I any opposed executive session and we turn very shortly.

Number two, update on negotiations.

One East Providence Firefighters.

No.

No, that's time.

We have to call the meeting back to order.

And uh yield again, seal the minutes.

Second executive motion by Council Vice President Rigo to reconvene tonight's meeting and seal the minutes or executive session.

Uh was seconded by Councilman Fogerty and also Councilwoman Susa.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Uh Mr.

Slicitor, would you uh read the results?

So as you know, we met an executive session to uh discuss and uh vote on the tentative agreement with council ninety four AF S CME, local three two two two three.

Uh there was discussion about the tentative agreement, uh which the council received.

Um the vote to approve uh was four to one with Councilman Lawson um uh voting no and in the negative because he felt he did not and he can speak for himself, but I don't he felt he didn't have enough time to review the uh I just received a contract today and uh there's no way I could vote for something I didn't have a chance to read.

Okay, so that's that's all that was was done.

Madam Clerk, could you continue the meeting?

The next item.

Consent calendar, council journals, regular meeting minutes, August nineteenth, twenty twenty-five.

Motion by Councilwoman Sousa, seconded by Councilman Lawson to accept.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Next item.

Licenses for discussion and possible vote.

Is there a motion to bundle first?

The uh how many uh I'll make a motion to bundle um through C nine.

Motion by Councilman Lawson to bundle the motions through nine.

One C one through nine.

Is that second?

Second by Councilman Fogerty.

All in favor of the bundling.

Yeah, I have it.

Is there a motion next?

Motion by Councilman Lawson to approve.

Seconded by Councilman Fogerty.

Any opposed?

Yeah, I have it.

Um August twenty-fourth.

It was Diego Contreras, Kevin Palumbo, and John Fuse.

Next item.

Hi.

Good evening.

My name's Nicole Grant.

I live at uh 47 North Hall Street.

I'm here this evening representing not just myself, but the many East Providence residents who gotta speak into the right into the mic.

Thank you.

I'm here this evening to represent not just myself, but the many East Providence residents who want to see a balanced ordinance that allows backyard chickens while protecting our community.

Since the last council meeting when we last discussed this issue seven weeks ago, 21 residents in Ward 4 have submitted letters of support to their council representatives.

19 residents in Ward 1 have done the same.

Our petition has now reached 639 signatures.

Of those 296 are East Providence registered voters.

What we're asking for isn't radical, it's regulated.

And when we are ready to be, and we are ready to be proactive in addressing every concern that has been raised.

First concern, rats.

It's been made painfully clear to me that most people who oppose this idea are concerned about wildlife.

Yes.

When humans decide to remove natural wildlife habitats, it forces animals like birds, rodents, and insects into residential areas, which can lead to spikes in pest problems around homes and yards.

And here's the reality those wild animals exist with or without backyard chickens.

They're attracted to trash, outdoor pet food, bird seed, compost piles, and even unsecured recycling bins.

If the presence of wildlife alone were enough to make something illegal, would we also ban bird feeders?

Penalize untidy yards, mandate that all pets stay indoors.

An ordinance will proactively combat wildlife concerns and set the standard for responsible ownership by requiring proper feed storage in sealed containers to avoid attracting wildlife, secure coupes and enclosed runs that keep rodents and predators out, routine cleaning to prevent odors and flies, and you guessed it, rats.

And of course, no roosters, which eliminates noise complaints.

And if an ordinance is passed, we're ready to partner with the city to provide education and community support so every hen owner meets these standards.

A copy of our proposed curriculum is included in the paperwork that I've provided, and the content would be implemented by East Providence resident Lorna Steele.

She's a former director of humane education at the Rhode Island SPCA and has taught animal care and welfare to over 5,000 people each year, rehabilitated wildlife, and worked as both a veterinary technician and longtime pet care provider.

Another concern.

By keeping ownership illegal, East Providence will be driving flocks underground, leaving zero opportunity for education or enforcement.

The 2025 CDC salmonella outbreak linked to backyard poultry provides that the real danger comes when flocks are kept without oversight or education.

In East Providence, the choice is not between having or not having chickens.

It's between hidden unregulated flocks versus legal permitted flocks with clear health and sanitation standards.

An ordinance protects families, children, and neighbors by requiring the very CDC safety measures that prevent outbreaks.

And importantly, this was just one outbreak among many.

Some cases over the last few years include cucumbers, raw milk and cheese, and pet reptiles.

Salmonella spreads when animals aren't properly cared for.

Regulated backyard chickens means clear rules for safe feeding, housing, and hygiene.

The goal here is not to eliminate risk entirely, it's to manage it responsibly.

We're not just asking for change, we're offering solutions.

Another concern.

Some people have suggested that chickens are easier to control while they're illegal.

Yes, you heard that right.

And it was said by an elected official, no less.

The claim that, quote, currently the city has the ability to quickly deal with these irresponsible owners.

If they were legal, then the irresponsible owner can appeal a decision, and the public health concern remains until the court weighs in.

This statement exaggerates the risk and ignores the city's real power to protect public health.

Fear doesn't fix problems, but rules and enforcement does.

As of right now, the city can only say you're breaking zoning law.

It can't actually fix the problems.

If hens were legalized, the city could set clear rules, fine irresponsible owners, and even revoke permits when necessary.

Legally legal legalization gives the city more authority to act, not less.

Throughout the last few months, many East Providence residents are finding that instead of listening, their representative shuts down dialogue, leaving people feeling dismissed and misrepresented.

A reminder to everyone.

Elected office is about representation.

It's not about personal preference or anecdotal fears, it's about listening to constituents and being guided by facts.

Let me remind you of those facts.

Out of the 296 East Providence registered voters in support of this ordinance, 193 of them are from the 02915 zip code, which ward four is mostly made up of.

That is approximately 65.2% of all East Providence support.

When a large majority of the people in your own ward ask for progress, that's not just feedback.

That's a mandate for reconsideration.

To ignore it to ignore this is to say, I hear you, but I will not represent you.

Thank you to the council members taking us seriously on this.

We ask you again tonight.

Let the facts guide you.

Let your constituents be heard, and trust that with a responsible ordinance, East Providence can move forward, not backwards on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh anyone else on the next item.

Public comment.

Gideon Finity.

I have two seconds.

No, this isn't commenting on public communications about this.

Yes.

Please give your name and address the record.

My name is Gideon Finerty, and I live at 115 Riverside Drive.

I am here to speak about the chicken ordinance.

One reason this ordinance is better for East Providence is that it will help keep chicken coops safer and more sanitary.

Many people will have chickens anyway, no matter what happens.

But if a legal pathway is made, people can publicly offer resources, meaning it will create a cleaner and safer environment for both us and the chickens.

Another reason is that it will prevent people from putting out complaints for things that have nothing to do with owning chickens.

Lastly, owning chickens helps people financially.

By being able to save money on eggs, has helped my family and other families a lot.

There were no problems when we had chickens in Smith Hill Providence, warehouses are closer together.

So I don't know why there are any here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gideon.

I'm sorry, repeat the name.

Esther.

Okay.

Come on up, Esther.

Just go over to the microphone if you can reach it.

You can you can bring that mic down to her.

Just be careful of the wires.

All right.

What's your name?

It's okay.

She doesn't have to give her a name.

You can just you can say who she is.

Is it okay if I read this for her?

Sure.

You can.

It says, Hi, my name is Esther.

Why we need chickens?

Chickens help us provide eggs, and they are like family to us.

Um I have a chicken named Pixlist.

She has just started laying eggs, and she has been a really good chicken.

An even better chicken as I watch her grow.

I have had chickens all my life, and they are really important to me and my family.

Thank you.

Nicely said, Esther.

Thank you.

Paige.

Paige had to go to bed, but I have her.

Sure, you can read it.

You can read it.

Paige had to do her homework.

Paige does not do homework.

We're trying.

It says, Hi, my name is Paige Fennerty.

I think chickens should be legal because they provide eggs and other foods.

Also, my chickens are my emotional support animals.

Their names are Pixlist, Oreo, Leo, and the Mindies.

Thank you for letting me speak here today.

Thanks.

That was the last one who signed up.

Okay.

Thank you, speakers.

You have to sign up ahead of time or next item, please.

Council members.

One request for update from administration on Willet Pond upgrades, Councilman Lawson.

Councilman Lawson, please.

Uh just looking for an update.

Um been told that we're waiting on DEM approval.

And just want to see where we're at with that.

Good evening, Council President, members of the council.

Um, in regards to the request on an update for Willet Pond, um, the city is waiting, as we you mentioned on DEM approval still.

Once we do get that approval, the contractors already prepared to mobilize.

Um the intent is to pave the parking lot this year.

Of course, it's always it's subject to DEM sign off.

So no change on that one.

So we've been waiting for a DEM for over a year.

Well over a yeah.

Is anybody picking up the phone?

Is anybody trying to shake the tree?

Of course, we we do that with all projects, but there's there's only so much that we can do.

We're limited.

We make phone calls and we've there are multiple projects.

We're working with the DEM on several different projects, and um, but this we have an issue with the state DEM.

If we're waiting this, we had to wait a year for a sign at watchmoke square over a year for redo a parking lot.

So okay, thank you.

Welcome.

And I think you know, the the concern is valid, but it's also valid that DEM, CRMC, they move at uh slower than molasses paid.

That's my point.

We have a problem with our state and and multiplier times the other 38 or so communities in the state that are all screaming about slow DEM.

I I was involved years ago, maybe 30 years ago, just trying to build uh a garage and there was more than I had enough room to build a house.

I just wanted to put a little garage.

It took nine months just to get a a worker from the state there to say yes, you can do it.

Uh it's so I I don't think it's a problem here with with uh anybody at City Hall.

But speaking about the pond, what about the um the the water fountains?

I know I've been hearing that the colors not working.

Is that I drove by yesterday?

It was green.

Is it working now?

It was red.

The first one, it's like this high.

This is the one.

One is gonna be blocked or something.

Three or two.

When I drove by just last night, if they were like shooting up, they were red and green and no, no, the water.

I level it's only going like this high.

So I think there may be some blockage, maybe some leaves or something.

Yeah.

No, I mean, not just some the colors are fine.

Oh, I thought you meant like it floored.

Oh, yeah.

Well, I did say the colors because for a while they weren't, but they're back, I guess.

Okay.

As of it's not not major issue.

Yes, go ahead, councilman.

Was there something else?

No, it's just again DMs us.

I mean, this is ridiculous.

So number two is also for you.

Which one's discussion on cameras in public spaces?

So Councilman Lawson.

This came up.

We got this beautiful new troll.

We've had uh new mural at Crescent Park.

So I just want to present it to the council if there's any appetite to even start a conversation with uh Chief Opposer about cameras in our public spaces.

I'm not talking every inch of everything, but we put a lot of money, the opera funding we had, and we're invested in these parks and playgrounds and fields.

And I'd be damned if we're gonna let knuckleheads ruin it.

And I think these cameras now they're investigated only for investigation.

They're not enforcement.

You're not gonna get a ticket for littering.

But if there is an appetite with this council, um, I think we should start the discussion with the police department on utilizing cameras in our public spaces.

I I would support that.

I think in the year 2025, everything is on film.

Everything is on a camera.

You you can't watch nightly news local or national without seeing someone who maybe had their car hit in their driveway or uh an Amazon package stolen from their porch.

And what is the first thing they do?

Run around the neighborhood.

Who's got a camera?

Who can I look at?

I mean we obviously don't want cameras in personal spaces.

Absolutely not.

But public murals, you know, the bike path where we have have done extensive work.

Uh yeah, I think we we just invested one and a half million at Kent Heights.

I'd hate to see damage there and not being able to find the culprits.

Right.

So yeah, we can I'll ask the mayor's office if we can a couple of us can start a conversation with the chief of police and to the chair.

Yes, Councilman Fogarty.

It's very important.

I mentioned it more than once and over the last couple of years.

It's to hold accountability for what we invested in.

I mean, let's face it.

And security and safety, I'm big on for seniors.

That's why the absolute I get joked upon, including Mr.

Regal coming behind me about the bathrooms, but I'm a senior with eight grandkids, and we have to go, we have to go.

So the bathrooms was a push.

Security is a push.

And then you hold those accountable behind Martin, they had a bike that do a lot of damage.

We caught them on film, and the parents had to pay.

You have to pay.

So I'm agreement.

I already talked to Councilman Lawson way before this, and I've mentioned it to Rodrix and others.

I, you know, I'm a big fan uh of that and other things for safety.

But yes, so uh councilwoman.

So I think I know this came up multiple times.

Um I think uh initially um when I had discussed this, it was uh Pierce Field because they had just done the basketball courts about eight years ago almost.

And they yeah, it was destroyed.

Um, and so the bathrooms were being done over.

So there was a lot of stuff happening at Pierce Field with renovations.

Um, and the thought was that you know, we need to do some protection in that area, and then it expanded to other parks like Central Av that had a lot of um violence or you know, near tragic incidences, um, dangerous violent incidences that were happening, and in a way to be able to um capture some of that was to have the surveillance there, and that would hopefully also deter anybody from doing things along with capturing any behavior that we needed to um to monitor.

So that's something that I've always been on board with.

Um Tony Pride Park was uh an area too when it was just finished that they wanted neighbors wanted it to be monitored and even volunteered to be able to use their Wi-Fi off of a camera that would be mounted on the wall.

So I think there's a lot of um new technology that we can use, solar, you know, if we're thinking about ways of how to bring um to these remote locations like the troll location where there might not be power lines over there and how we're gonna get electrical service.

There are workarounds.

So I am open to working with any council member on coming up with uh some type of an ordinance, maybe to and then some allocation.

Well, we got we're about to start the budget process, so I know it's very early, but we're not gonna but we may want to consider preparing for something like that.

We definitely do.

I mean, especially in up in the first ward now with the soon to be completed new pickleball courts at Barn Parn Park, as well as the basketball court there, and then at Glenline with the new basketball court, the tennis court and the pickleball courts, the investment that we uh as a city using the opera money, but it's still investment of taxpayers' money that uh it is uh we need to do something with a security pot because look at what happened down at uh Kent Field, you know, uh a couple of days later, they're you know, they're on they're on they're on their bikes, you know, you know, you know, scratching their way, uh skidding, I should say, and uh it's not right for the people who need to use them then.

That's my concern with with the new pickleball courts and uh tennis courts.

So obviously, all of the council, and it's something we've all been interested in, and I think most right-thinking people in the community agree.

So I would ask the chief of staff if you could just start a conversation rolling with whomever, the mayor, the police chief, get in touch with me.

I'll get in touch with the council.

Sure, I'm sure he is the same out of safety that we are and uh see if we can come up with some surveillance system throughout the city.

Thank you all.

Next item.

Number three, request for accurate update on when the field behind Riverside Middle School can be used, Councilman Lawson.

So I I've been asked numerous times.

Patricia, you said the fall, but I'm gonna people saying that they were chased off by DPW workers saying it's not gonna be ready till next.

So is there an accurate when is this field going to be finally available that kids and the school can start using it?

Uh so councilman, we did I did respond.

I'm not sure if you received my emails to yourself.

I did.

You said you you weren't sure that somebody would have said that, but I'm multiple people saying that they were told that.

I I gave a very detailed explanation and also to the superintendent in terms of what was happening at the field, but I'll reiterate um just so that it's on record.

So currently the field is currently open.

Uh students are using it.

We have no knowledge of kids being kicked off the field.

But right now, um, it's currently open for use by the school for gym activities.

There's no issue with that and other events.

Practices informal games, and this is what I was including, um, which will put additional strain on the field, those will be permitted beginning in the spring.

Currently, from what I understand, the games are being permitted in and played at Pierce currently.

Now, but the park staff have gone to fertilize the field, and what they're doing from what I understand from the director is that they're courtyarding, they're overseeding to provide a better grass surface.

So I'm not um, you know, I don't I don't work in this area.

I'm not a grass engineer, I don't work on surfaces, but the point of it is they're they're trying to fill the small depressions and creating um a better, stronger field.

So as of right now, come spring, they're they'll be able to play.

Um, but no students are being kicked off for like light play or gym activity on the field.

Okay.

So the email I got from you was as I understand it, kids have been on the field.

I can't imagine them being kicked off unless there was work being conducted.

Yep, then I there was a follow-up email and the superintendent.

Oh, I I bet what happened, councilman and chief, is that the kids who may have been asked to get off the field or what we used to call sand lot kids.

These were probably kids and they were just playing, yeah.

But the school can use it right now, and they are using it.

So I I think it's few kids running around, which is harmless.

They're I did that.

We all did that, it feels, but until that grass gets thick and well, yeah.

So those probably the kids that are reporting for the full seating, but the schools can use it.

Who can use it now?

And that parking lot has been done, and I wish the youth groups using the field.

I went by there.

We need enforcement.

The signs are up, no parking, people are still parking.

Right.

They're parking on the side streets, bother, you know, where homeowners can't get in or out of their driveways, and two cars can't pass.

So anybody's watching who's involved in those sports, specifically the junior townies, these are the young kids, uh, not the school teams.

And people are just parking all over the place.

There's a big parking lot behind Riverside Middle School, and you gotta walk about a hundred yards, that's all.

And you get to the Al Sante complex.

So we need to get that word out, and the police have to start ticketing cars there.

And we've been keeping the superintendent um and uh Dan Carpenter in the loop as well.

I just sent it to the Yeah, but it's not the school people now.

We're talking about the youth groups at night.

No, no, no, it will as well.

So we've we're also we're we're keeping them in the loop in terms of what's happening and and the fact that they're limited, um, they could host limited games and they would it would benefit from light use.

We're talking about the field.

We informed that the field isn't 100% ready for junior townies and EPYSA, strong.

Oh, the parking issue.

I'm sorry, I'm still on the field.

That's okay.

All right, we're we're good.

Next item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Number four, saving point cleanup, councilman Lawson.

Uh, just want to give a shout out and thanks.

Save the bay came.

They did a cleanup, about 30 residents showed up.

I went out there with them, and um beautiful.

It's just a beautiful park.

Um, hopefully, we can start making some progress.

Um there's some disappointment in the way the park's looking.

But the folks that came out, I want to express the gratitude that um, and they're awesome.

They they just they care about the beauty of it, and um we collect it.

You know, it wasn't too bad, which is good.

Um, but as you know, most of the garbage is it's washed in.

It's not people dumping, it's washed in.

So um, I just wanted to publicly then save the bay and about 30 people who showed up that day to uh clean the park.

Thank you.

It is looking good almost there.

Next item number five, cell service at Crescent Park area, Councilman Lawson.

Is there Councilman Lawson in the room?

Yeah.

Um Patricia on the 19th, I emailed you and Dan about cell service at the Crescent Park area.

Um, the neighborhood in the back, the residence, and even the fire department and station two.

There's a big problem with cell service.

Their radios may not fully function.

I don't know the process of requesting uh is it Verizon?

Is it I just don't know.

So if you and Dan or if Dan somebody can look into how we can improve coverage, because it is a public safety issue.

So um just to bring the council up to date, the city has been working with the cell carrier to install a tower within Grassy Plains.

Um, no, no, no, no.

This is nowhere near.

This is Crescent Park.

The grassy plains would not affect what's going on at Crescent Park.

I believe it's going to impact that area.

So a tower at Grassy Plains would give that far.

But I'm being told that there's DEM approvals that are required, carriers legal council.

So I have all the details here that in terms of like installation date with that tower.

So perhaps that tower did.

Can you forward that to me so I could take a look?

That's what we authorized back in April, correct?

The uh so working the agreement, correct?

Yeah.

There are some uh issues regarding that, but yes, we're working on it.

There's been some other issues about uh where the tower may be located based upon um priority.

If we did need to add sales service that the grassy plains doesn't cover the crescent park area, is I just what is the process?

I think it's a public utilities commission issue.

That's the they're they're responsible for coverage issues.

I don't think the city gets involved with that.

So I'd I'd have to bring the citizens concerned to the PUC.

So yeah, probably we recommend that they would call them and let them know that the other thing is that you have to have a location that's high.

Usually they're on the public buildings, a high roof, like top of the high school, say, and I don't know what is in the crescent park.

Maybe the the high rise of you has one.

Not how you right, but the other one I don't know if Crescent Park may it's not a high rise.

I mean, right, but it's a big building.

Something can go on top of that.

Something could go.

But PUC, that's the answer I need it.

Yeah, you can't put one on you can't put one at the park because right away it's gonna be an issue with the historical society.

So that's why I said the building.

Well, yeah.

Yeah, the Crescent Park.

Maybe we'll put it on the maybe on top of the troll.

We'll put on top of the carousel, we'll call it the loof tower.

Yeah.

Next item, right?

Thank you, Mike.

Number six update on solo project at police station, councilwoman Susa.

Yes, councilwoman.

Thank you.

Um, so it's been a while since I've heard, and I don't know if the the council has been presented with any information um the project for the solar power, the solar.

I can answer that because we've been uh so actually our I reached out to the company back in June wanting for an update.

Um apparently the underlying lease of the uh of a property where the power was going to be.

There was some lease issues that had to be resolved.

Um Chris Capizio, who we hired to help us with this, has been working with them since June to get everything in order.

Um I just texted them uh while you while we're having a discussion, and we're waiting for a title company to make sure the title is clear under the land.

There were some other DE minor DEM issues that we had to go through, but we're working on it, and um we hopefully have a resolution by the end of this month, and hopefully it'll be more construction.

And then also, I don't think this had anything to do with it, but I think it was also from the city's perspective.

We didn't move forward because of all the construction that was going on and inside, you know, with the trucks and stuff, because I think they needed to park some stuff out there.

Right.

But uh mostly it was uh the developer of the solar panel that ran into some issues.

It has to be an assignment of leases and something that's a little bit over my head particularly, but we are working on it.

And I did reach out to them in June because I wanted to get an update from it.

And so when is the follow-up conversation?

Did you say um I just got an email from text from Chris and he's talking with the title company, supposed to get an answer from them for the other by the end of the week, so we can move forward.

But they they're still interested in moving forward.

And who's the lease with?

Don't we own the property?

No, no, there's a there's a there's an assignment of a lease from the where the where the power comes from, believe it or not.

There's gonna be power there.

Yeah, but there's also the the underlying company also we have we enter into a lease with the underlying company because under the state law, we have to have an interest in the land.

We have an interest in the land, obviously at the police station, but the way we're getting the credits, we also have to have an interest in a larger project, and there was an assignment that larger project was sold, and the leases had to be redone, and so they're coming back to us with that.

Uh it's a little confusing.

I I agree with you.

So we had we were doing coverings over with the canopy, yes.

Right.

And then we were the company came in and uh and wanted to partner to put um solar panels over it.

Um we're gonna get a larger credit right reimbursement rate because of the solar panels.

Uh the company, the original company that proposed that, apparently, I don't have all the details, but apparently the underlying lease um was sold to another company, so there had to be a reassignment.

And when we looked at the lease.

So does that mean we have to renegotiate a contract?

No, it's gonna be the same.

We just want the least to accurate reflect what the entity is.

And actually, to do his credit, Mr.

Cabezio caught that, and that's what we've been working on.

Is there any penalty on the company's part to reimburse the city?

Because we when did we authorize that?

In 23 or 20 three, right?

No, I mean we could have walked away from the project if we wanted to.

The problem is is that because of when we sign up to it, we get a higher percentage of the reimbursement rates because we've got the school, the W the uh housing authority and the city and that canopy.

So we're gonna get a bigger credit percentage credit.

So that's why we didn't really walk away from it.

So there is a penalty for the delay, so we'll get more.

Is that what you're saying?

Well, I'm saying to once they come online, we will get more money from the percentage of this is two years that we're losing money.

It is well, yeah.

Well, technically not gaining money.

We're not gaining money, we're not losing money.

Yeah, we're not getting as much.

Yeah, yes.

We're not getting as much credit as we would have hoped to earlier on.

It's that is true.

All right, thank you for the update.

Um, Madam.

I'll keep you informed.

Yeah.

Could you put this on the agenda for the next council for a follow-up?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item.

Number seven, update on Pierce Field, walking track, Martello Park picnic tables, whole street park upgrades.

Councilwoman Susa.

So I don't know, Patricia, if we have any um updates on any of these projects.

So I know uh initially this body had allocated opera funds for a repair or replacement of the walking track.

I know that project had multiple things involved.

Um, the administrator wanted to redo the grass, make it turf.

Um, money was reallocated to another project because the administration had said that they were going to apply for grants to get money to cover the cost of bar of switching um the funds.

So we'll just take each on its own.

Um, so any update on where we are in terms of funding and um getting the the walking field and/or football field done.

I do uh councilwoman have uh updates on each of the different points here.

So in terms of Pierce, uh if you don't mind, I'll go right through them.

So this in terms of Pierce Fields walking uh track, the city is engaged currently with an engineering firm both to design um to design the improvements that will include um the new walking path with ADA accessibility, uh improved field drainage and excuse me, irrigation.

Um we will also be having um space for events to limit disruption to grass areas, and we'll be creating a more user-friendly environment for large gatherings.

That was from our director.

In terms of Martello, can I just pause you for a second?

What is the um engineer company that we've engaged?

Have to go back and check the documents.

I don't know off the top of my head, I didn't include it in my notes.

And so this is just preliminary where they're doing um getting working on the site plan and then moving, then proposing it to us and then coming up with the cost.

Correct.

So it'll be coming back for this body for potential additional funds.

I'm not sure about additional funds, but I'll find out.

Okay.

Councilwoman could uh councilman we go into Jack on Pierce.

Um Madam Chief of Staff, uh Pierce, you just said walk-in track.

I hopefully it stays four or five-lane track that it is now because the uh Martin Middle School as well as Riverside Middle School that they use that that's their practice and track fields.

So just to turn it into regular walk-in path, we'll do a just you know just service to the middle school track program, as well as we talk about obviously Rockford Little League being here tonight and other little leagues and the soccer organization.

There's also a very last three or four years, there's a uh a youth track program that's been started in this city that's been quite successful.

So, and again, they don't have access to the high school, you know, complex, and that's a story for another day.

But that would, you know, that and we and I even talked about needing a jump hit.

I talked with Dan about that in the back.

So I just please don't have this engineer turn it and turn it into you know a walk-in path because that could be one, you know, just like up at Glen Line, it's just the path.

This needs to stay as a as a middle school track field.

It doesn't have to be a full high school NCA regulation of eight track lanes, but it needs to stay as a track.

I believe that was in fact relayed during some of the meetings with the engineers.

Walking track.

I might my mouth was in by the uh microphone.

Um, and in terms of Martello Park, um, so the upgrades are near completion.

The city is waiting on a new bracket for the swing set to allow for installation.

Um, in terms of the seating, there are several long concrete footings uh with wood tops.

In terms of the seating, there are several long concrete footings with wood tops.

The wood will be replaced to provide improved picnic bench seating for visitors.

And then in terms of the signage, there will be general park signage that will be added to both the playground, the dog park, and then the general park area with visitor information as well.

And then if you don't mind, I'd like to go on.

Okay.

Do you have any questions?

Yeah, I do.

So uh the neighbors um were excited about seeing something being done in that area because it had been a really small neighborhood park that didn't have a much attention.

Um, but now that they have started working on it, they feel that they've taken away a lot that was there, so there's less activities for the kids um to play.

Um I guess the swing set or place that isn't is less than what was already there.

So there was concern that there isn't much for the children to do now at that park, especially since now there's a dog park um there, and the neighborhood wasn't really looking to have a dog park in that area.

Um, though it it's nice to have it.

They one of the things they did mention, and that's why I put it on the agenda, and I know it seems kind of really frivolous, you know, small when you look at it, but like a picnic table.

I understand that there's some seating, but if there's not going to be a lot of um activity for children to do, at least have somewhere where they can sit and do activities on a table.

Um, I didn't notice where they were playing putting any like picnic tables in the area, and I think they would appreciate having, or so they have mentioned they'd like to have um some picnic tables in that area so that they could do activities at the tables.

What I'm wondering if um if the seating where they're talking about the several long concrete footings with wood tops, if that would because this is where they're saying the wood would be replaced to provide improved picnic bench seating options, but you're talking tabletops, picnic tables so in the swing set.

Okay.

I'll relay that to councilwoman and see where we're at with that.

Thank you.

In terms of uh the Hull Street Park upgrades, there are a few here.

So we're adding new play equipment where the old playground was located.

The vendor's currently waiting um on a back ordered piece expected to arrive next week.

So that's great news uh with a tentative installation scheduled tentative for September 7th.

Additional repairs to the existing newer play equipment will be made uh to several of the broken features, um, as well as the city's currently working with EPYSA to install a perimeter guardrail to protect all the new field improvements in that area that were made.

Uh the fields expected to open for spring play.

Um, after again, just similar to the other park, after it's aerated, top dressed, and seated, because obviously that ends up in with better lush grass for the kids to play on.

Um, one of the things, so a couple of things, um, and thank you for these updates.

One um in speaking with um the mayor on this park, he did mention or suggest because there are so there is walking paths um throughout the park, um, but there are certain areas, especially along the tree lines where some of that is just dirt, so it goes asphalt, big section of dirt, ashfalls, so it gets muddy um puddles.

So one of the things that was suggested was that we would resurface um and clean up those walking paths around the area, um, especially since where the overhang is, a lot of that cement uh or asphalt is broken up um and cracked, much like a lot of which over by closer to the school area.

Um near the park itself.

So they have the canopy um where the under, you know, we they don't have a picnic table over there, but that um that area behind the shed or on the side of the um little the soccer team shed, the red shed.

Um so in that whole general area around the park, the playground, and then the walking path goes around like the field, it goes around the whole park.

Not all of it is in disarray, but there is parts and pieces of it, correct.

Um and so one of the things that was mentioned for safety, because a lot of people do use that area on a daily basis, which is wonderful to see it it could use some attention for the when it especially when it rains.

Um as a uh as it mentions to the field.

So I did talk to the league, um, and they did mention um putting up some type of a rail there.

Um, it is my understanding that the ask now has increased the fiscal amount that they're um the contribution that they're asked to make.

So there was some concern that they wouldn't be able to meet um what the city's ask was financially.

Um they were only had a certain amount to donate towards that.

Um so like to just find out more about that if it's because material costs or if it's because the city wants it to be longer and they were could only afford a smaller section.

Um CPYSA thing they can't afford.

Okay.

Yeah, they had a monetary amount that they could pay, and they've been asked to double that amount.

Um double.

So they were concerned that they wouldn't be able to come up with that.

Um it just was too much of a strain for for the organization.

Um and then in the field itself, um, I know it's been a long time coming, and there's been the contractor has been great coming out continuously to try to help with the drainage issue, but we do still have major divots in that field um or drainage.

Um, so I don't know that that's I'm wondering if that's gonna stay that way, because my concern would be that if you're using that whole field to play soccer, now you're going into like a lull, and that's not gonna be safe.

You think that running across the field.

Again, I'm not, you know, uh a park engineer, but I think from what from what in having conversations with the mayor and Dan in those areas, that's part of the reason that they want to be able to do the aeration, the top dress it so that way some of those divots are filled, and obviously they wouldn't want any of the players getting hurt.

Right, right.

So there's those focus areas that you're saying that they're gonna work on to try to build up so the paths, the cost, and then the divids.

Okay.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Thank you for that update.

Greatly appreciated.

Number eight update and recommend from consultant on pedestrian crossings and lights throughout the city.

Councilwoman Souza.

Thank you.

Um, so I know months, months ago, um after um weekly or bi-weekly conversations of concerns that I've had regarding pedestrian crosswalks, inoperable lights, um around the city.

There was a consultant that was hired, there was a plan um citywide.

And um, last that I recall being informed, all of that data was brought together, but they weren't at a place to divulge that yet to the council.

Um so I'd like to hear what that update is because there are some grave concerns now with school being back in session, still having areas that don't have operable lights on main uh roads for children that have to now walk to school because they're not being offered a bus is a big problem.

Correct.

Um and you just reiterated one of the things that was going to point out that we did have this this draft memo, but that I could supply to you and then get it to the rest of the council.

Um this outlined the framework for of several different improvements and repairs.

Um this draft I have for uh for reference and I'll share this with you.

But the implementation for what I understand in terms of an update is uh the the implementation and of improvements and the finalization of this draft of this memo uh will be advanced through the federal SMART program.

The grant that was awarded through the city um in the coming year.

So the plan is to move forward immediately with repairs uh to the pedestrian uh signal on Broadway in front of the teachers credit union, as well as the pedestrian signal at the intersection of Warren Ave and Seventh Street.

And councilwoman, I'm happy to the clerk provide this to you.

Thank you so much, Professor McClerk.

Thank you.

The process with the uh federal smart grant.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next item.

Number nine, request for city administration to address and support neighbors of Fort Street regarding continued damage to property.

Councilwoman Susa.

Thank you.

Um so I know uh probably about a month ago um there was a a resident of Fort Street, Deborah Fortz who had come or as I'm sorry, who had come before the council with concerns about um golf balls hitting property, um, their vehicles, houses, garages, even almost um the children that are in front of the home playing outside.

So uh in an effort to connect with MetLife and reach out with them, um, I'd spoken to a couple of uh the managers there and they reassured that they were changing, they had changed the the hole to veer um the balls in a different direction.

Um I know at one point there was um netting that was supposed to go up to help again catch any um strays.

Um unfortunately, none of that has um proven fruitful for this street.

Um, even as an hour before coming into this council meeting, a resident texted me uh sitting on her front steps, um, getting the ball going right over her head, hitting her front door.

Um, so almost hitting her quite frankly right in the forehead, which it had it done that, she probably would have been in the emergency room with a severe concussion or or potentially worse.

Numerous pictures have been sent over the last few weeks with damage to vehicles.

New.

So nothing.

This is not old that I've already shared.

I believe they they put it on the screen, and my council members were able to see it in my absence.

So these are all new continuous issues.

And despite having had conversations with MetLife, the residents have called continuously and not been successful in getting a response.

So it's it's quite disappointing on one end hearing from them that we're here to work with people where we're gonna talk to them, and then having the residents say, nobody has responded to me.

I've called and emailed multiple times, and this is what's continuing to happen.

I can provide an update if you'd like.

So you're right.

Um the the council uh while you're out did discuss um based on some of the um issues that you brought forth.

Uh the administration has been in constant contact with MetLinks and with the Marshalls um to bring us all to their attention.

I know this body has talked about the netting.

They did they did they were open to doing that.

They do um they did, however, uh they couldn't put up the netting based on Rhode Island Energy's easement, but they've also reconfigured the whole, they did say that they were the number of complaints had dropped significantly and that they had not heard anything.

I did see the email from uh Deb.

Um, and I am happy to report that uh Lion Marshall is already has a scheduled meeting with Deb to um to discuss this with her.

So and that was as of a few hours ago.

Okay.

All right, so it was today that discussion.

Yes, correct.

Based on your um emails and their emails and and there was um they were trying to reach Luke at the property.

But they did say that the number of um the number of complaints or balls that have gone in that area has has dropped significantly.

Um after they re reconfigured it.

But it really hasn't.

What has changed is they've decided not to reach out because they feel like nobody's listening.

So that was, and that's why I'm bringing it up again, because they have been reaching out occasionally to me.

So as it gets worse or more frequent is when I start to get the phone calls and the pictures.

Makes sense.

Um, and so the when I've asked, you know, have you reached out to them?

Have you gone over there to speak with anybody?

It really is more of a nuisance because they feel as though they go, they talk, nobody knows what they're talking about, nobody wants, you know, the response isn't great.

Right.

So then why do it, right?

Is what the the feeling is from the neighbors, and that definitely should not be the feeling that they have.

Well, the good thing is the owner is now going to meet with that president directly.

So I'm glad that any others were happy to facilitate.

Yes, councilman.

Uh, councilwoman Suez.

When's the last time they asked you about uh today this afternoon?

Thank you.

With pictures.

Um, and that's all I had.

Thank you so much for the update.

Thank you.

Before we uh go on, I just want to acknowledge uh the presence of the chair and vice chair of the East Province School Committee.

Thank them for their attendance as we continue to all work together for the city.

And please continue, madam clerk.

Public hearings ordinance for second and final passes for discussion of possible vote.

An ordinance and amendment of chapter 19 of the revised ordinance of the city of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1919 as amended entitled zoning.

These changes are being made in order to conform to approved Rhode Island General Assembly bills.

I think yes, is there a motion?

Yeah, I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion next step.

Motion to approve by Councilman Fogarty, seconded by council voice president.

We go uh on all in favor.

Uh public.

I'm sorry, but Keith uh Burns is here.

Um you want to comment.

Sorry, it is a public hearing, and we'll ask for public comment when the council finishes with questions.

Sure, I do have a presentation that um pretty much mirrors what was in the memo.

So here we are.

I'll try to get through it uh quickly here.

But um so as far as that we're here to consider these amendments, the zoning ordinance, um which were done to uh comply with the General Assembly's approved land use bills from 2024.

So those were approved for the most part to promote uh housing construction in the state.

So towns, cities and towns across the state have to update their zoning regulations, uh similar to what we had to do in 2023.

Um that's the the just of what we're doing here.

Um most of the changes just insert new required language.

There are a few that require some discretion.

Um, and that will be noted to you so you know what's required and what goes beyond that.

Uh the planning board has to review these changes.

They reviewed them at their July meeting and they found the amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan, old and new comprehensive plan and recommended approval.

Um and these state laws um they're they're in effect now and they govern local land use decisions regardless of whether the city amends its regulations.

Um and this these drafts were reviewed with the council at a May 28th workshop that we held here.

Um the big picture for the zoning ordinance changes.

Um we received grant funding from Rhode Island Housing to hire consultant for several things.

So one of them was to develop these zoning amendments and the ones from 2023.

Um they also worked on a draft comprehensive rewrite of the whole zoning and subdivision regulations with the goal of streamlining housing production.

Um that's not before you tonight.

Um we have a draft of inclusionary zoning ordinance, which was discussed at the workshop a few months ago.

Um that's still being worked on and is not before you tonight.

Draft of a transit-oriented development overlay ordinance that may not be something that the city is even eligible for.

Um and the grant with the consultant is now complete, so we're now on our own and making these changes here.

As a reminder, why to promote housing opportunities?

Um housing crisis is burdening local residents and impacting the economy and the city state and and beyond.

Um half of East Providence renters are considered cost burdened by Rhode Island housing works.

Um Rhode Island is last in housing construction per capita, and more units of all kinds of housing are needed to dig ourselves out of the hole.

Um housing equals economic development for the city to attract working age population to sustain the economy.

Um the most major change in these changes here is um adding accessory dwelling units.

This was the major change to the state's 2024 land use bill.

I so I have a question on this, and you can hopefully you can uh clarify this.

An ADU is obviously an additional dwelling on a on a piece of on a property, correct?

Right, an accessory dwelling unit.

It's so if I have my if I have the main house on a seventh, I'm just throwing out a number uh on a 7,000 square foot lot.

Now I take and add an additional dwelling in the back of the yard that takes away open space on that property, correct?

It does not as a dwelling.

So my 7,000 square foot lot in a 2,000 square foot house to start off with that I have 5,000 square feet left to build.

Right.

Okay, and then not with the frontage, and then we take away frontage.

So I put a house on the back.

I put a 700 square foot ADU.

I'm all for it, but it's it ties into something else here.

And so that takes away open space on that property, correct?

If you were measuring property if you were measuring space, it does if you build something new in the backyard like that.

Thank you.

Ones that are built with an addition to the house and detached ones, which can be built new as you're talking about, or just inserted into existing garage.

Um they represent an opportunity to add housing stock with minimal neighborhood impact, benefiting right uh owners, renters, and various age groups.

I think this is great that the city's doing this because you know, hopefully it brings down the cost of living, affordable housing, first-time owners go.

I mean, if it's on your property, obviously you can subsidize your your existing house with a rental property, and I'm glad we're in agreement that that cuts down the existence, what what you would count as existent space.

And we're we're in agreement, but it's state law.

State law.

No, I'm I mean, I'm good.

Yeah, I'm just I just wanted it to I know, but I what I was going through, what is what is considered open space on that property after.

Yeah, it diminishes the it diminishes what is left for called.

Yeah, open space, lot coverage.

Lot coverage.

That's what you're talking about.

Yes.

Yep.

Open space connotes.

I mean, um, yeah, a lot of coverage.

Open space connotes that it's open to the public.

Yeah, I mean, lots, lot coverage.

Coverage.

It does, yes.

It does increase density on lots.

So yeah, so that that goes hand in hand with other things that can happen on that property.

So just I think I'm I'm not here.

So council vice president, the way the statue is if you have a 7,000 square foot lot, it doesn't mean you can build an ADU on that lot.

Well, I'm not saying about that.

I'm just you already have a pre-existing structure.

But it takes away from it's taken away from what is left on that property.

I'm all for it.

I'm not talking about for other things like putting swimming pools or sheds or anything like that.

Every you know, now you got X amount, you got X space.

But you always did.

Now you got less space.

If you put an A, if you put an ADU, if you put one of these on there now.

Well, you can't just put one on.

You have either it's a pre-existing structure, or if you have a two thousand twenty thousand dollar, a twenty twenty thousand square foot property.

If you have seven thousand square foot, you can't just add a new structure and say it's an ADU.

You have to meet the state guidelines.

That's partially true.

Yeah.

But yeah, that is what the that's the state law allows.

But but as it's being proposed, you can put it on a 7500 square foot.

That's what I'm saying.

In this in the city of East Province is proposing that we're able to do that.

Yes.

Yeah.

That's why that's and I and again, I just wanted to my, you know, where's the Because I didn't see that on there.

Where's the usable?

I think he's getting to that.

Yeah, you're correct.

Yeah, when Yeah, my you know my other point was getting to what then is you know, how much space is left.

So, you know, we're on the same page.

So there was discussion at the work session about the the percentage uh of the the lot size from going for so yes, uh, I don't want to step on Keith's because he knows this better than probably anybody in this room, but state law says you can put a detached accessory dwelling unit if you have um a lot at least 20,000 square feet.

Providence and Barrington, believe it or not, have eliminated that completely and went down to you could be on a zero whatever, believe it or not.

So they've gone less restrictive than state law.

The planning department and at the work session, I think there was general discussion because there are very few lots in East Providence that have 20,000 square feet.

So um the I think the compromise or the recommendation from the planning department was to allow it on lots of 7500 square feet.

Right.

Less for detached.

Yeah, for new new detached.

Yeah.

If you already have a garage on that property, absolutely you can convert that like or a barn or whatever.

But so that's so why don't you continue?

Uh sorry, yeah, I didn't mean to interrupt.

No, no, that's fine.

Was proposed is because in a lot of zones, that's the minimum you need for a duplex.

So we have a lot more density than a lot of these other communities.

20,000 was um the minimum in the state law, which is sort of a one-size fits-all governing a lot of the rural communities out there.

But like uh the solicitor said, 20,000 is sort of hard to come by in East Providence, where it doesn't affect very many people.

So then I guess to council vice president's comment, what is now the zoning officer looking for for perviage coverage.

Um, those rules still apply where each zone has maximum uh impervious coverage.

So if you stick one of these in your backyard and you have more than the required maximum impervious coverage, you'll have to apply for a variance for that.

Okay.

Um, and it's important to note that with these ADUs, you know, people still need permits to do it.

You still need a building permit, you still need to meet the fire code and the building code.

So you can't just stick these in your basement willy-nilly without regard to uh to these concerns.

And you would still have to meet, excuse me, Keith.

You still have to meet all the setback requirements as well.

Um, so like you know, distance from the sideline, back line.

So those all have to be.

Neighbor's parking.

Yep.

Uh parking is uh parking.

Parking is another one that we are proposing something that is more liberal in the state on the next slide here.

It's 46 of 84.

If you want to look at the order that's we're proposing less parking.

Memorandum.

But then the state requires for the law.

With the reason that a lot of residential properties in the city just don't conform to the zoning's minimum parking requirements, especially in some of the more dense areas of the city.

And the goal is here is to limit, you know, paving and stormwater runoff in these areas and make ADUs a more viable use in these areas.

Well, because an issue, I mean, even on the agenda today, we have, you know, proposal for no parking.

So we're seeing more and more no parking on the s streets within the neighborhoods.

So we're going to be running into really a parking crisis because you're not going to be able to park on the street.

They're not going to have, you know, parking on properties because we're not giving people don't have one and a half cars per household.

I mean, people, it's everybody in the household owns a vehicle.

I mean, that's just the way the reality of it.

I don't know any household, even though you might have the e-bikes and you'd probably do that on the weekend leisurely, you still have your your car or your truck or whatever in the driveway.

So I mean, the state's got ripped up.

So I don't know how you can't get rid of parking without beefing up public transportation.

Yeah, the state law says that the maximum you can require for an ADU is one parking space per ADU bedroom.

And this what we recommend here is less than that.

It is um motorcycle.

One additional off-street parking space shall be required for any ADU that is greater than one bedroom in size or that is located on a property that does not meet at least 50% of the minimum required parking standard for the existing uses.

Um if we want to move on to the next slide.

A lot of these laws talk about um how to treat undersized lots.

Every year the state has been changing the laws to make it easier for property owners to build on undersized lots.

Legally non-conforming undersized lots, um, with a greater ability to reduce dimensional requirements for smaller lot sizes, additional modification, additional provisions for the zone for zoning modifications through the zoning officer.

These are what I think of as many variances with the zoning officer can give people small relief from dimensional zoning requirements.

Um and the state's approved bills that were just approved a few months ago this year go even further in this direction.

So we'll have to revisit that in the months to come.

Um on the next slide, another change is that the new state law requires cities definition of household to increase how many unrelated people can live in a single dwelling unit.

Um so the number of unrelated people that may live in a single dwelling unit increased from four to five, but not more than one person per bedroom.

And that limitation does not apply to certified recovery houses.

So that was changed in the definitions in uh in zoning.

The eddy pimental looking in the window.

Um another thing was the regulation of multifamily residential and nuplexes.

Um the problem we had in our regulations is that our regulations have always required larger minimum lot sizes for duplex and multifamily residential uses.

Um for example, in a certain zone, it might be that for a single family you need 5,000 square feet for a duplex, you need 7500.

Um these regulations are in conflict with state law now, because state law since 2023 has been saying that if a use is permitted, it's permitted.

You can't add special rules to certain things without making it a special use permit.

So in order to maintain this, these larger lot areas or duplexes and multifamily, and even the density requirements for multifamily.

Um, we're proposing making these things special use permits.

Um it seems a little bit like this changes in conflict with the goal of streamlining streamlining housing production, but it's balanced by other regulatory changes like the ADUs.

Um it seemed to be the only way to keep those standards in our regulations um without being illegal.

There's been case law um that come to that conclusion too from from what I understand here.

And new criteria were created in the zoning regulations that spell this out.

Um the next slide has other smaller changes to comply with state law, things like um changing the special permit hearing notifications to meet the law.

Um referring trailers as as manufactured homes.

Um eliminating several requirements for zoning officer review in favor of established review processes allowed through law.

A lot of times in the regulations it'll say you can do this with the zoning officers review, but it's gonna be something more like a process that's spelled out, like land development uh land development review in the regulations.

Um floor area of 3.0 in all the districts.

That's just something almost like a safeguard against overly large buildings on a lot, if that should ever occur.

Um also exemption of two uses from Section 19139's current limit of one residential structure per lot.

So we have this existing rule in zoning that says residential use can only have one structure per lot.

You can't have two houses on a lot.

We have to exempt ADUs from that, because in theory you could have a detached ADU and a house.

And another thing that is not in the state law, but that's recommended here is the number two on the bottom of that slide, where exempts properties in the R5 multifamily district from this requirement.

And that's to allow different multi-family types like townhouses and not limit multi-family to just one large building.

Um because if you can only have one residential building per lot, when you allow multi-family, you're forcing it all into one big building.

So that's not a change required by state law.

That's just something that really the zoning officer recommended as uh a recommended fix to something there.

Um there's one non-zoning ordinance amendment in all of this, which is to change the code of ordinances chapter two, division seven, which regulates the planning board to clarify the board's responsibility over development plan reviews and unified development reviews per state law.

Um this isn't state law anyway, it just says that they have those responsibilities, which they already they're already doing.

And as far as next steps, um like I said, the um the state just passed a new round of land use laws, so we'll have to bring those before you in the future.

Um, continue work on some of these other draft changes that I mentioned here.

We'll also have to amend the zoning map to conform to the comprehensive the new comprehensive plans future man land use map.

That's something that we're supposed to do within 18 months of approving the new plan.

And on another note, online permitting for land use applications is required by it's actually October 1st, not 31st.

Um and that's something that the state is is working with us on.

They're managing that project for all the communities in the state when people apply for planning board and other land use applications.

Um we'll be able to do that online.

Don't we don't we do that in open gov now?

We do for building permits and zoning permits, but not planning.

But we can use open gov as that platform.

Yeah, it will be that platform.

So it should be more convenient for everyone involved.

Yeah, I don't know if anybody has any questions.

So we we have had a few meetings on this.

We did have a lengthy um workshop, which was here in this chamber and live streamed.

Um so before we go out to public comment.

Anyone want to say anything from the council or obviously we can come back and say something before we vote.

We had the motion and second on the floor.

That was just to start the public hearing.

Um this time I'll open up the public hearing to those here in the chambers and anyone like to come forward and speak on this specific issue as has been presented.

Yes, sir.

Come right up.

Just uh give me a name and address and hi my name's Christian Scully.

Um I own and work with a company called Blue ADU.

Um 345 Taunton have these profits.

Welcome.

Um obviously this is an interesting topic to me personally.

We help people design uh and build accessory dwelling units.

Um we definitely agree that there's a housing crisis.

That's why these laws were put forth.

Um the reason Barrington and Providence eliminated their lot size requirement for detached um accessory dwelling units was because the whole point of the law is to increase housing production, and there are already restrictions in place in existing zoning regulations.

Um we believe that they're already restricted by um parking and by setbacks and by lot coverage.

So if you require parking, then not every lot can accept uh a new detached structure.

If you have a lot coverage percentage requirement, then if you have a four or five thousand square foot lot, and the house already takes up X percent, and there's already a garage or whatever, and you can't uh add more to that lot without exceeding the lot size, uh lot coverage requirement, um, then they already wouldn't be able to build a new detached unit.

So we feel that limiting it to 7500 square feet just kind of seems like an arbitrary line.

Why not 7,000?

Why not 8,000?

Um, you know, we think about the the property owners that are, let's say you have two identical um 5,000 square foot lots, for example, in East Providence, identical homes, identical lot sizes.

Uh the one on the left has an existing detached garage.

They want to make that into an accessory dwelling unit.

Under state law, it's existing, they could.

Their neighbor wants to build a detached garage.

It fits into lot coverage, it fits into setbacks, and fits into all the zoning requirements.

They can legally build a new detached garage.

They then uh sell the house.

And three years later, the new homeowner says, I have an 80-year-old mother I need to uh provide a home for.

We would like to convert our garage that we purchased into an ADU.

Well, can they do that?

We think that they should be able to do that.

Let's say that those two same property owners, the one had the existing detached garage and the neighbor doesn't have the existing garage.

They want to build a garage with a loft over it to house their aging parent to make a multi-generational household.

And um we believe that that does not increase the visual density.

So the whole idea behind accessory dwelling units is to increase housing production while not increasing the visual density of a neighborhood.

It's perfectly typical for uh a neighborhood to have a garage.

So if you build a structure that looks like a garage and the neighbor already has a garage, why should we be limiting that homeowner uh to be able to take care of their family either by housing a parent or uh an adult child, or you know, 30% of homeowners are uh cost burdened in housing.

Maybe they do want to rent it out, they should have that right.

It's their property, they want to build uh the identical garage as their neighbor.

Who cares if there's somebody living it?

That's our view, is that they should be able to make use of that space.

It doesn't increase it's not like putting up a uh an equal size house.

Um, so it's really not increasing density, it's density minimalized.

It's ex it's it's taking a house with a garage and building a house with a garage.

You know, we that that's our view.

So um our view is that that 7500 square foot rule, it kind of doesn't make a lot of sense to us because where do you draw the line?

You know, we understand that it came from the requirements for the existing requirements for uh duplex, but if the goal is to increase housing production and help families take care of their parents, take care of their kids, and and yes, generate rental income.

Um we should allow it it it doesn't seem as fair to us.

Um we've had a lot of people reach out that want to take care of their parents, and we go, well, we don't know if you can, you know, they just want to build a garage.

Well, we don't we know you can build the garage, and if it looks like a garage, we don't know if they're gonna let you house your parent in it, even though state law says that you should be able to, and the idea behind accessory dwelling units says that you should be able to.

Um so anyway, that's our take on it.

And uh interesting.

Keith, you have a response to that.

Yeah, I mean I don't think I would have an issue with the minimum lot size going away for that.

Um, the state law does allow no matter what your lot size is that you can have one of these for um disabled family members.

So that is some other another time that can be allowed.

Although that's a specific case, it gets complicated, like what happens when the family member isn't there anymore, and there's this unit there, it does make it more complicated.

But um Yeah, it's true.

I mean, the 7500 or the 20,000 or whatever the lot size is is a bit uh is a bit arbitrary.

And there will have to be the other requirements that have to be met with these.

But they can ask for a variance, right?

They can come in and just say, can we want to build, can we get a variance?

Right.

So the process is still the same.

Yeah.

It would be like if we had the limit of 7500, someone has six thousand, could apply to the zoning board for that.

Yeah, and if it's appropriate, it will be a good idea.

Yeah, they'd have to prove hardship to the board.

And everything else would have to comply.

Um all other parking and right, right.

So it could be done through variance.

Ask for a variant.

There's a well, as the gentleman's saying, you know, that could be denied.

Right, there's standards that need to be met.

I I will we have met with this gentleman um about two weeks ago and we've had this discussion.

There is, in my opinion, the law is not the state law is not really crafted that well because of the situation that I indicated with the two houses next together.

Because of the issue of the term existing.

This is you know, it's a policy decision of the council.

You could again providence in Barrington.

I was shocked when I heard that Barrington went down to zero.

Um, but that's a policy decision that this council could make.

The rationale, even though Keith said it was arbitrary, the rationale before um from the planning perspective of 7500 square feet was based upon the that's a requirement for the duplexes.

So we kind of just mirrored that because it a duplex is more than one house on a lot, right?

Similar, so it's similar.

So again, but that's just a recommendation that you could go down to zero if you want.

And I'm fine with the 75.

Yes, you may.

So the the only difference that we see between the the fact that it's a duplex on 7500 square feet is that it's really comes down to the word accessory.

So the accessory structure, there's a whole section in the zoning ordinance for sheds and pools and anything that is a defined as an accessory use.

Um we feel that as long as it meets those requirements, as long as it's X amount of feet from the the property uh sides, and as long as it doesn't exceed uh lot coverage and pervious, you know, surface coverage, um it it falls under the same category of accessory, so it's it's a bit different from duplex.

So having it just mold into the same thing, and just a note on the the variance topic, you know, a lot of these homeowners they don't have a ton of money.

They're trying to reach out to us to to mostly it's for creating multi-generational households, so it's caring for um we just uh signed on a new one today in Barrington actually, um, where it is a lot less than 20,000 square feet.

They have an 84-year-old mother, and they wanted to put her in the home with her and take care of her, so they don't have to put her somewhere else.

Um now because Barrington lowered that standard, we can now do that, and and that family has a solution for for their their parent.

Um I'm sorry, you you can't speak for me.

You'd have to come forward and use the microphone because the meeting is recorded.

So if this gentleman's done, I would ask if there are any other comments from anyone.

If so, please come forward.

So I think uh just before this young lady comes up, I just so Barrington, I think, and I think I know is is very different than the city of East Providence in that it doesn't have dense pockets like the center of the city is very dense and already has very small um lots as it is.

I mean, you will find pockets of double lots um that they're not utilizing with other accessories.

When we go out into you know either direction, they some of the lots do get bigger in the Ken Height area, and some of them in ward one, but not to where you know, if we have a zero, then you're gonna have people in the center of the city, or even some that live in other parts of the city that don't have lot large lots trying to now build.

And I I just again with the parking situation that we already have.

If you have the space, that's great.

I'm I'm all for it.

I know we have tons of housing that are going up throughout the city, they're not in people's backyards per se.

Um, so it doesn't meet that, keeping your family in the same property.

Um, but it does it doesn't fit for everybody or every community.

And I know Providence, again, is a different um a different type of a city to begin with, so a lot of the things that they do there don't work in this city um respectfully.

But I do appreciate you know, all right, and we'll get back to council comments, but right now um please proceed.

Just name an address for the record.

I'm uh Beth White.

I live in uh Rumford to Sutcliffe Circle, and I had to get up here and make a presentation about accessory drilling units.

It's originally here for chicken.

But my question was just what percentage of our lots are even at 7,000 square feet and below, like what does this even impact before we decide that we make the like do that math first?

I would say riverside.

We got very small lots.

And I'm not questioning them.

I mean, by a lot of East the standards of East Providence neighborhoods, it's a decent sized lot.

I don't know the number or percentage.

Um East Providence standards is a decent size lot where a lot of the lots in the center of the city um probably wouldn't beat that.

But I don't have a real percentage.

7500, yeah.

That's a that's for this part of the city, and certain parts of Riverside, like Councilman Lawson mentioned Yeah, there's not a lot in the center of the city that's 7500.

Right, and the and the policy is the policy.

If you follow it, no matter what, we don't need to know the number of of lots.

Um if if it applies, it applies.

I'm sorry, you can't speak without using the microphone because it's a legal question.

Right.

But you're welcome to come back and sure.

I don't want our city solicitor get get us in trouble.

Yeah.

It it does make sense if you're setting a zoning limit on how many accessory dwelling, how big the lot is to understand how many lots we have at various sizes.

So if we don't have many lots at 7,000 feet above that that qualify, we have a problem.

So we should understand what percentage of houses have what lot and what like what decision are we even making?

It's arbitrary 7500 feet.

We don't even know how many lots qualify, but we should know that first and say this percentage that this, this percentage is this, these houses qualify, these don't.

Do we have the right standard?

Ask that question before we just start saying things.

Anyone else here in the public I mean, I mean hang on one second.

I mean, again, I think it should be like 5,000 square feet, because that's probably the average area in the city.

I mean, we want to help, you know.

We've had two issues that tonight that talk about, you know, what spaces can occupy everything.

And I I one want to take care of human beings.

And uh I even in my ward, there are some, you know, there's some large ones, but probably you're looking at 5,000, you know, anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots in my ward.

Granted, there's gonna be some that are gonna be double and triple that, but when we come down to this, and we we we have two social issues in front of us, and for me, human beings, we gotta take care of our fellow man.

We have a housing crisis right now in the state in the country, and we can go on and on as to why there are.

But if we are to take care of our fellow East Providence people, and I've said it all along about and I said this the last time with Keith, how do we get older people who don't need four bedroom houses anymore, but still want to live in the city.

This is what we have to, this is what we have to strive for.

We want to keep people living in the city.

And five thousand, I I think the number should come down.

My my personal thing, it should come down to five thousand and build in the other gentleman could probably tell us how much uh if you want to call it a tiny house, how much per square foot it would cost.

But I've done enough research on there, and I've talked to most of you on here that you can fit two and three bedroom houses, five, six hundred, seven hundred square feet in today's, you know, engineering, and that expert could probably tell you more.

But we really should I don't know if we go down to zero like Barrington and Providence, but I think the number should be like five.

So seventy-five might not be the best, but five is better than zero.

I think five's better than zero.

I think we need to get there, and I I think we need to do that.

I mean, the problem with the city, and it's we have an aging population.

We talked about it.

How do we keep the you gotta take care, you gotta take care of where you came from?

You gotta take care of those people.

And how do we bring the new people in?

This is the way to do it.

And is that a motion?

Is that a motion?

Uh no, yeah.

It's emo, it's it's emotion.

I know it's emotion, but I it's emotion.

This is a public hearing of you.

I would love to you're allowed to change that if you want to.

I would love to change it to five.

Yeah.

So Keith, um, I'm but what is your opinion on going to five thousand?

I'm fine with going to five.

I think that would probably be a benefit, all things considered.

Yeah.

I think seventy-five, what they proposed, you can still get a variance.

It's a variance.

So if somebody if somebody is a good thing.

The other thing is I mean this is an ordinance.

If we're finding out that people with five thousand square are coming in, change it.

It's an ordinance.

We can change it.

But variances can be denied.

Yeah.

No.

And if they're denied, there's usually a reason.

It might just be anti-ADUs.

Yeah.

Well, you know, you think our zoning board is anti.

You think that they would vote against not the current one, but you know, that that's the things down the line.

We can't legislate people's thoughts like that.

I do I do want to put it.

We want to leave that we've talked about this before.

We want, and we've done a good job, this council, of making the city better placed than where we left it.

So you just answered the question.

We're gonna we don't know who's what's the makeup of those five people on that zoning board moving forward.

So to leave our mark to make this city a better place, I think it's five thousand.

Then, you know that that where we we always you always talk about taking care of townies, taking care of townies.

Well, I want to take care of townies, and the best way the five thousand is probably the average size lot in the city, and that that's what we got.

I mean, but do we know that's the average size?

I'm pretty I bet it's I bet it's more towards five thousand than any, you know, any senator city.

And what about the neighbors that have concerns about parking and other things?

You want to bring it down to five.

So hey, hang on, everyone.

So Mike and Keith, so would logistically legally if there were a change in that number, we would have to have another no, it could be changed tonight.

It could be changed tonight because this is a zoning ordinance, one passage only.

One passage, okay.

So no, go ahead.

So uh about the size of the ADUs, the size of the AD2s are limited.

Uh page 46, uh two bedroom.

It shall be no longer than excuse me, it shall no be no larger than two bedrooms, and a two-bedroom ADU shall be no larger than 1200 square feet or 60 percent of the floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.

So it's there they can't put another 1200 square foot.

Right.

We're talking about five, you know, if we're talking in that number, we're talking it just in my mouth in the head real quick.

We're talking about five you know if we're talking in that number we're talking it just did my math in the head real quick we're talking about five six hundred square foot maximum studio could enjoy it.

Yeah a studio could be nine hundred or uh or sixty percent of the floor area of the principal dwelling.

So there you know you can't put literally two huge houses on one lot.

Right.

But there are there are limits.

So just by the point that so in an average and I just did this real quick uh you know the in I just again I just did my ward and the average cape and the you know cape and co you know colonials the average cape comes out to sixteen hundred almost call it seventeen hundred square feet.

So then if you take that percentage what you said now we're down to like I the number I'm talking about a five six hundred square feet when you just said when you just gave that number detached that's what I'm saying.

So we're not we're not talking about you know uh putting another like you said another thousand square foot house on it and everything.

Sure do you want to add to this uh yeah um thank you um I would add in addition to your point sir about uh it being the 60 percent uh limited to sixty percent um but remember also that you're additionally limited by lot coverage so if the lot let's say for it just for example was four thousand just for example um if you were over the lot coverage you wouldn't be able to do it it already is restricted and I'd also like to add that um while you're talking about five six hundred square feet which is a great size for a small studio or or even a one bedroom we're doing plenty of those we're also seeing a lot of of existing garages that are 250 to 350 square feet and essentially they're designing a large comfortable hotel room basically size you know it's got a full kitchen it's got a bathroom then it's a large open studio um that's often for an elderly parent.

Now I can speak from personal experience um what actually got me into this industry was my wife and I wanted to take our detached garage uh not in East Providence but this was before the state law was passed and we wanted to convert it um for a living space for my mother in law uh we had to go for a variance the variants uh uh uh the zoning board they just flat out denied us and said well you already can do it under the state law at the time which said for elderly and disabled they've since gotten rid of the the term elderly which is interesting um but they said you can already do it uh under state law but when she's done with it you have to rip it out we were like we can't spend fifty thousand dollars you know converting this garage to a nice space and then she's done with it and we have to why wouldn't we add it to the housing stock?

Like and why do we have to burn money down the you know just to take care of our parent um so that's kind of where it came from so there are while there are situations where they would be able to do five six hundred square feet seven eight hundred square feet if the law and the lot coverage allow for it a lot of times it's in these existing smaller garages.

Now to your point um about you know there's parts of the city that are already dense um I would just suggest that in those dense part of the cities is it okay if they build a garage if the garage fits within the lot requirements for accessory structures um so most already have most already have garages um so they're they're they would be looking to just convert a on a pre-existing structure which they certainly can under state law that's a great point um but it's very different than now building a new which they probably would not qualify for because of the lot size but if they did or the building a garage or the coverage right but you just said that most of them have garages if someone did qualify for building a garage should they be allowed to convert that garage just the same as their neighbor whose garage existed.

So they they wouldn't they wouldn't now be able to well these no I'm saying no no in general so in in general just in general none of the the center of the city is a very old part of the city so none of the houses nor garage or other accessories even conform to today's um zoning or code.

So nobody everybody's on top of each other there are no setbacks from property lines you are on your neighbor's property line so that that's your garage is so they they wouldn't be able to tear it down they would not be able to put it up so if you have it save it and convert it otherwise it's not happening.

Yeah so that's a great example of how it's already limited by by zoning restrictions by existing zoning restrictions.

Well, it's where you don't even have to get into lot size because like you said, if there are, they can't meet the setbacks if they can't meet the law coverage.

Right.

It's a moot point.

You can't do it.

We can't help you do it.

Right.

You know, um, but if they could, man, it's a shame to tell them no if their neighbors got one and their lot is large enough and they can meet setbacks and they could build a garage.

Man, this is a real shame to say sorry, you can't take care of your parents.

Um so that's kind of the the angle work we're coming at.

Yep, thank you.

So anyone else who has not spoken yet that part of the public hearing.

One more request.

Is there anyone else?

If not, uh close the public hearing back to council comments or the director's comments.

Do you have an overall summary, Keith, to after hearing the discussions?

Um, I mean, we appreciate your consideration here.

To me, I think you know the the five thousand does make sense.

Do you see any harm to the city by going to the five thousand?

I don't because of all the other zoning regulations that are in play with something like this.

Okay.

It still might be difficult.

The majority of people looking to do uh a detached construction like that in their backyard.

So I make the motion to decrease it down to 5,000 square feet.

Whatever.

We can go on gone.

Oh, you got all right.

What so motion by Council Vice President Rego to uh decrease the number from was it 75 to 100 to uh 5,000.

Is there a second?

Second, second by councilwoman Suze under discussion um the solicitor.

Yes, so I just want to make it clear in your motion.

Um I'm looking at page 46 of 84, where it's under the ADU's uh 7500 squares, 7500 square feet.

We're gonna reduce that to 5,000.

I also want your motion to reflect that we have the authority to change it anywhere else that we need to change it uh consistent with that because I don't want to pick I can't pick it out every five so just want to make it clear that we uh we will change it, change it wherever we need to do to conform with that number.

You know, it was make your life difficult.

I know you did.

I I was I was all relaxed because I was on vacation, but now I'm all stressed out again.

So anyway, yeah.

So you'll add that to your motion.

Wherever uh wherever it's noted from 75 to 5,000.

And I think it might be only one place, but I I I defer to Keith.

I believe it's that one place, but it's a good point to just call it out.

Well, and it's okay for the second on the motion.

Okay.

Other discussion in the council.

If not, uh Madam Clerk, uh, would you please on just the amendment uh call a role of the council?

This is on the amendment as just uh proposed.

Councilman Fogerty.

Aye.

Councilman Lawson.

Aye Council Vice President Riga.

Aye.

Councilwoman Sousa.

Aye.

Council President Rodericks.

Aye.

That amendment passes uh five zero.

Now on the overall plan, is is there other discussion or a motion?

I made the motion.

It was do we need a new one because of the amendment.

Yeah, we should do it because we should second motion by councilman Fogerty to accept, seconded by Councilman Lawson.

Madam Clerk, please read the roll.

I'm sorry, what was that motion by uh Councilman Fogerty, seconded by councilman Lawson and just read the uh role of the council councilman Fogerty?

Aye.

Councilman Lawson.

Aye.

Council Vice President Rigo.

Aye.

Councilwoman Susa.

Aye.

Council President Rodericks.

Aye.

Passes five zero.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Keith, for here, and thank you for those who spoke tonight.

Keith, I went well, I went good on you tonight, right?

It was nice and you know, nice and relaxed.

Oh, he'll get you at some point.

Budget season's coming.

Next item, Madam Clerk.

New business, mayor communications, chief of staff, Patricia with Dindi.

Good evening, Council.

I will make this very quick.

Thank you.

We have um I know I on the first item we have the 9-11 ceremony that we have every year.

Um we I didn't mark that it was time to be determined, but we have set a time for 10 a.m.

We will start publicizing that.

Obviously, we'd love to invite the council, members of the community uh to um take part in that ceremony as we do each year with our police and fire.

Thank you.

We also in your packet, you have the letter to to the council regarding the EPP um TMA contract, our managerial um union contract.

I don't need to necessarily read that into recommend right.

Okay.

Uh in addition, um, and councilman um Fogerty, if you'd like to speak more on this, but we have the Vincent Mermoooli dedication unveiling September 6th from noon to two with the rain date of September 7th.

We're asking the community to end sure.

I think councilman Fogerty would take advantage tonight of maybe those viewing.

Um, if you want to just reiterate it's been shared, and it's uh in honor of Vincent Spamoli Vinny and uh uh Trish and Administration, everybody involved has been very helpful.

So uh hopefully the weather cooperates.

I've been keeping an eye on it, but it looks okay for Saturday.

So thanks for doing this, Trish, and everybody in the community.

Uh all are welcome, of course.

So thanks again.

Happy to collaborate with the clerk and council.

Um, in addition, we have our July Capital and Finance Expenses, which is also included in your packet.

I do have one, two, three, four, five proclamations.

Would you like me to no?

I would just like you to read the headings of what they are.

So we uh including your package the 2025 Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation, the 2025 Brazilian Independence Day Proclamation, our 2025 Alzheimer's Awareness Month Proclamation, our Suicide Prevention and Awareness Month Proclamation, also very important one, and as well as our childhood cancer awareness uh month proclamation.

All of these are uh very meritorious, and I would hope that um council members and others in the community uh when available could uh participate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief of Staff.

Next item.

Reports of other city officials number one request to approve residential handicap parking sign for 95 Ivy Street, East Providence, Rhode Island, 02914.

So this is um came as a request uh from a resident um in the ward who was needing access um directly in front of his residence due to no parking already on in the area and then overcrowding and not being able to access or having good access with his vehicle due to his um inability um mobile to move around.

Sure, and it's been recommended by city uh administrators zero motion, councilwoman sousa moves passage second second by the rest of the council, all in favor, aye, any opposed, the ayes have it.

Thank you, councilwoman.

Next item.

Um councilman Wilson, do you have anything for the school committee?

September 9th, they will be voting to finalize their budget.

If uh you've been watching following along, it's tough.

A lot of tough choices, you know.

Unfortunately, there's only so much that they can work with, and um I commend every member of the school committee and Dr.

Faran for their diligence and it's tough.

It's tough.

We we need teachers in the classroom, support staff, we need uh the specialist, and we can only do so much with what's there, and I commend them for what they're doing, and I plan on fully supporting their budget request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Chairman Lewis, do you want to add anything?

Are you all set?

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Next item.

Um introduction of ordinances for discussion and possible vote.

Number one in ordinance and amendment of chapter 18 of the revised ordinances of the city of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998 as amended entitled Vehicles and Traffic is amended by adding there to the following section 18-307, no parking Providence Avenue, both sides from Sunset Avenue North for 50 feet, Providence Avenue, East Side from Sunset Avenue South for 50 feet.

Introduced by Council President Rodrix.

Thank you.

I'm introducing this on behalf of the recommendations of our DPW director.

Also, you see there we're attached memos of the police department and based upon resident uh requests.

Uh passage passages moved by council fogeney, seconded by council vice president Rego and Councilman Lawson, Councilwoman Susa.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Yeah, I have it.

Next item.

And ordinance and amendment of chapter 18 of the revised ordinance of the city of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998 as amended entitled Vehicles and Traffic, Section 1, Subsection B of Section 18-269 entitles Stop and Yield Intersections Designated When Stops Required is amended by adding there to the following.

Providence Avenue, Northbound Traffic at Sunset Avenue, Providence Avenue, Southbound Traffic at Sunset Avenue, sponsored by Council President Rodericks.

Passage moved by Councilman Fogerty.

There was second, second by Councilman Lawson.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Unanimous.

Thank you.

Next item.

An ordinance and amendment of chapter 18 of the revised ordinances of the City of East Province, Rhode Island, 1998 as amended, entitled Vehicles and Traffic is amended by adding there to the following.

Section 18 Jazz 307, no parking, Lincoln Avenue, North Side from Crescent Avenue, Westerly, 175 feet.

Sponsored by Council President Rodericks.

Once again, similar requests coming from residents.

And as you can see, and I'll just take a second here to say that all of these are in an area of very, very narrow streets.

You see statistics were compiled about how many accidents have happened at these little intersections, et cetera.

Uh we received all the reports.

I uh agree with them.

Is there a motion?

Yep.

Motion one one yes, question.

Where is Lincoln Avenue Riverside?

Yes.

Where's Crescent View?

Lincoln is the square.

I know Lincoln.

That's the Lincoln Bar.

Where's Crescent?

Crescent view.

Crescent uh yeah, Crescent Ave.

There's a Crescent Avenue different from Crescent View.

It says Lincoln Avenue North from Crescent Avenue westerly, 175 feet.

Um think we're cut that's my neighborhood.

I grew up.

It's it's trees and it's presidents.

A field review is conducted by DPW staff.

Lincoln Avenue measures 20 feet wide, which is narrow for two-way traffic on both sides.

Um right in there, right in that area of Lincoln.

There is a Crescent Avenue.

Residents at 100 and 102 Lincoln Avenue were consulted.

Uh both expressed support and requested implementation.

Um it's right in that area.

I'm sorry, you can know what I think the DPW director does also take.

So on the on the map, Lincoln goes all the way down, and then Crescent comes up and under the Jackson Ave.

There is a crescent in that area to use the vernacular, it's called the Maze.

All right, yeah, no, I see it's we see it here on the map.

Yeah, because it's it's presidents and trees.

It's odd that that one is there.

Okay.

Uh I'll second.

Yep, yep.

First passage.

If there needs to be clarification, anyone who has different information, bring it forward.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have.

An ordinance and amendment of chapter two of the revised ordinance of the city of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled administration is amended by adding there to the following.

Article 11, East Providence, school bus violation detection monitoring system funds, sponsored by Councilman Lawson.

Councilman.

This is the adjustment we talked about.

Instead of taking the speed camera money, we take this new revenue that's not been baked into the budget, and we feed the school building project.

So that way we just discussed in executive session how much money we spent on these schools.

We got to make sure we got money to maintain them.

So basically, all this says is that the new violations from the speed camera, not the speed camera, the arm stop signs would be fed into the um school building fund, and this would be uh the entire amount that the city receives from these.

Right now, you speed by St.

Margaret's or any of the schools, you go by a red light at Catamore Boulevard, and it clicks, and the police officer just has to look at it and okay it.

And the police officer just has to look at it and okay it.

But under this state law, what they've done in the past, the school bus is the school bus cameras running the red lights at schools.

You go to the traffic tribun, you know, with the police officers.

Uh so what they've done is they've added more money.

The state gets more money, but they've taken the responsibility away from going to the traffic tribune in Warwick or Cranston, and they've given it to the police department.

So for this to work, and we need to do that's why we need to do more research.

An officer has to sit there and look at it and issue the ticket all along.

So this is gonna cost us more money than before.

Which they're gonna do no matter what.

But this is just saying the money that we get from these violations goes into the building fund.

The process you're talking about, it's gonna happen either way.

Yeah, but the process is now gonna cost the city more money because now you have an officer where before it went down, it went school bus, everything went the school buses, all went down to Cranston.

Right, but how much more?

They're already looking at pictures of speeding.

How many violations are you anticipating that's gonna take how much money?

Now you have to write up the whole.

We don't write up any of those tickets.

I I understand that with the truth with the with the traffic tickets.

We don't write any of them up.

I understand that.

But now we have to do the whole the police officer has a police officer looks at every traffic violation and has to sign off on it.

All he does is hit the button, but now you have to start the whole process.

He has to technically write the ticket, he has to go through the whole process.

This is more than just hitting a button.

So I'm I'm missing your point.

Why shouldn't the funds go into the schools?

Well, first, we don't know, we don't know where the numbers are gonna be.

And why are we gonna how do we know how much it's gonna cost the city to have you know police officers there?

Um I'm all for you know, down the line, seeing where we, you know, where we go.

We don't know.

So I'm gonna move back.

If you want to be against it, just vote against.

So hang on, hang on a second.

I I think what what we're getting at overall is we don't know anything yet.

I don't think there's been one but we know revenue is gonna come in from these violations.

We there should be some.

And that's all this says is when the revenue comes.

But I think we should wait and see what kind of money comes in.

And do we want all of it to go in?

We still have you know, a city to operate.

Now, there's an action.

We talked about it.

Hang on, let me let me finish.

Let me finish because that's my next comment.

Um, while we all say we support schools, I'll stand pat that no one is supported schools more than me from my time as a former school board chair, my 30 years working in the school department, and my time now supporting schools on all aspects of their operation.

It was my proposal, and I'm not a person that pats myself on the back.

I think you know me.

But it was my proposal with all of your support that took that extra three million dollars from the high school bond issue and said it's going to the school department.

All of it.

They still have that.

They have that three million dollars.

I don't think they've spent a lot of it.

Yeah, 2.8, and they're gonna come at us with um there'll there'll be more things, and we've supported every budget since I've been elected two terms.

We have supported every school budget to the point where certain school leaders even said last year, we're we're pretty good.

You don't have to give us any more.

We'll get by, but we gave them more.

So we can still do that.

I just think right now it's premature to say, let's take all this money and throw it in that fund.

That fund is already pretty healthy.

Okay.

And I I'm I'm willing to, you know, at some point say, okay, we got X amount of dollars in, let's put most of it, you know, whatever to the schools.

I'm one of five.

I make it.

Sure.

You guys don't want it.

Well, just that's just my take.

We have like the president said, we have 2.8 million, and points I was bringing out.

We obviously it's public safety.

You know, uh I'm I'm asked after reading the state law and how it's you know written and everything, maybe the money should go towards you know, the the pol you know, towards the police department and their budget, because they're gonna be the ones.

Maybe the money should go towards you know the the pol you know towards the police department in their budget because they're gonna be the ones, and I'm not saying uh, you know, they're the ones that are gonna be overseeing it and everything, and you know, 2.8 and we manage it, and hopefully for the council's down the line, and it's an interest bearing account that and as long as the school department stays on top of their you know, maintenance fees or you know, everything that has to happen, then uh and in there's maintenance plans, and I believe thank god we have the right superintendent.

I know at times, you know, you know, a lot of people like to beat the superintendent up, and shame on those people, but that's another story for another day.

I think she won't let the buildings deteriorate, and hopefully, future council but she needs money in order to deteriorate.

We have two point eight.

How long do you think that's gonna last, buddy?

Well they're gonna be dipping into it now.

But we we keep supporting them, and then how many how many tickets we'll get your motion right now?

But let me add this too.

There's the Martin Bond issue, and I attend those regular meetings, and they're ahead of schedule.

There may be more from that bond issue that I would propose would go to the schools.

But anyway, that's a motion by councilman Lawson to approve.

Is there a second?

Second, seconded by councilwoman Susa.

Madam Clerk, please read roll read the role of the council.

I'll have it.

Councilman Fogerty.

I don't want to add a comment.

Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Comment uh my comment is that I agree with Mr.

Lawson's theory on giving the monies towards the schools, and I agree with that should happen, but not all of it.

As as I said before, it's all public money, public community safety money.

So give the project, show it, and we'll and we'll put the money towards it, like council president Rodericks has said.

So I'm a nay.

Continue the role.

Councilman Lawson.

I council Vice President Riga.

Nay, Councilwoman Souza.

So um, I I've seen this play out already with the speed cameras.

Um, when we first started and it was brought before the council, it was promised to go for public safety and everything involved with public safety, and that was the pitch um that got the council on board.

Um, and then it spiraled into something else.

And I commend um the councilman of the fourth ward for wanting to delegate to to act to allocate this money to a specific place where it does what it's supposed to do.

The revenue is coming because of schools, um, and at the expense of this children's safety.

Um, and so some of it should be allocated to that.

Um I don't know a hundred percent, maybe not, but I think again, with any ordinance, once the figures come in and we can reevaluate, we can then amend ordinances to change that.

Um, but I am in favor of the um the reason and why we're doing it, so I'm uh uh an eye on that.

Council President Rodericks, uh, for the reason stated uh nay at this time.

So the motion fails uh two to three.

And these just for the record, these aren't new.

The people, city has been getting you know, money and people have been getting fined by red light, you know, for school bus violations.

This isn't something that just is brand new.

This isn't like the speed cameras, and I want to commend a particular person who's brought this to the forefront because safety is very important.

So this is maybe like the speed cameras, but it's not the red light violations have been a state law for 25 plus years.

But I you know, again, I want to commend an uh you know, an individual who really fought for this and you know, made this become an issue for the safety of the children of the city.

So then do we know how much the city's been getting year on year?

If this has been going on for for 25 years, because it's never since I've been on the council, but in any um report that I've seen red lights have been relatively new.

No, this is the school.

No, the school, like going through a red, you're going through a school bus when the flat, you know, when you're gonna be able to do that.

We'll never have I don't I don't believe I don't believe we well, we had a prior, I think the school department is by the way, this the pro the law indicated that's awarded by the school department.

I know that when uh Chief Francisconi was here, they didn't sign a contract with a prior company to get that private.

Um, but it had with all the respect, it hasn't been 25 years, it's been right, maybe like the last six four years.

No, but the state law state law's been around for a long time.

And you know, we're not getting revenue for and knows uh you know, and those of you.

We're not getting as much revenue, I don't think as much.

What's the number?

What's as much?

I don't I don't know exactly.

I know the percentages have changed under this new state law.

But yeah, each city and town got a percentage of those uh of those cameras.

No, most of the money went to the state.

But the city did get some.

Yeah.

We can uh we can try to figure out the number.

I I think it's um since I've been here, there was a contract that was signed by the school department um that I saw, and I don't know when that was entered into, but it was at least while I was here, so at least seven years.

But we don't know what the it goes back before Chief Franciscone, I'm sorry.

So guys, we have to talk through the chair and one at a time, please.

We don't know how much I personally don't know, but I'm sure the city does.

Yeah, the percentage or an estimate of how much revenue uh currently have an estimate of revenue, but I know that the former contract had 12% coming to the city, like 1212.5.

Okay, thank you.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Councilman Rigo, Councilwoman Souza.

All in favor?

I have it.

Thank you all.