APPOINTMENTS

A. Board of Assessment Review (by Assistant Mayor Britto)

Maureen Gomes-Lopes, 63 Richfield Avenue (02914)

A motion to approve the Appointment is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote the motion passes unanimously 4-0 with Councilman Faria Absent.

X. COUNCIL MEMBERS

A. New High School Update (by Mayor Briden)

School Committee Member Nate Cahoon is called to the podium and he explains that the tax impact ranges from $11 per month to $17 per month. He provides a background on the project.

Mayor Briden thanks him for the good information and adds that it is a $189.5 million and the question he has gotten is that if the reimbursement was not what the city hopes it will be do they have some flexibility to make changes or are they pretty much locked in at that point.

School Committee Member Cahoon states that the incentives are pretty much in the design at this point in 5% increments and they can achieve up to 20%. The state rate is more or less a given. They are going to achieve that incentive with the greater STEAM initiative. It's hard for them to say it will definitely be 74% until the bond passes and perhaps a little after that. His feeling is that the number will come down and construction will come down.

Assistant Mayor Britto states with respect to voters and this going on the ballot in November this is going with the intent of 54%-74% and not knowing exactly what it will be he would like to know is that the fluctuation from $11 per month vs $17 per month and School Committee Member Cahoon states that is correct. He adds that they spent a lot of time with Finance Director Malcolm Moore to determine what the impact to the average home owner would be. Assistant Mayor Britto notes that some people spend more per day for a cup of coffee.

Councilman Botelho states if the numbers are in that range they are going to need General Assembly approval to exceed the tax cap for at least a year or two as they can only bond so much money. School Committee Member Cahoon states it all depends on how things are bonded. Adding that if the state bond passed regarding whether they will outlay those in a lump sum or pay them as the work is completed will make a difference. Should they be able to get access to all or most of the city’s share that decreases what they immediately have to ultimately bond for to borrow.

Councilman Botelho states that there are a lot of people behind the school and campaigning but when people ask for the number we just won't know until next year and School Committee Member Cahoon states that is correct. Councilman Botelho states that he won't be here but Mr. Cahoon will be and he will need to decide if that is something the city can handle and Mr. Cahoon states that is correct. Adding that until that time they just don't know they need passage of both bonds and then what the state will reimburse. Councilman Botelho adds that next year is a reval year they have to be really careful about these tax projects as this could change dramatically and that will be part of the equation adding when Mr. Chahoon is up here as this has to be in an appropriate range and some will get cuts and others will get huge increases adding it is just something to be aware of.

Mayor Briden states if the reimbursement was not as favorable and they need to make it more affordable he would like to know have there been any discussions as to what could be postponed and what would be a priority. Mr. Cahoon states the school has to be defined by the education requirements.

Councilwoman Sousa asks if the fields can be amended and Mr. Cahoon replies that the CTC will be repurposed for administration offices and Pre K so yes there will be an opportunity to gain value. Gilbane and the Peregrine Group are the folks that are well versed in value and engineering and to pick up opportunities as they go. They do not expect the design of the building to change as they go. It will be kind of fixed. Councilwoman Sousa asks if the plan and structure can be done to reimburse first on those parts. Mr. Cahoon states they will maintain the highest level of reimbursement and when they read the bill in the General Assembly it is structured this way.

Councilman Faria asks who bonds and Mr. Cahoon responds Mr. Fazioli.

The Council thanks School Committee Member Cahoon and the Building Committee for all their hard work on this project.

Licenses are moved to this location on the docket.

XI. LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING

A. Peddler – Ice Cream

SugarRay’s, 44 Cole Street (02914), Raymond Thimas, 44 Cole Street (02914)

A motion to approve the License is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Botelho and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

B. Vict/Not More Than 25 - Transfer

From Gerald Carter DBA Domino’s Pizza to Jozon Enterprises, Inc DBA Domino’s Pizza, 1086 Willett Avenue (02915), Joseph Zonfrilli, 17 Old Greenville Road, Johnston (02919)

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.

C. Vict/Not More Than 25 - Transfer

From Gerald Carter DBA Domino’s Pizza to Jozon Enterprises, Inc DBA Domino’s Pizza, 2145 Pawtucket Avenue (02914), Joseph Zonfrilli, 17 Old Greenville Road, Johnston (02919)

A motion to approve the License is made by Councilman Botelho, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

B. Update on 2779 Pawtucket Avenue Demolition (by Councilman Botelho)

Councilman Botelho explains that this issues had been around since last January and he gets cranky about stuff not getting done. This building is still sitting there with a tarp on it.

Acting City Manager Parella states that as an update asbestos was found on the outside so an abatement plan needed to be completed. The homeowner hired a contractor and the plan had not come back. The city decided to get a contractor to do this and to get a plan. Director Coutu is called to the podium and states this just came through and the plan is at the RI Department of Health and it is being evaluated.

Acting City Manager Parella states that he wanted to have the city get as much money back as it could and they went and did the notifications the right way.

Councilman Botelho asks about the notification last year and in February. Acting City Manager Parella responds they did notice the homeowner however he spoke with the building inspectors who articulated some of the concerns regarding the notification and the property owners contractor who does have the abatement plan which his being approved and therefore are no further behind then if they did it.

Councilman Botelho asks why it took 9 months to figure out the building had asbestos. Acting City Manager Parella states that it should have been standard operating procedures and it wasn't.

Councilman Botelho asks why Bovis could get knocked down without the batting of an eyelash and not this and asks how this happens and does the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Acting City Manager Parella states he can't explain what happened in the past and what was allowed but at this point the homeowner can do it. Councilman Botelho requests that this item be placed on the next council docket for an update and expresses concerns if this does not happen then perhaps that department needs to be looked at.

C. Update on "Welcome to Kent Heights" Sign (by Councilman Botelho)

Councilman Botelho calls Director Coutu to the podium. Councilman Botelho explains that they finally have their sign back and this is directly responsible to the DPW director. He adds that while it is small it is important. In the past people have voted for recreation centers which were never constructed and there have been huge settlements forced on the city to treat sewage and the city has had the rug pulled out from under it in repairing roads and sidewalks and has had charter votes stolen. He feels Steve deserves recognition for spending who knows how many hours retrieving it. An organization that recognized victories big and small thought his efforts deserved special recognition and he has a medallion and he presents this to Director Coutu. Director Coutu states that he is just happy the Kent Heights folks are pleased and he just went through the bureaucratic channels and that there are many other projects ahead.

D. Sewer Use Fee Overhaul Proposal (by Councilman Botelho)

Councilman Botelho states many residents are disgusted with the water bills and it is primarily the sewer use fee. Last June there were efforts to rectify this but they did not get enough votes to fix it. This was on his campaign flier and he has been unable to fulfill the one thing they can control in adjusting this sewer use fee. He gets contacted weekly on it because he campaigned on it and he reads a letter the council received from a resident, Sandra Macmillan. All these studies were done a year ago and they told the council how to resolve it. The council now has the years’ data and he has talked to the solicitor and the mayor about putting this on the docket in terms of an ordinance.

Solicitor Dias states that is correct the water department contacted the vendor and what they said is they needed time to get the figures to include the numbers he is looking for.

Councilman Botelho asks for this to go on the docket for the next meeting.

Director Coutu comes to the podium. He states just a couple of weeks ago he asked the consultant to look at the numbers. Councilman Botelho cites an article from 4 years ago and notes he doesn't want it to slide anymore. He is going to contact all these people to be at the next meeting and let the council know how they feel. There were four options and he wants to get one in there before he goes.

Councilman Faria states the low end users are going to get wacked. Councilman Botelho responds that right now they are paying $60 a year for sewer use adding that nowhere in the country can someone pay this and that they can’t find any place where they can pay $60 a year to flush a toilet. The other users are getting killed while the low end users even with the adjustments probably still won't pay for the system. He asks Director Coutu is he agrees and Director Coutu states he would agree with that. Councilman Botelho adds that it is an arcane system.

Councilman Faria states that if they are watering their grass they will pay more. There could be a lot of for those low end users and he is taking away that exemption when some are on fixed incomes and are elderly adding it would be nice to find something in the middle to cure the sewer fee of course it's going to hurt the low end users.

Director Coutu states it's usually a combo of fixed and consumption.

Assistant Mayor Britto asks about option one which was ripping the band-aide right off and not subsidizing. Each person pays their fair share.

Mayor Briden notes they did good work at that meeting and the recommendation was to wait for the numbers to come in from the winter season and they can have them in and a make a decision.

E. Ordinance Request: Utility Responsibility Regarding Road Repair (by Councilman Botelho)

Councilman Botelho states this is another one of these things he doesn't understand. Why utilities can rip up the roads and leave them in disrepair. The city spent a lot of money in repairing roads. The patch just falls apart. A year and a half ago the utility company installed a temporary patch and they never came back. Why do we not have an ordinance that requires utilities to repave the entire street if they do the work? The prior city manager said the PUC wouldn't allow it but he looked at it and he can’t find it.

Director Coutu comes to the podium and states that National Grid sends the requests to replace the old cast iron main and the city puts off paving a street while they do so. They give the city the plans and the city permits them with respect to going curb to curb. The PUC has shot this down in other towns. What they used to do is not a temporary patch just a permanent patch. The city had them mill rim to the outside edge of that trench back to the curb so they have 7 feet of new pavement. It's an added cost that eventually goes to the paying customer. They have seen some of the old patches and will get them to the Grid if they are not on the city’s road list.

Assistant Mayor Britto asks why they can’t just take care of the whole road at that point and then they save on their patch and the city get partially reimbursed.

F. Public Clarification of Lawsuit (by Councilman Faria)

Councilman Faria states that anyone can say something but he remembers a superior court judge telling him those who want to believe and the others no matter what you say won't. He did not file a lawsuit against the city or the council. When he received notice to be here the city hired 2 attorneys through outsourcing and political favors. When you are sending work to attorneys there are no caps on these cities. When he received this he emailed the 2 attorneys and asked to be furnished with anything for due process so he could adequately defend himself and that was denied. He spent $180 and went to the court house by himself with no attorney based on the fact he did not know what he was being accused of. He has no counsel. He would like to have one to know his rights so he got a stay in hopes to then have what he needs. There is a difference between fact and speculation. He worked well with Mr. Chapman. He was too eager to settle the Waterbury case no matter what the cost. So he doesn't blame these attorneys that is what they are there for but this is not monetary he is not suing the city.

G. City Email (by Councilman Faria)

Councilman Faria asks if the IT Director shows up for meetings and Acting City Manager Parella states that she had a commitment and asked to be excused and it was granted and that she is a regular attendee.

H. 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 states that the Winslow sidewalk was crumbling when he put this on the docket and it was already done and he thanks Director Coutu. Also he would like to know what can they do about the brook on Robinson Drive. They have their sump pumps constantly running in storms and the sewer was backed up. Director Coutu states they just jetted that line and had a crew go in and clean out the drainage ditches from the Shaws Plaza all the way to Forbes Street that is really the only maintenance they can do. If they put a screen at Glenrose Avenue carrying debris it would just block it.

I. Culvert Project Update Start Date (by Councilwoman Sousa)

Councilwoman Sousa states at the last meeting they discussed this and Steve and Eric attended the Selectmen meeting in Seekonk and that the city would be responsible for the culvert and its repairs and that they wanted agreements from the property owners. She had sent them a letter from her office that we were responsible for the agreement and left it that they were going to draft something for East Providence and she has not gotten it yet. She asks the Acting City Manager if the city’s legal department or theirs would be drafting it.

Acting City Manager Parella states yes and that he spoke to the director and they need to get a couple of affidavits from some people.

Steve Coutu comes to the podium and states that the Town of Seekonk requests a legal document regarding this.

Councilwoman Sousa asks Solicitor Dias if he can reach out to the legal department in Seekonk. Solicitor Dias states they did draft something up and Director Coutu notes they are getting signatures.

Solicitor Dias states and they are also getting it notarized in the town they choose and the letter went to both those individuals. The letter went out last week.

Councilwoman Sousa asks that Solicitor Dias to contact them tomorrow to see where they are with the letter.

Director Coutu explains that he thinks the only thing they can do is the design changes only which is separate and apart from what the Seekonk Conservation approves.

Councilwoman Sousa asks when shovels will be in the ground and Director Coutu responds the Selectmen Meeting is mid-September so late September hopefully.

J. Traffic Control at Hennessy Elementary and Residential Complaints (by Councilwoman Sousa)

Councilwoman Sousa states that prior to the school year going around to the schools in Ward 2 she spoke with the Acting City Manager and the Ward 2 School Committee representative and this is a chronic issue in all districts. One of the issues in the Hennessy area is that most schools have a do not enter sign during busing hours. She is requesting traffic control for both the beginning and ending of school and for them to make sure parents do not come down that road to keep the children safe they would drop off on the black tar around the block in front of Pierce Field. Residents can't get out of their driveways and maybe they can tell those residents in that area and address the staff at the schools to come to an understanding.

XII. NEW BUSINESS

A. City Managers Report (by Acting City Manager Christopher J. Parella )

1. Distribution of Proposed FY 2017-2018 Budget

Acting City Manager Parella passes out the budget to the City Council.

They discuss dates for several workshops and note the budget will post tomorrow morning on the website and Facebook so everyone will get to look at it. They also spoke about scheduling the public hearings.

2. Discussion on Ice Skating Rink

Acting City Manager Parella states that this is an opportunity to purchase a skating rink similar to Providence. It is an opportunity for sponsorships from businesses. It includes rental skates and a Zamboni they could use in the winter for activity. It has lights on it and it could be located at Bold Point Park or at Crescent Park Carousel and there are a whole bunch of places it could go. If there is a flavor for this they will look at it. It is portable and it would be put under the Recreation Department to manage. It’s a great opportunity as there are not a lot of winter activities and the city could put Christmas trees around it at Christmas time. The city could get into it for under or close to $100,000. However before they do he wanted to gage the council’s feelings on this.

Councilman Botelho asks if this as what they see in Providence it is fixed and he doesn't know if it can be moved once put in and also he would like to know who has it to sell.

Acting City Manager Parella states that Waterfront Concerts is selling it and if there is interest the city look into it further.

Councilwoman Sousa states that she likes the concept and it is nice and she would love to see something at Townie Pride Park which can be put away or used for something else.

Acting City Manager Parella states that in the summer they could do go carts etc…on it. They have to look into it in detail and check out the condition and get more facts. He just wants to gage the interest. He adds it does include the refrigeration.

Assistant Mayor Britto asks about the expense for upkeep.

Acting City Manager Parella states he doesn't know yet and that they will have to look at it and see.

3. Bid Recommendation - Vision Government Services, Inc.

Acting City Manager Parella states the bid for revaluations is up and they put it out for bid. Two companies bid the one the city is recommending is Vision who currently handling the revals now. The other is a smaller company North East Reval LLC out of Jefferson Blvd in Warwick.

City Assessor Steve Hazard is called to the podium. He notes the second bidder asked that they use our existing software which is Vision. The city did take a good look and a demonstration was provided and they contacted some people who use them and additional work would need to be done totaling $11,000 in conversation costs and $6,000 in software so really their bid is $17,000 higher than their initial bid. The other issue is they are pretty small with a list of 14 employee and 6 were part time. Vision has over 100. He is a little insecure with a company that small basically the reason for the recommendation was the size and personnel. The person who handles property valuations and who is the project supervisor lives in Florida and would fly up every week and the company is not as financially stable as the other company. Vision was $182,000 and they were $172,000 without considering the software etc…which would add $17,000 making the total $189,000.

A motion to approve is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Botelho and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

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 – Absent, Councilwoman Sousa – Aye, Mayor Briden – Aye, the motion is approved 4-0.

EAST PROVIDENCE CLAIMS COMMITTEE

CLAIMS & LITIGATION REPORT

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018; 7:00 P.M.; ROOM 101

====================================================================

NEW CLAIMS

RICHARD & CAROL CAPPUCCIO $550.00

RM No. 18-087, Claim No. 18-055

Claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred to set back the sprinkler system due to the installation of curbing and a handicap ramp associated with the Safe Routes to School program. See recommendation of the Director of Public Works.

Motion by: Councilman Botelho Seconded by: Councilwoman Sousa

Motion: Approve the claim in the amount of $550.00.

VOTE	COUNCILMAN BOTELHO	ASST. MAYOR BRITTO	COUNCILMAN FARIA	COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA	MAYOR BRIDEN
Aye	√	√		√	√
Nay
Abstain
Absent			√

JAMES J. CORBETT $14.97

RM No. 18-088, Claim No. 18-056

Claim for property damage to a shop light bulb sustained during the road repaving project on Legion Way. See recommendation of the Director of Public Works.

Motion by: Councilman Botelho Seconded by: Councilwoman Sousa

Motion: Approve the claim in the amount of $14.97.

VOTE	COUNCILMAN BOTELHO	ASST. MAYOR BRITTO	COUNCILMAN FARIA	COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA	MAYOR BRIDEN
Aye	√	√		√	√
Nay
Abstain
Absent			√

Councilman Faria arrives at the meeting

AMY M. JOHNSON Unspecified

RM No. 18-090, Claim No. 18-057

Claim for personal injuries sustained while riding a bicycle on the sidewalk at 353 Warren Avenue. Recommend referral to the insurance carrier.

Motion by: Councilman Botelho 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

PENDING CLAIMS

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Britto

Motion: Refer to the Law Department and Acting City Manager to negotiate settlement.

VOTE	COUNCILMAN BOTELHO	ASST. MAYOR BRITTO	COUNCILMAN FARIA	COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA	MAYOR BRIDEN
Aye	√	√	√	√	√
Nay
Abstain
Absent

PIERCE FIELD VANDALISM $2,023.90

RM No. 17-075

Discussion of claim for damages to Pierce Field.

Motion by: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Britto

Motion: No further action to be taken.

VOTE	COUNCILMAN BOTELHO	ASST. MAYOR BRITTO	COUNCILMAN FARIA	COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA	MAYOR BRIDEN
Aye	√	√	√	√	√
Nay
Abstain
Absent

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Botelho

Motion: Approve the sewer charge abatement in the amount of $755.40.

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Botelho

Motion: Approve the sewer charge abatement in the amount of $113.41.

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Botelho

Motion: Approve the sewer charge abatement in the amount of $415.53.

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: Councilman Botelho Seconded by: Councilwoman Sousa

Motion: Defer for additional information from the Director of Public Works.

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Botelho

Motion: Approve the sewer charge abatement in the amount of $243.69.

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Britto

Motion: Approve the sewer charge abatement in the amount of $25.51.

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Britto

Motion: Approve the sewer charge abatement in the amount of $60.90.

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Faria

Motion: Approve the sewer charge abatement in the amount of $108.74.

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: Councilwoman Sousa Seconded by: Councilman Botelho

Motion: Defer the matter to the next meeting & request the Director of Public Works attend.

VOTE	COUNCILMAN BOTELHO	ASST. MAYOR BRITTO	COUNCILMAN FARIA	COUNCILWOMAN SOUSA	MAYOR BRIDEN
Aye	√	√	√	√	√
Nay
Abstain
Absent

A motion is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Botelho 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 Botelho, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

4. Handicap Parking (by Director of Public Works Stephen Coutu)

Handicap Parking Sign 100 Bliss Street

A motion to approve is made by Councilman Botelho, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

C. Report of School Committee Liaison

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

A motion to dispense with the reading of the resolution is made by Councilman Botelho, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

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 left;ing 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

Councilman Botelho states in the 1990s the General Assembly required all cities and towns to do this every 3 years. This year there was a court case by Portsmouth residents that they should have the right to argue the value of their property even if it was prior to the 3 year benchmark and there was a split decision 3-2 on behalf of the property owner and the majority of the court in doing so stated the law crafted in the 1990s had to be cleaned up by the General Assembly. The problem this presents is any individual can come before the city and say it went up or down and it could be a mess for the assessor’s office who would get flooded every time the values fluctuate. On the flip side municipalities could do their own and go to do revaluations every year and that is not fair to residents. This requests the General Assembly fix this before it gets way out of hand. Three years is a pretty good time period and closes the loop hole allowing the court to make this decision.

Councilwoman Sousa asks if this passed the state would it only be able to every 3 years that residents could question their assessments.

City Assessor Steve Hazard states they can question at any point in time going back to the 3 years it’s not really fair for the resident but commercial real estate would do it often if they could. He discusses proration.

Mayor Briden notes this was always the practice prior to this court decision and the purpose of the resolution is to preserve the status quo.

A motion to approve the Resolution is made by Assistant Mayor Britto, seconded by Councilwoman Sousa and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

2. RESOLUTION CORRECTING SCRIVENER’S ERRORS IN THE EAST PROVIDENCE CITY CHARTER

A motion to dispense with the reading of the resolution is made by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Assistant Mayor Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.

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