July 30, 2009  Special City Council Meeting

 

CITY OF PROVIDENCE

RHODE ISLAND

CITY COUNCIL

JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS

 

No. 19 City Council Special Meeting, Monday, July 30, 2009, 7:30 o’clock P.M. (E.D.T)

 

PRESIDING

 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT

PETER S. MANCINI

 

ROLL CALL

 

PRESENT:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMEN APONTE, DELUCA, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN HASSETT, IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LOMBARDI, LUNA, SOLOMON, TEJADA, WOOD, COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG and COUNCILMAN YURDIN – 14.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

ALSO PRESENT:              Anna M. Stetson, City Clerk, Lori L. Hagen, Second Deputy City Clerk, Sheri A. Petronio, Assistant Clerk and Adrienne G. Southgate, Deputy City Solicitor.

 

 

INVOCATION

 

              The Invocation is given by COUNCILWOMAN BALBINA A. YOUNG.

 

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

              COUNCILMAN JOSEPH DELUCA Leads the Members of the City Council and the Assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

 

 

CALL FOR SPECIAL MEETING

 

COMMUNICATION FROM

COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETER S. MANCINI

 

Request, filed with the City Clerk, July 28, 2009, Requesting a Special Meeting of the City Council to be Called on the 30th day of July, 2009 at 7:30 o’clock p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall.

               Received.

 

 

WARRANT FOR SPECIAL MEETING

 

Warrant of the City Clerk to Vincent J. Berarducci, City Sergeant with Return Certification that he has notified each Member of the City Council of the Special Meeting Called for the 30th day of July, 2009 at 7:30 o’clock P.M., in the City Council Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall.

               Received.

 

 

ORDINANCES SECOND READING

 

              The Following Ordinances were in City Council July 27, 2009, Read an Passed the First Time and are Severally Returned for Passage the Second Time:

 

An Ordinance Providing for the Assessment and Collection of 2009 taxes in a sum not less than Two Hundred Seventy Six Million One Hundred Two Thousand Dollars ($276,102,000.00), and not more than Three Hundred Two Million, Six Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars ($302,689,600.00), being based on a One Hundred Percent (100%) of the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year Tax Collections, Amending Section 21-182 of the Code of Ordinances to reflect the Tax Classification Plan approved by the Rhode Island General Assembly, Amending Section 21-126 of the Code of Ordinances to raise the Personal Exemptions and setting the Homestead rates for Fiscal Year 2010.

 

              Read and Passed the Second Time, on Motion of COUNCILMAN HASSETT, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA, by the following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMEN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN HASSETT, IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LOMBARDI, LUNA, SOLOMON, TEJADA, WOOD, COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG and COUNCILMAN YURDIN – 13.

 

NAYES:              COUNCILMAN DELUCA – 1.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

              The Motion for Passage the Second Time is Sustained.

 

An Ordinance Making an Appropriation of Three Hundred Thirteen Million Five Hundred Forty Five Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Two Dollars ($313,545,652), for the support of the Providence School Department for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2010, and Repealing Ordinance Chapter 2009-29, No. 233, Approved May 29, 2009.

 

An Ordinance Amending a Compensation Plan for the Providence School Department and Repealing Ordinance Chapter 2009-32, No. 236, Approved May 29, 2009. 

 

An Ordinance Establishing the Classes of Positions, the Maximum Number of Employees and the Employees in certain Classes in the Providence School Department and Repealing Ordinance Chapter 2009-30, No. 234, Approved May 29, 2009.

 

              COUNCILMAN HASSETT Moves to Dispense with the Reading of the foregoing matter and Moves Passage of the Several Ordinances the Second Time, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA, by the following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMEN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN HASSETT, IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LOMBARDI, LUNA, SOLOMON, TEJADA, WOOD, COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG and COUNCILMAN YURDIN – 13.

 

NAYES:              COUNCILMAN DELUCA – 1.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

              The Motion for Passage of the Several Ordinances the Second Time is Sustained.

             

 

             

              COUNCILMAN JACKSON Moves to Reconsider agenda item number 6, seconded by COUNCILMAN APONTE, by the Following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCILMEN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN JACKSON, LOMBARDI, LUNA, SOLOMON, WOOD, COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG and COUNCILMAN YURDIN – 9.

 

NAYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMEN DELUCA, HASSETT, IGLIOZZI and TEJADA – 5.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

              The Motion to Reconsider is Sustained.

             

              COUNCILMAN JACKSON: It’s just not in my opinion something that should be in the Levy Ordinance.  It has nothing to do with the tax levy.  It basically has to do with an ordinance that I believe is sitting in the Ordinance Committee and that’s the proper means to deliver it.

 

              COUNCILMAN APONTE: I want to rise in support of the amendment.  Councilman DeLuca for months and months has had an ordinance in the Ordinance Committee to address this very issue and it’s my belief that the committee is where these decisions need be made.  It is through that process, through that negotiating process that these public policy decisions get made and for that very reason I will support the amendment.  Thank you.

 

              COUNCILMAN HASSETT: It’s not really three months Councilman, It’s been ten years that Councilman DeLuca has been pursuing this issue.  This should be a pretty good down payment in my estimation to try to get something done, because if it’s stuck in committee the administration has refused to act on it and it’s relative to a policy.  This is a good headstart, to start protecting the taxpayers of the city, and I complement Councilman DeLuca for hanging onto this issue for a while, He supported this particular amendment within the levy.  So, I think that we should pay him that respect in terms of getting the ball rolling.  Obviously, those who have voted to reconsider probably will vote to delete it but I would ask them not to do that.  This is a good down payment.  Let the Ordinance Committee take it up at a later time, but I think ten years is a long time to be dealing with this issue and I think it stays alive but it become a budget article.  Thank you.

 

              COUNCILMAN DELUCA: I don’t really have a preference, however, it’s dealt with as long as it’s dealt with.  Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with leaving it in the levy.  Let the ball get rolling.  We still have an Ordinance Committee.  We can go back to the Ordinance Committee and work on it if we can agree on an ordinance that will define things clearly.  The day we introduced the ordinance for passage we can introduce this ordinance for amendment, we can take it out of the Levy Ordinance and we can pass the new car ordinance.  I feel better doing that because we have an insurance policy with it in there.  If this didn’t happen through the actions of Councilman Igliozzi, the car ordinance would be at the North Burial Ground for the next fifty years.  So, it makes more sense to me to leave it where it is, it will do no harm and if next week, the week after, whenever it is that we can have the Ordinance Committee come up with a very simple language that will address the problem of abusing city vehicles.  Then we can take it out of here and pass the ordinance, but if we take it out of here there is no incentive to continue.  So, I will sit here and say vote against the amendment.

 

              COUNCILMAN SOLOMON: First of all, let me say that I’m partially to blame that this has not been addressed in a more expedited manner, but I have given Councilman DeLuca my word that in then next two months a decision will be addressed.  We will hopefully come to a conclusion and put it to rest.  Thank you.

 

              COUNCILMAN IGLIOZZI: I have to say something because this is so much fun.  Let me just give a little recap because I think it’s really interesting.  Just for everybody’s edification, in last year’s budget discussions we actually had this ordinance part of the budget negotiations.  An eventual agreement was we would not put it forward in the budget articles because the administration said they wanted to handle it through a policy on their own.  At that time, Councilman DeLuca always submitted his legislation dealing with it and that’s over a year ago, just that one again.  I don’t know how many times you submitted it and how many times it’s been relinquished in committee.  So, what happens is we gave a lot to the administration for over twelve months and one of my colleagues just recently said well you know when someone makes a commitment what you should do is badger them until they finally do it.  I said why would I do that?  If someone made a commitment to me, I presume they’re going to follow through on their commitment.  Unfortunately, they didn’t follow through on their commitment.  By the way that person was there in the Finance Committee as well as everybody else and it passed unanimously out of committee.  You know what’s kind of funny about this, this is really a simple issue and it’s a simple solution.  We have individuals who work for the city whether it’s Police, Fire or 1033, and they get certain privileges to use city vehicles and they get to take them home outside the city limits.  As you know, most people who work for the city don’t live in the city except for us fifteen here and one guy downstairs.  Practically everybody else doesn’t live in the city anymore.  So it’s interesting, of course, there is this big drive to supply and provide city vehicles to all the people who don’t live in the city but work for the city and on top of it don’t let them pay any mileage.  This section just simply says, and I know it’s difficult, and I’m sure it’s pretty complicated, but it’s a pretty simple solution.  It says that you can’t take a vehicle out of the city limits unless for official business.  Okay, that’s fine and it says if you do take it out for non-official business you just have to pay a reasonable mileage rate.  Now, I have a low income neighborhood that I represent and it’s very difficult for them.  In fact, it’s kind of funny when you go to the gas stations in my neighborhood and you go to the gas stations up the road you see a twenty cent difference.  They actually charge more in the lower income neighborhoods.  I swear to God it’s the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen, and you know what’s funny, my constituents have to take their own personal vehicles to work and so do yours and our constituents have to pay the taxes, the insurance and the gas and gas isn’t going to get any cheaper folks, it’s going to get more expensive.  One of the drivers in the administration keeps on always talking about it every year as well.  The cost of gas and electricity and all those types of utilities.  Well, you know what, you can still give that city worker the benefit of having a city vehicle to tool around in outside the city limits, but to ask them to just simply pay for the mileage isn’t much.  The state has that so we’re reiterating what the state does and what every other city and town does.  What’s interesting about the City of Providence is we’re the Capital City and we have no policy dealing with our fleet and it’s just languishing and languishing.  By the way, the administration agreed to this just to let you all know and they are all fine with it.  I got a call early today and they said, oh, can you have this taken out of the levy and I say why?  Because we can’t veto stuff in the levy.  So will you take it out and put it in the other ones because we will veto it there and then you guys can come back and you can override the veto.  My thinking was well why would we do that?  You’re all voting on it for the first time that’s fine.  Everybody has their own different reasons why you’re doing what you’re doing and it’s okay and I’m okay with it.  The interesting thing about it is this issue still needs to be addressed, not necessarily just for us or for our own political reasons or personal reasons, but it’s not fair to our taxpayers and the citizens in our neighborhood who are paying $3.20, $3.40, $3.50, almost $4.00 for a gallon of gas and having to suffer the high cost of insurance because we live in the city, the high cost of car taxes because you live in the city and don’t get a benefit of having a free vehicle from their employer like all these city employees do.  That’s the reality of it and the interesting thing about this is, is that we’re still not going to address it.  If it happens, so be it.  I hope it does.  Maybe, by the way, after ten years Councilman DeLuca, maybe this ground swell of support will force the initiation of actually creating a policy to address it.  All our administrators who work for the City of Providence have all these wonderful city vehicles, and by the way some are marked and some are not marked, maybe they will eventually have to pay just a little compensation back to the city taxpayer.  That’s what this is about.  On the other hand, by way folks is unfortunately part of this tax levy is the bigger issue.  You know what the bigger issue in the tax levy is?  We’re raising people’s taxes and you know what we’re talking about here?  We’re talking having city employees, administrators who make six figures and above pay a nominal mileage.  Aren’t our priorities skewed and so is the administrations.  You want to be caviler with the tax increase, but on the other end it’s clearly a caviler with the city taxpayer dollars.  My constituents who barely can afford to fill their car up with gas, I want to ask them to come on down here and why don’t you guys start issuing free cars to them.  It’s a fairness discussion here and asking city administrators who make six figures, who have the use of a city vehicle for their own personal private use to pay a simple mileage is not much to ask.  When they don’t live in the city most of them and they don’t even come from the city, but then again they get to dictate how we all live in the city.  So everybody do what you have to do.  Vote your conscience.  I would ask that if it is removed, Councilman DeLuca, someone told me that you have to badger the people to follow through on their commitment.  I would suggest that you do the same and we all badger the people who committed to you to get something moving in committee up and out and address it because it’s not fair to the city taxpayer and the people who live in our neighborhoods.  Thank you.

 

              COUNCILMAN APONTE: Very briefly, I don’t disagree with much of what was said.  The reinstatement of what the problem is I agree with and I think all of us agree with.  The problem needs to be addressed.  My argument is not that somehow by taking this out that we would support giving people vehicles.  What this article does is it doesn’t explain how this works.  Who gets charged fifty-five cents?  Who charges that person fifty-five cents a mile?  How is that collected?  What is the public policy?  Now, I’ve been around this city a little while, so there might be an instance in where a particular supervisor likes this guy and he doesn’t have to pay the fifty-five cents, but doesn’t like this guy and he does.  It creates an opportunity for selective enforcement.  It does not create appropriate policy.  It doesn’t even direct it to any particular person.  So where departments don’t have policy, don’t have a mechanism to establish the collection of this or the ability to collect it, the policies around how it’s collected and submitted to the city, this is a case where the cure is probably worse than the disease.  We’re creating an opportunity where there are no guidelines for this enforcement and there are not mechanisms for this enforcement.  My sense of it is, is that if we can move this tonight, we can move the ordinance that really begins to address in a systemic and practical way the solution to the problems that my colleague articulated.  So let’s not go for the real easy, un-effective way to do this.  Let’s sit down, bring the powers to be and put the appropriate pressure on and make this thing happen once and for all.  This doesn’t solve the problem.  It doesn’t go anywhere near solving the problem and I agree with the statement made by my colleague Councilman Jackson.  It’s probably even in the wrong document.  I’m not sure that this should be in the Levy Ordinance, but with all that said let’s not take the easy way out, let’s address this issue the way it need be, head on, thoughtfully and with all the stakeholders around the table.  Thank you, Mr. President.

             

              COUNCILMAN SOLOMON: I just want to reiterate one more time for the people that didn’t hear me.  I did say that this will be addressed within the next two months.

 

              COUNCILMAN LOMBARDI: I think the answer is there.  The Chairperson indicated that he will address it.  That means it’s going to go into committee.  Let’s not forget eight signatures we get it before us.  We don’t need them.  It’s that simple, Councilman.  This is an important issue for all of us.  You have the Chairman saying that he’s going to support it.  I think it’s up to him to get the votes and get it out of committee.  Let’s get the proper documentation.  If the administration is not going to put the policy in effect and submit it than you know what, it’s incumbent upon us.  Now if this was important to someone ten years ago, nine years ago, eight years ago, seven years ago, they just should have brought it up.  Obviously, it wasn’t that important.  It’s to bad.  These are the kinds of issues that we need to address.  I certainly support Councilman Solomon and I support whatever endeavor he has and I know this has been a strong personal issue with you.  I support you on this.  Let’s do it properly.  Thank you.

 

              COUNCILMAN HASSETT: I don’t want to belabor this but I will.  When we discussed this last year the administration was suppose to come up with a policy.  Here we are a year later and there is no policy on taking vehicles out of the city.  What Councilman Aponte talked about as far as a process, we can argue both ways.  We can do anything I think we want in the levy.  I don’t think that’s really an issue.  You can put anything you want.  I think the issue is, as a legislative act, if we say it’s fifty-five cents per mile and it’s reimbursable, it’s up to the administration to promulgate their rules and come up with their polices as to how they’re going to collect that.  It’s the word of the Council saying you have to pay for a vehicle if you’re using it for personal use that’s the issue.  It’s a statement of policy in a legislative package is all it is.  I’m not going to start micromanaging how it’s accomplished, but it’s clear on the printed page this is what we want to get done.  Fifty-five cents per mile and reimbursement when you use the car for personal use.  It’s been ten years and I don’t know, I don’t see why it’s a big thing.  I think there may be a power struggle going on.  I don’t know what it is.  The fact is, it’s a statement of policy in a document whether it’s in the levy, the appropriation ordinance or any other one.  I don’t see what the problem is.  It’s a statement of policy of the Council.  That’s really what it’s about.  I don’t understand what the problem is in voting for it.

 

              COUNCILMAN JACKSON Moves to delete Section 9 from the Assessment and Collection Ordinance (#6), seconded by COUNCILMAN APONTE, by the following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMAN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN JACKSON, LOMBARDI, LUNA, SOLOMON, WOOD, COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG and COUNCILMAN YURDIN – 10.

 

NAYES:               COUNCILMEN DELUCA, HASSETT, IGLIOZZI and TEJADA – 4.

 

ABSENT:               COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

              The motion to delete Section 9 from the Assessment and Collection Ordinance is Sustained.

 

              COUNCILMAN APONTE Moves Passage of the Resolution, As Amended, seconded by COUNCILMAN JACKSON, by the following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMAN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LOMBARDI, LUNA, SOLOMON, WOOD, COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG and COUNCILMAN YURDIN – 11.

 

NAYES:               COUNCILMEN DELUCA, HASSETT and TEJADA – 3.

 

ABSENT:               COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

              The motion for Passage the Second Time, As Amended is Sustained.

 

An Ordinance Relating to Article IV, Chapter 17, Section 17-189(5) of the Code of Ordinances.  (Disability Waiver Request) (Sponsored by Councilman Lombardi)

 

An Ordinance Relating to Article IV, Chapter 17, Section 17-189(5) of the Code of Ordinances. (Disability Waiver Request) (Sponsored by Councilman Lombardi)    

 

An Ordinance in Amendment of the Providence Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15, “Motor Vehicles and Traffic”, Article XI, “Motorized Vehicles”, Section 131, “Motorized Devices”.

 

              COUNCILMAN HASSETT Moves to Dispense with the Reading of the foregoing matter and Moves Passage of the Several Ordinances the Second Time, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA, by the following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMEN APONTE, DELUCA, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO,COUNCILMEN HASSETT, IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LOMBARDI, LUNA, SOLOMON, TEJADA, WOOD, COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG and  COUNCILMAN YURDIN – 14.

 

NAYES:              NONE.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

                                         

              The Motion for Passage of the Several Ordinances the Second Time is Sustained.

 

 

PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION

 

              COUNCILMAN LOMBARDI:

 

Resolution Amending Resolution No. 329, Effective July 13, 2009, Entitled: “Resolution Establishing a Commission to Study Tax-Exempt Institutions.”

 

              Read and Passed, on Motion of COUNCILMAN HASSETT, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA.

 

              The Motion for Passage is Sustained.

 

              COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG:

 

Resolution Requesting the Traffic Engineer to cause various streets located in Ward 11 to be established as “One-Way” streets as part of the I-Way Project or as part of the Rhode Island Hospital Circulation Plan.

 

              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI Refers the Resolution to the Committee on Public Works.

 

 

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE

 

COUNCILMAN JOHN J. IGLIOZZI, Chairman

 

              Transmits the Following with Recommendation the Same Be Severally Adopted:

 

              An Ordinance in Amendment of Chapter 2008-43, No. 381, Approved October 8, 2008, of the Ordinances of the City of Providence, making an Appropriation of Six Hundred Seventeen Million, Nine Hundred Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Dollars ($617,902,720) for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2010, As Amended. 

 

COUNCILMAN HASSETT Moves to Amend the Ordinance to restore $30,000.00 to the Department of Public Property, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA.

 

COUNCILMAN HASSETT Moves Passage of the Ordinance the First Time, As Amended, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA, by the Following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMAN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN HASSETT, IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LUNA, SOLOMON, TEJADA, WOOD and YURDIN – 11.

 

NAYES:              COUNCILMEN DELUCA, LOMBARDI and COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG – 3.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

The Motion for Passage the First Time, As Amended is Sustained.

 

 

An Ordinance Establishing a Compensation  Plan for the City of Providence and Repealing Ordinance Chapter 2008-42, No. 380, Approved October 8, 2008, As Amended.

 

              Read and Passed the First Time, on Motion of COUNCILMAN HASSETT, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA, by the following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMEN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN HASSETT, IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LUNA, SOLOMON, TEJADA, WOOD and YURDIN – 11.

 

NAYES:              COUNCILMEN DELUCA, LOMBARDI and COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG – 3.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

              The Motion for Passage the First Time is Sustained.

 

An Ordinance Establishing the Classes of Positions, the Maximum Number of Employees and the number of Employees in certain classes in the City Departments and Repealing Ordinance Chapter 2008-44, No. 382, Approved October 8, 2008, As Amended. 

 

              COUNCILMAN HASSETT Moves to Amend the Ordinance by changing the number of employees at the Solicitor’s Office from thirty employees to twenty nine, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA.

 

COUNCILMAN HASSETT Moves Passage of the Ordinance the First Time, As Amended, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA, by the Following Roll Call Vote:

 

AYES:              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI, COUNCILMAN APONTE, COUNCILWOMAN DIRUZZO, COUNCILMEN HASSETT, IGLIOZZI, JACKSON, LUNA, SOLOMON, TEJADA, WOOD and YURDIN – 11.

 

NAYES:              COUNCILMEN DELUCA, LOMBARDI and COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG – 3.

 

ABSENT:              COUNCILMAN NARDUCCI – 1.

 

The Motion for Passage the First Time, As Amended is Sustained.

 

 

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS

 

Communication from Melba Depeña, Executive Director, Providence Human Relations Commission, dated July 22, 2009, Informing the City Clerk that she is this day re-appointing Rochelle Lee of 172 Ontario Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02907, to the Providence External Review Authority (PERA), for a three year term.

 

              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI Receives the foregoing Communication.

 

Executive Order Number 2009-8, submitted by His Honor the Mayor, dated July 24, 2009, Entitled: “Creation of a Working Group Charged with Drafting Ordinances and Policies to Prohibit Prostitution in the City of Providence.”

 

              COUNCIL PRESIDENT MANCINI Receives the foregoing Communication.

 

Executive Order Number 2009-9, submitted by His Honor the Mayor, dated July 24, 2009, Entitled: “Directive to the City of Providence Board of Licenses Relating to Underage Exotic Dancing in the City of Providence.”

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

There being no further business, on Motion of COUNCILMAN HASSETT, seconded by COUNCILMAN DELUCA, it is voted to adjourn at 8:30 o’clock P.M. (E.D.T.), to meet again THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 at 7:00 o’clock P.M. (E.D.T.)

 

 

 

ANNA M.  STETSON

CITY CLERK