Here is a letter reprinted with permission from former Town Council member Greg Laboissonniere in support of Chris Piasczyk .
Voters of Coventry District 5;
I am asking for your support to elect Chris Piasczyk as your Council representative. Chris understands that being part of a cohesive team is imperative to achieving positive results. As head coach of a college women’s basketball team, Chris works each day to instill his players with qualities they will need for success; qualities like integrity, honesty and an outstanding work ethic to name a few! He applies these same principles as a supervisor for UPS, an ultimate group of team players! Being a great team player is how you get the job done! This is something that Chris’ opponent has yet to understand.
In my personal experience on the council with Ted Jendzejec, he was certainly not a team player and I found he didn’t work well with people of differing opinions, even those from within his own party.
In Mr Jendzejec’s first year as a Coventry Councilman, he conspired with two of his Democrat council colleagues to overthrow fellow Democrat Frank Hyde as president in an embarrassing public display of the ugliest kind of politics that included his co-conspirator’s resignation immediately following the ouster and resulted in a costly special election and a divided council unable to resolve even the most basic business issues under Mr. Jendzejec’s leadership!
Now his issue is that the “self insured” fund is depleted. The truth is Ted would have you believe the current council is responsible when in fact the fund had approximately $7.2 million when Ted took office in 2004 and only about $4.7 million when he was voted out of office in 2006. That’s a $2.5 million drop in two years. We are no longer self insured because the asset value is too low to sustain a catastrophic loss. We now have to pay insurance premiums from that fund.
Our Town Council is a five man body and once elected need to work as a team for all of Coventry. The voters recognized Ted was not a good teammate and DID NOT re-elect him!
Can the voters of District 5 and all of Coventry expect different results in the future?
Yes we can, by electing Chris Piasczyk to the Coventry Town Council District 5 seat.
Greg Laboissonniere
Coventry, RI
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Home Rule Charter Proposed Amendments
There was a size restriction on what could be submitted to the KC Times so I wasn't able to write at length about all seven of the proposed amendments to our Town Home Rule Charter, so here is the full summary.
There will be 11 referendum items on the ballot next Tuesday. Question numbers 1 through 4 are state of RI issues, questions 5 through 11 concern the Charter.
BTW - Here is a link that can be used to print a sample ballot - https://sos.ri.gov/vic/
I was a member of the Coventry Charter Review Commission that met from November 2009 to May 2010. We had a lot of discussion about many possible changes to our Home Rule Charter. In the end, the Town Council approved seven recommended changes that will be put before you, the voters, on November 2nd. There hasn’t been much information available about these proposed amendments, so here is a summary of them along with my recommendations:
QUESTION #5 TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.14 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that no collective bargaining agreement between the Town, including the School Committee, and any labor organization shall become effective unless and until ratified by the majority vote of the Town Council?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would require Town Council approval of all collective bargaining agreements, including those negotiated by the School Committee. Over 60% of the Town budget is allocated to paying for collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the School Committee. Presently, the Council approves all collective bargaining agreements, except those negotiated by the School Committee. The Council sets the tax rate necessary, however, to support all contracts and Town spending. A vote to APPROVE would provide the Council with authority to ratify School Committee collective bargaining agreements. A vote to REJECT would deny that power.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Town Council would not be involved in negotiations with any School collective bargaining unit. The School Committee would have the sole power to negotiate, but with the knowledge that any labor agreement would have to accommodate budget constraints as set by the Council.
** 10/27/10 Additional comment in response to a question - Article 16-2 of RI general laws gives the sole power to negotiate school contracts to school committees. The TC can't legally negotiate; what this amendment would do is give the power to approve or not appove a tentative labor agreement to the Council, they would have the final say. This has been the law in East Providence for several years and so far it has worked there.
QUESTION #6 ALL DAY REFERENDUM / CONCURRENT BUDGET APPROVAL
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article VIII, Section 8.18 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that an all day referendum shall be required when any changes to the capital improvement or operating budget at the financial town meeting exceed $180,000; and Section 8.10 be amended to provide that the capital improvement program and capital budget be approved by the Town Council concurrent with the operating budget?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would make any change to the capital improvement or operating budgets that total $180,000 or more subject to an all day referendum. Presently, only additions or subtractions alone or that net to this amount are subject to referendum. The amendment would also allow the capital improvement program and budget to be approved adopted at the same time as the Town operating budget, not thirty (30) days prior as presently provided. A vote to APPROVE, would make these changes. A vote to REJECT, would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. It is proposed to change the amount from $180,000 “net” to $180,000 “sum”, the total of all additions and reductions approved at the Financial Town Meeting, as the trigger for a referendum. Approving the capital budget at the same time as the operating is logical from a budget planning standpoint, and is something that is long overdue.
QUESTION #7 NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article II of the Charter be amended to provide nonpartisan elections for all local offices?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would, commencing in 2012, establish nonpartisan elections, where all candidates on the ballot for local offices appear without party designation. Presently, local elections are partisan -- meaning that party designation accompanies all candidates on the local ballot. Parties remain free to endorse candidates and candidates may use party labels. A vote to APPROVE means you support nonpartisan election of local officeholders. A vote to REJECT means you oppose this change.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. Four other communities in Rhode Island, and hundreds of cities and town across the country have nonpartisan elections. There is no Democratic way to pick up trash, no Republican way to plow snow. At the local level elections should be about voting for the most qualified candidates, period. Without the need to get approval from any political town committee, this may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office.
QUESTION #8 FOUR YEAR TOWN COUNCIL TERMS / LIMIT ON APPOINTMENT POWER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.01 of the Charter be amended to provide for staggered four (4) year terms for Council members, as presently served by School Committee members; and Article XVIII amended to eliminate Town Council appointments between general election day and the seating of new Council members commencing a new term?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would provide staggered four (4) years terms for Council members commencing in 2012. The staggered four (4) year terms for Council members would complement the present staggered four (4) year terms for School Committee members. The amendment would also eliminate Council appointments in the period between the general election and the seating of newly-elected members of the Council. Presently, each Council member is elected for a two (2) year term, and there are no limits on the timing of Council appointments.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The office of Council member is as important as the office of School Committee member. Lengthening the term of Town Council members puts them on a par with the School Committee, whose members currently serve four year terms. Running for office is a lot of work; making Council terms longer may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office. Eliminating “lame duck” Council appointments is common sense.
QUESTION #9 TOWN MANAGER QUALIFICATIONS / ACTING TOWN MANAGER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article V of the Charter be amended to raise the minimum qualifications for serving as Town Manager to a master's degree in certain fields, five (5) years of actual experience as manager or assistant manager of a municipality, and residence within the Town within six (6) months of appointment; and shall any person serving as an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements be eligible to serve no more than one hundred and eighty (180) days?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would increase the minimum qualifications necessary for an individual to be eligible for appointment as Town Manager by the Council. It would also prohibit an appointment of an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements from exceeding one hundred and eighty (180) days. Presently, the Charter contains lesser qualifications for Town Manager and does not deal with the length of time an interim Town Manager may serve. A vote to APPROVE means that you support the proposed changes to the Charter. A vote to REJECT means you do not support these changes.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Charter Review Commission and the Town Council believe that the requirements for the Town Manager position were watered down two years ago. The higher standards have served our town well in the past, and have not kept the town from finding qualified candidates for the position. Limiting an interim Town Manager term to 180 days would give the Town Council some incentive to find a permanent person for the position.
QUESTION #10 DEPARTMENTAL FUNCTIONS / TECHNICAL CHANGES / VOTING DISTRICTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article XII of the Charter be amended to update titles and functions; Article XIII amended to provide for consistency review of the capital improvement program; Article II be amended to delete local district apportionment by voters rather than population; and should the charter be amended with punctuation and grammar corrections and to achieve gender neutral terminology?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would update the titles and functions within the Department of Safety and Welfare; provide the Planning Commission with responsibility for ensuring consistency of the Town's capital improvement program with the comprehensive community plan; delete apportionment of voting districts for Council and School Committee by the number of voters in favor of apportionment based upon population. The amendment would also make technical, punctuation and grammatical changes throughout the Charter as well as employ gender neutral terminology. A vote to APPROVE means you support the proposed changes. A vote to REJECT means you oppose them.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The charter change would formalize what the Planning Commission has already been doing for years. The change in apportionment of voting districts is something that must be done to comply with Federal law. Antiquated title names/terms/phraseology would be replaced with modern language that would be gender-neutral.
QUESTION #11 MUNICIPAL COURT
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall the Charter be amended to provide for a Municipal Court, with its jurisdiction and operation governed by ordinance; provided, however, that if Court revenue does not sustain operation of the Court; the Council shall possess the power to abolish the Court.
EXPLANATION: This amendment would place the existence of the Municipal Court in the Charter. It would allow the Council to abolish the Court only if the Court was not self-sustaining. Presently, the Court is established by only by ordinance. This amendment would not place the jurisdiction and operation of the Court in the Charter. Those matters are presently governed by ordinance and this amendment would not change that. A vote to APPROVE would adopt this change. A vote to REJECT would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. There was no Municipal Court when our Home Rule Charter was implemented in the 1970s; had there been one at that time it certainly would have been included in the Charter. Bringing the Court within the Charter would also make it more difficult to remove this office for political reasons.
I hope this information will help you make an informed decision on Election Day.
There will be 11 referendum items on the ballot next Tuesday. Question numbers 1 through 4 are state of RI issues, questions 5 through 11 concern the Charter.
BTW - Here is a link that can be used to print a sample ballot - https://sos.ri.gov/vic/
I was a member of the Coventry Charter Review Commission that met from November 2009 to May 2010. We had a lot of discussion about many possible changes to our Home Rule Charter. In the end, the Town Council approved seven recommended changes that will be put before you, the voters, on November 2nd. There hasn’t been much information available about these proposed amendments, so here is a summary of them along with my recommendations:
QUESTION #5 TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.14 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that no collective bargaining agreement between the Town, including the School Committee, and any labor organization shall become effective unless and until ratified by the majority vote of the Town Council?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would require Town Council approval of all collective bargaining agreements, including those negotiated by the School Committee. Over 60% of the Town budget is allocated to paying for collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the School Committee. Presently, the Council approves all collective bargaining agreements, except those negotiated by the School Committee. The Council sets the tax rate necessary, however, to support all contracts and Town spending. A vote to APPROVE would provide the Council with authority to ratify School Committee collective bargaining agreements. A vote to REJECT would deny that power.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Town Council would not be involved in negotiations with any School collective bargaining unit. The School Committee would have the sole power to negotiate, but with the knowledge that any labor agreement would have to accommodate budget constraints as set by the Council.
** 10/27/10 Additional comment in response to a question - Article 16-2 of RI general laws gives the sole power to negotiate school contracts to school committees. The TC can't legally negotiate; what this amendment would do is give the power to approve or not appove a tentative labor agreement to the Council, they would have the final say. This has been the law in East Providence for several years and so far it has worked there.
QUESTION #6 ALL DAY REFERENDUM / CONCURRENT BUDGET APPROVAL
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article VIII, Section 8.18 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that an all day referendum shall be required when any changes to the capital improvement or operating budget at the financial town meeting exceed $180,000; and Section 8.10 be amended to provide that the capital improvement program and capital budget be approved by the Town Council concurrent with the operating budget?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would make any change to the capital improvement or operating budgets that total $180,000 or more subject to an all day referendum. Presently, only additions or subtractions alone or that net to this amount are subject to referendum. The amendment would also allow the capital improvement program and budget to be approved adopted at the same time as the Town operating budget, not thirty (30) days prior as presently provided. A vote to APPROVE, would make these changes. A vote to REJECT, would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. It is proposed to change the amount from $180,000 “net” to $180,000 “sum”, the total of all additions and reductions approved at the Financial Town Meeting, as the trigger for a referendum. Approving the capital budget at the same time as the operating is logical from a budget planning standpoint, and is something that is long overdue.
QUESTION #7 NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article II of the Charter be amended to provide nonpartisan elections for all local offices?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would, commencing in 2012, establish nonpartisan elections, where all candidates on the ballot for local offices appear without party designation. Presently, local elections are partisan -- meaning that party designation accompanies all candidates on the local ballot. Parties remain free to endorse candidates and candidates may use party labels. A vote to APPROVE means you support nonpartisan election of local officeholders. A vote to REJECT means you oppose this change.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. Four other communities in Rhode Island, and hundreds of cities and town across the country have nonpartisan elections. There is no Democratic way to pick up trash, no Republican way to plow snow. At the local level elections should be about voting for the most qualified candidates, period. Without the need to get approval from any political town committee, this may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office.
QUESTION #8 FOUR YEAR TOWN COUNCIL TERMS / LIMIT ON APPOINTMENT POWER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.01 of the Charter be amended to provide for staggered four (4) year terms for Council members, as presently served by School Committee members; and Article XVIII amended to eliminate Town Council appointments between general election day and the seating of new Council members commencing a new term?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would provide staggered four (4) years terms for Council members commencing in 2012. The staggered four (4) year terms for Council members would complement the present staggered four (4) year terms for School Committee members. The amendment would also eliminate Council appointments in the period between the general election and the seating of newly-elected members of the Council. Presently, each Council member is elected for a two (2) year term, and there are no limits on the timing of Council appointments.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The office of Council member is as important as the office of School Committee member. Lengthening the term of Town Council members puts them on a par with the School Committee, whose members currently serve four year terms. Running for office is a lot of work; making Council terms longer may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office. Eliminating “lame duck” Council appointments is common sense.
QUESTION #9 TOWN MANAGER QUALIFICATIONS / ACTING TOWN MANAGER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article V of the Charter be amended to raise the minimum qualifications for serving as Town Manager to a master's degree in certain fields, five (5) years of actual experience as manager or assistant manager of a municipality, and residence within the Town within six (6) months of appointment; and shall any person serving as an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements be eligible to serve no more than one hundred and eighty (180) days?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would increase the minimum qualifications necessary for an individual to be eligible for appointment as Town Manager by the Council. It would also prohibit an appointment of an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements from exceeding one hundred and eighty (180) days. Presently, the Charter contains lesser qualifications for Town Manager and does not deal with the length of time an interim Town Manager may serve. A vote to APPROVE means that you support the proposed changes to the Charter. A vote to REJECT means you do not support these changes.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Charter Review Commission and the Town Council believe that the requirements for the Town Manager position were watered down two years ago. The higher standards have served our town well in the past, and have not kept the town from finding qualified candidates for the position. Limiting an interim Town Manager term to 180 days would give the Town Council some incentive to find a permanent person for the position.
QUESTION #10 DEPARTMENTAL FUNCTIONS / TECHNICAL CHANGES / VOTING DISTRICTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article XII of the Charter be amended to update titles and functions; Article XIII amended to provide for consistency review of the capital improvement program; Article II be amended to delete local district apportionment by voters rather than population; and should the charter be amended with punctuation and grammar corrections and to achieve gender neutral terminology?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would update the titles and functions within the Department of Safety and Welfare; provide the Planning Commission with responsibility for ensuring consistency of the Town's capital improvement program with the comprehensive community plan; delete apportionment of voting districts for Council and School Committee by the number of voters in favor of apportionment based upon population. The amendment would also make technical, punctuation and grammatical changes throughout the Charter as well as employ gender neutral terminology. A vote to APPROVE means you support the proposed changes. A vote to REJECT means you oppose them.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The charter change would formalize what the Planning Commission has already been doing for years. The change in apportionment of voting districts is something that must be done to comply with Federal law. Antiquated title names/terms/phraseology would be replaced with modern language that would be gender-neutral.
QUESTION #11 MUNICIPAL COURT
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall the Charter be amended to provide for a Municipal Court, with its jurisdiction and operation governed by ordinance; provided, however, that if Court revenue does not sustain operation of the Court; the Council shall possess the power to abolish the Court.
EXPLANATION: This amendment would place the existence of the Municipal Court in the Charter. It would allow the Council to abolish the Court only if the Court was not self-sustaining. Presently, the Court is established by only by ordinance. This amendment would not place the jurisdiction and operation of the Court in the Charter. Those matters are presently governed by ordinance and this amendment would not change that. A vote to APPROVE would adopt this change. A vote to REJECT would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. There was no Municipal Court when our Home Rule Charter was implemented in the 1970s; had there been one at that time it certainly would have been included in the Charter. Bringing the Court within the Charter would also make it more difficult to remove this office for political reasons.
I hope this information will help you make an informed decision on Election Day.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
New Article - Town Budget
News article from Kent County Times:
Council passes bare bones budget
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
HANNAH PIECUCH
hpiecuch@ricentral.
COVENTRY — The town council passed a level-funded budget on Monday night.
Residents will have the opportunity to uphold or deny the budget at the financial town meeting, scheduled for June 8.
Council President Raymond Spear, Vice-President Laura Flanagan and Glen Shibley were in attendance at the meeting and all supported the budget. Kenneth Cloutier and Frank Hyde were absent.
The budget reflects cuts or level-funding in nearly every department, said Town Manager Thomas Hoover in his report. For the most part, residents won’t see many changes to their services, he said.
He also mentioned the cuts made by the school committee, which amount to $1.3 million and take into account a level-funded municipal budget, cuts in state aid, and a five-year debt reduction plan.
“The main message is that there will be no increase in the tax rate this year as we approach the financial town meeting.”
Flanagan wanted to know how much town services will change under this budget.
“I hope to provide the same level of services,” Hoover said in response. But one area that will change is the police department.
The approved budget removes a request for two replacement officers and the department may lose up to four officers this year, Hoover said. Public safety is one of his top priorities as manager, he said, but there isn’t much he can do about the reductions in the budget.
If state aid comes in higher than expected, the council will restore the police department as much as they can, the three council members agreed.
As public discussion of the budget began, resident Bruce Desrosiers asked where Hyde and Cloutier were. “Ken Cloutier represents me and I would like to know if he would have an opinion, were he here.”
Later, Ron Gizzarelli agreed. Noting that Hyde and Cloutier have been absent from many recent meetings, he suggested that the Charter Review Commission look at penalizing council members who have many unexcused absences. “I think they should look at members not attending meetings or skipping meetings. If they don’t like [what’s being voted on] I want to hear their reasons.” His comment was followed by applause.
Hyde was absent, he said, because of a recent illness, but he is not happy with the budget that was passed. “Ray Spear and Laura Flanagan and Glen Shibley have been voting together since they got on the council,” he said. “It just seems to me that what they’re doing is taking all the money from the programs for sports and kids programs and paying the lawyers with it.”
Cloutier could not be reached for comment.
Resident Gary Beaudoin, a retired teacher, said the council should consider asking for a $0.50 per $1,000 tax increase. Finance Director Warren West estimated that such an increase would give the town about $1.7 million more in revenues.
“I’m very disturbed that there is a freeze affecting the town,” Beaudoin said. “I totally disagree with your position on no increases. It’s a philosophical problem. There are two kinds of councils in this town that are very dangerous. There is the liberal council that gives the store away — they give the unions whatever they want. And there is council that is too conservative and it’s ‘no, no, no.’” His comments, as well, were followed by applause.
Resident Ron Flynn thanked the council for taking the position that they have. “Thank you for being bold enough to keep the taxes level-funded,” he said. “I volunteer to drive the bus during football season for the cheerleaders. I don’t get a stipend or anything. More people need to step up and do that.”
School Committee Chairwoman Katherine Patenaude said she did not agree with the cuts being made to keep the budget level-funded. “I thought we made it pretty clear how much we need the $500,000 to keep from cutting people. I also don’t agree with the structural deficit [you’re creating] by using one-time sources of revenue. That is philosophically a stance that I can’t agree with.”
Coventry has been one of the highest taxed communities in the state ever since he first moved here 30 years ago, said Spear. He doesn’t ever want Coventry to become the least taxed area, but to bring the taxes down it’s going to take time and cuts like the ones being made this year.
“Rhode Island is in trouble, if you haven’t noticed,” Flanagan said as the comments drew to a close, “because we’ve spent and we’ve spent and we’ve spent. Level funding the budget is the only way to correct overspending so that we can get back down to a place where we can grow again. I do not think this room is representative of all the taxpayers in this town. I represent those taxpayers. I stand by this budget just as I did last year and holding the line on the taxes for just one year doesn’t get us where we want to be.”
It’s not easy to refuse to give agencies the money that they are asking for, Shibley added. “But the taxpayers I’ve talked to tell us ‘no more taxes’ and I don’t think they’re represented here. If I’m wrong they can come out and say ‘tax us more’ at the financial town meeting.”
All three members of the council that were present voted to approve the budget.
Council passes bare bones budget
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
HANNAH PIECUCH
hpiecuch@ricentral.
COVENTRY — The town council passed a level-funded budget on Monday night.
Residents will have the opportunity to uphold or deny the budget at the financial town meeting, scheduled for June 8.
Council President Raymond Spear, Vice-President Laura Flanagan and Glen Shibley were in attendance at the meeting and all supported the budget. Kenneth Cloutier and Frank Hyde were absent.
The budget reflects cuts or level-funding in nearly every department, said Town Manager Thomas Hoover in his report. For the most part, residents won’t see many changes to their services, he said.
He also mentioned the cuts made by the school committee, which amount to $1.3 million and take into account a level-funded municipal budget, cuts in state aid, and a five-year debt reduction plan.
“The main message is that there will be no increase in the tax rate this year as we approach the financial town meeting.”
Flanagan wanted to know how much town services will change under this budget.
“I hope to provide the same level of services,” Hoover said in response. But one area that will change is the police department.
The approved budget removes a request for two replacement officers and the department may lose up to four officers this year, Hoover said. Public safety is one of his top priorities as manager, he said, but there isn’t much he can do about the reductions in the budget.
If state aid comes in higher than expected, the council will restore the police department as much as they can, the three council members agreed.
As public discussion of the budget began, resident Bruce Desrosiers asked where Hyde and Cloutier were. “Ken Cloutier represents me and I would like to know if he would have an opinion, were he here.”
Later, Ron Gizzarelli agreed. Noting that Hyde and Cloutier have been absent from many recent meetings, he suggested that the Charter Review Commission look at penalizing council members who have many unexcused absences. “I think they should look at members not attending meetings or skipping meetings. If they don’t like [what’s being voted on] I want to hear their reasons.” His comment was followed by applause.
Hyde was absent, he said, because of a recent illness, but he is not happy with the budget that was passed. “Ray Spear and Laura Flanagan and Glen Shibley have been voting together since they got on the council,” he said. “It just seems to me that what they’re doing is taking all the money from the programs for sports and kids programs and paying the lawyers with it.”
Cloutier could not be reached for comment.
Resident Gary Beaudoin, a retired teacher, said the council should consider asking for a $0.50 per $1,000 tax increase. Finance Director Warren West estimated that such an increase would give the town about $1.7 million more in revenues.
“I’m very disturbed that there is a freeze affecting the town,” Beaudoin said. “I totally disagree with your position on no increases. It’s a philosophical problem. There are two kinds of councils in this town that are very dangerous. There is the liberal council that gives the store away — they give the unions whatever they want. And there is council that is too conservative and it’s ‘no, no, no.’” His comments, as well, were followed by applause.
Resident Ron Flynn thanked the council for taking the position that they have. “Thank you for being bold enough to keep the taxes level-funded,” he said. “I volunteer to drive the bus during football season for the cheerleaders. I don’t get a stipend or anything. More people need to step up and do that.”
School Committee Chairwoman Katherine Patenaude said she did not agree with the cuts being made to keep the budget level-funded. “I thought we made it pretty clear how much we need the $500,000 to keep from cutting people. I also don’t agree with the structural deficit [you’re creating] by using one-time sources of revenue. That is philosophically a stance that I can’t agree with.”
Coventry has been one of the highest taxed communities in the state ever since he first moved here 30 years ago, said Spear. He doesn’t ever want Coventry to become the least taxed area, but to bring the taxes down it’s going to take time and cuts like the ones being made this year.
“Rhode Island is in trouble, if you haven’t noticed,” Flanagan said as the comments drew to a close, “because we’ve spent and we’ve spent and we’ve spent. Level funding the budget is the only way to correct overspending so that we can get back down to a place where we can grow again. I do not think this room is representative of all the taxpayers in this town. I represent those taxpayers. I stand by this budget just as I did last year and holding the line on the taxes for just one year doesn’t get us where we want to be.”
It’s not easy to refuse to give agencies the money that they are asking for, Shibley added. “But the taxpayers I’ve talked to tell us ‘no more taxes’ and I don’t think they’re represented here. If I’m wrong they can come out and say ‘tax us more’ at the financial town meeting.”
All three members of the council that were present voted to approve the budget.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
FINANCIAL TOWN MEETING JUNE 8TH VOTE YES ON A ZERO TAX INCREASE FOR COVENTRY
Forwarding an e-mail from Town Council member Laura Flanagan. The TC proposes a zero tax increase budge for the fiscal year begining 07/01/10. The meeting will be held 3 weeks from tonight. I hope many of you will attend and support a zero tax increase. Thanks.
-------------------------------------------
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD..... >>>> MARK YOUR CALENDARS!
Time: 7:00 pm
Date: Tuesday, June 8th, 2010
Place: Coventry High School
EVERY REGISTERED VOTER IN COVENTRY MUST ATTEND TO VOTE AND ENSURE NO TAX INCREASE FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
Please note that a NO TAX INCREASE BUDGET is being forwarded to the Financial Town Meeting for approval by the voters of Coventry. As a community, we must once again join together and say:
1) NO to wasteful spending that jeopardizes our current senior tax freeze
2) NO to the "same old way of doing business"
2) NO to the greed of special interests
3) NO to even one more dime
3) YES to a no tax increase budget
We can do more with less. We can continue to provide services to our residents. We must continue to say enough. We must not allow the scare tactics of special interests groups to derail our community from spending tax dollars conservatively and responsibly.
Please come out and let your voice be heard on June 8th, 2010. This is your right and your time to weigh in. Every voter counts!
Sincerely,
--
Laura A. Flanagan
Vice President
Town Council, Town of Coventry
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead
-------------------------------------------
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD..... >>>> MARK YOUR CALENDARS!
Time: 7:00 pm
Date: Tuesday, June 8th, 2010
Place: Coventry High School
EVERY REGISTERED VOTER IN COVENTRY MUST ATTEND TO VOTE AND ENSURE NO TAX INCREASE FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
Please note that a NO TAX INCREASE BUDGET is being forwarded to the Financial Town Meeting for approval by the voters of Coventry. As a community, we must once again join together and say:
1) NO to wasteful spending that jeopardizes our current senior tax freeze
2) NO to the "same old way of doing business"
2) NO to the greed of special interests
3) NO to even one more dime
3) YES to a no tax increase budget
We can do more with less. We can continue to provide services to our residents. We must continue to say enough. We must not allow the scare tactics of special interests groups to derail our community from spending tax dollars conservatively and responsibly.
Please come out and let your voice be heard on June 8th, 2010. This is your right and your time to weigh in. Every voter counts!
Sincerely,
--
Laura A. Flanagan
Vice President
Town Council, Town of Coventry
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
Here is an idea to reform our Congress. Please look this over, if you agree with it please consider signing a petition via this link:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/21/congressional-reform-act-of-2010
A friend sent this along to me. I can't think of a single reason to disagree.
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
Target: Congress
Sponsored by:
A Fed Up American
The following bill should be introduced in Congress. It would be called the Congressional Reform Act of 2010. It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They believed that serving in Congress is an honor not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, who would serve their terms, then go home and back to work, Remember, Congress currently has the lowest approval of any entity in Government. Now is the time when Americans should join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system; Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective one year after passage of the bill .
The American people did not make contracts with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/21/congressional-reform-act-of-2010
A friend sent this along to me. I can't think of a single reason to disagree.
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
Target: Congress
Sponsored by:
A Fed Up American
The following bill should be introduced in Congress. It would be called the Congressional Reform Act of 2010. It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They believed that serving in Congress is an honor not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, who would serve their terms, then go home and back to work, Remember, Congress currently has the lowest approval of any entity in Government. Now is the time when Americans should join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system; Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective one year after passage of the bill .
The American people did not make contracts with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Heathcare Reform Info
Here is a website that provides a lot of information on the new healthcare law:
http://www.kff.org
Link to a summary of the law:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/finalhcr.pdf
http://www.kff.org
Link to a summary of the law:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/finalhcr.pdf
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Giant development proposed in Cov.
Article from KC Times about the proposed "Sherwood Village"
---------------------------------
Giant development proposed in Cov.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
HANNAH PIECUCH
COVENTRY — The biggest development since the Centre of New England has been proposed for Coventry.
An 192-unit, eight-building, three-story apartment complex with the working name of “Sherwood Valley” has been proposed for New London Turnpike at Tiffany Lane, just northeast of the intersection of Arnold Road.
The Cardi Corporation presented their master plan to the Coventry Planning Commission at a special meeting exclusively for this development on Thursday night, according to Chairman Russell Crossman. Former Chairman Cynthia Fagan and Crossman switched positions this week, making Fagan vice-chair.
Cardi brought nearly ten experts with them to present the development, Planning and Zoning Officer Jacob Peabody said. They had a planner, landscape architects, their architect, a wetlands biologist, an environmental scientist, a civil engineer, a real estate expert and a traffic engineer.
The only reason that Cardi was able to propose something like this is because they have a comprehensive permit with at least 25 percent affordable housing, Peabody said. Of the 192 units, 48 units are going to be low to moderate income. This project first came before the commission at a pre-application meeting about two years ago, he added.
The commission took no action on the request for master plan approval on Thursday, Crossman said, because they didn’t even get through all the elements of the meeting. The introduction of the plan took over two hours and because of the large number of residents who attended, Crossman waived usual sections of the meeting where the commission asks their questions. Residents spoke about the development for more than an hour, he said, and it was nearly 11 p.m. when the meeting closed, with the discussion continued to next month.
“We felt it was more important to allow the public to speak than to speak ourselves,” Crossman said.
Although many of the residents expressed concern and resistance to the development, Crossman reserves his opinion until he has had more time to review the proposal, he said. “I haven’t prepared my questions [for Cardi] yet and I want to digest everything. That was a lot of information just from the experts. Plus we received documents from the residents, some were hand written, others were e-mails, on top of the oral testimonies that were given.”
Next to the Centre of New England, this is probably the largest development that Coventry has seen in the last few years, Crossman said. “And I’m hoping it’s the largest thing we see for the next ten.”
Representing his district, Councilman Glenford Shibley attended the meeting to speak against the proposed development, he said.
“They’re trying to circumvent almost a dozen of our Coventry zoning ordinances under the premise of providing 48 low to moderate income housing units,” he said. “This is only on 12.4 acres of land. They’re using 50 percent of the land for the buildings; you might liken it packing them in like sardines.”
In Shibley’s opinion, the proposal doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood, and when school-aged children are taken into account and many of the other waivers Cardi seeks are added up, it could be a large loss for the town.
There are some places in town where housing units of this magnitude would be welcome, Shibley said, and that would be in one of the blighted areas in need of revitalization. “We have Anthony Mill where we would just love to have 48 low to moderate income units. We already have it. It’s already built. It’s already a few stories high. Why build something new?”
State Representative Patricia Serpa (D-27 Warwick, West Warwick, Coventry) also attended the meeting to represent her constituents, she said.
“While everyone understands the need for affordable housing, given every municipality’s current state of fiscal affairs, we’re hoping the commission considers the impact [of a development this large] on schools, services like trash pick up and traffic.”
New London Turnpike is busy as it is, Serpa said. “One will expect at least 192 additional cars traveling new London turnpike and there are very many practical concerns.”
Revitalizing a blighted area is an alternative that Serpa also encouraged Cardi to look into, she said.
In a prepared speech, Tiffany Lane resident Susan Falcone asked the planning commission to consider denying the application, based on a legal precedent.
In spite of the large number of affordable housing units, the planning commission does have the right to reject this application, Falcone said, drawing from a Rhode Island Supreme Court Case, The Housing Opportunities Corporation et al v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Johnston.
In that case, which Falcone believes is very similar to this situation, the state Supreme Court upheld Johnston’s decision to reject an application to build a low to moderate income housing facility that was three stories high and did not blend with the surrounding neighborhood.
“The main thing I got out of [the case] that related to us is that the judge ruled that the multi-unit apartment proposed in Johnston would have ‘deleterious effects on the character of the surrounding area’ and that it ‘wasn’t consistent with the local needs,’ which they said were a better site and building design,” she said.
Looking at the proposal submitted by Cardi, Falcone thinks “that this development, with 40-foot tall buildings, would just not fit in the single family area on half-acre lots in that part of town. The density of the dwellings is way over the limit of density for acre in that area,” she said.
Her other concern relates to wetlands near the site, Falcone added. “There is a stream in the back of this property that is a feeder to Tiogue Lake and that goes to the Pawtuxet River. Flat Top Pond is also nearby.” Area residents have also expressed concerns about drainage, if this project goes in, she said.
As an alternative, Falcone suggested that the developer take a tax deduction and donate half of the property to the town of Coventry for open space, she said. “There is no open space, or passive recreation in our area of town and this donation would definitely improve the character and morale of our neighborhood. There could be walking trails and benches, perhaps even fitness stations, as I have seen on similar property in Lincoln abutting the Twin River Reservoir.”
Also from the neighborhood, Wayne Asselin, who lives on Lorraine Avenue near Hopkins Hill Road, echoedconcerns about the zoning in the general area. “That area is zoned for single-family homes,” he said. “The proposal is for something other than that and something that to me is out of scope for the neighborhood. It will dwarf the homes nearby. That’s my concern.”
He hopes that the planning commission will hear out everyone who comes to speak on the matter as the process continues, Asselin said, “and ask their own questions and make a decision that’s in the best interest of the town.”
The meeting has been continued to Wednesday, Feb. 10, Crossman said, and at that time the planning commission will ask their questions and there will be more time for public comment.
Stephen Cardi Jr. of the Cardi Corporation did not return calls to comment.
---------------------------------
Giant development proposed in Cov.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
HANNAH PIECUCH
COVENTRY — The biggest development since the Centre of New England has been proposed for Coventry.
An 192-unit, eight-building, three-story apartment complex with the working name of “Sherwood Valley” has been proposed for New London Turnpike at Tiffany Lane, just northeast of the intersection of Arnold Road.
The Cardi Corporation presented their master plan to the Coventry Planning Commission at a special meeting exclusively for this development on Thursday night, according to Chairman Russell Crossman. Former Chairman Cynthia Fagan and Crossman switched positions this week, making Fagan vice-chair.
Cardi brought nearly ten experts with them to present the development, Planning and Zoning Officer Jacob Peabody said. They had a planner, landscape architects, their architect, a wetlands biologist, an environmental scientist, a civil engineer, a real estate expert and a traffic engineer.
The only reason that Cardi was able to propose something like this is because they have a comprehensive permit with at least 25 percent affordable housing, Peabody said. Of the 192 units, 48 units are going to be low to moderate income. This project first came before the commission at a pre-application meeting about two years ago, he added.
The commission took no action on the request for master plan approval on Thursday, Crossman said, because they didn’t even get through all the elements of the meeting. The introduction of the plan took over two hours and because of the large number of residents who attended, Crossman waived usual sections of the meeting where the commission asks their questions. Residents spoke about the development for more than an hour, he said, and it was nearly 11 p.m. when the meeting closed, with the discussion continued to next month.
“We felt it was more important to allow the public to speak than to speak ourselves,” Crossman said.
Although many of the residents expressed concern and resistance to the development, Crossman reserves his opinion until he has had more time to review the proposal, he said. “I haven’t prepared my questions [for Cardi] yet and I want to digest everything. That was a lot of information just from the experts. Plus we received documents from the residents, some were hand written, others were e-mails, on top of the oral testimonies that were given.”
Next to the Centre of New England, this is probably the largest development that Coventry has seen in the last few years, Crossman said. “And I’m hoping it’s the largest thing we see for the next ten.”
Representing his district, Councilman Glenford Shibley attended the meeting to speak against the proposed development, he said.
“They’re trying to circumvent almost a dozen of our Coventry zoning ordinances under the premise of providing 48 low to moderate income housing units,” he said. “This is only on 12.4 acres of land. They’re using 50 percent of the land for the buildings; you might liken it packing them in like sardines.”
In Shibley’s opinion, the proposal doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood, and when school-aged children are taken into account and many of the other waivers Cardi seeks are added up, it could be a large loss for the town.
There are some places in town where housing units of this magnitude would be welcome, Shibley said, and that would be in one of the blighted areas in need of revitalization. “We have Anthony Mill where we would just love to have 48 low to moderate income units. We already have it. It’s already built. It’s already a few stories high. Why build something new?”
State Representative Patricia Serpa (D-27 Warwick, West Warwick, Coventry) also attended the meeting to represent her constituents, she said.
“While everyone understands the need for affordable housing, given every municipality’s current state of fiscal affairs, we’re hoping the commission considers the impact [of a development this large] on schools, services like trash pick up and traffic.”
New London Turnpike is busy as it is, Serpa said. “One will expect at least 192 additional cars traveling new London turnpike and there are very many practical concerns.”
Revitalizing a blighted area is an alternative that Serpa also encouraged Cardi to look into, she said.
In a prepared speech, Tiffany Lane resident Susan Falcone asked the planning commission to consider denying the application, based on a legal precedent.
In spite of the large number of affordable housing units, the planning commission does have the right to reject this application, Falcone said, drawing from a Rhode Island Supreme Court Case, The Housing Opportunities Corporation et al v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Johnston.
In that case, which Falcone believes is very similar to this situation, the state Supreme Court upheld Johnston’s decision to reject an application to build a low to moderate income housing facility that was three stories high and did not blend with the surrounding neighborhood.
“The main thing I got out of [the case] that related to us is that the judge ruled that the multi-unit apartment proposed in Johnston would have ‘deleterious effects on the character of the surrounding area’ and that it ‘wasn’t consistent with the local needs,’ which they said were a better site and building design,” she said.
Looking at the proposal submitted by Cardi, Falcone thinks “that this development, with 40-foot tall buildings, would just not fit in the single family area on half-acre lots in that part of town. The density of the dwellings is way over the limit of density for acre in that area,” she said.
Her other concern relates to wetlands near the site, Falcone added. “There is a stream in the back of this property that is a feeder to Tiogue Lake and that goes to the Pawtuxet River. Flat Top Pond is also nearby.” Area residents have also expressed concerns about drainage, if this project goes in, she said.
As an alternative, Falcone suggested that the developer take a tax deduction and donate half of the property to the town of Coventry for open space, she said. “There is no open space, or passive recreation in our area of town and this donation would definitely improve the character and morale of our neighborhood. There could be walking trails and benches, perhaps even fitness stations, as I have seen on similar property in Lincoln abutting the Twin River Reservoir.”
Also from the neighborhood, Wayne Asselin, who lives on Lorraine Avenue near Hopkins Hill Road, echoed
He hopes that the planning commission will hear out everyone who comes to speak on the matter as the process continues, Asselin said, “and ask their own questions and make a decision that’s in the best interest of the town.”
The meeting has been continued to Wednesday, Feb. 10, Crossman said, and at that time the planning commission will ask their questions and there will be more time for public comment.
Stephen Cardi Jr. of the Cardi Corporation did not return calls to comment.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Meetings this week
Town Council Jan. 25
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4232/2010/85148.pdf
School Committee Jan. 26
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4248/2010/84966.pdf
Planning Commission - Jan. 27 regular monthly meeting
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4233/2010/85090.pdf
Planning Commission - Jan. 28 special meeting regarding Sherwood Village
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4233/2010/85087.pdf
Charter Review Commission - Jan. 28
As of 01/14/10 this meeting has not yet been posted on the Secretary of State website
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4232/2010/85148.pdf
School Committee Jan. 26
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4248/2010/84966.pdf
Planning Commission - Jan. 27 regular monthly meeting
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4233/2010/85090.pdf
Planning Commission - Jan. 28 special meeting regarding Sherwood Village
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4233/2010/85087.pdf
Charter Review Commission - Jan. 28
As of 01/14/10 this meeting has not yet been posted on the Secretary of State website
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Sherwood Village Public Hearing Planning Meeting Jan. 13
Hi All
Just wanted to make you aware of a Planning Commission meeting next Wednesday that has the following agenda item:
Wednesday January 13th 7:00 PM
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING-Continued
Comprehensive Permit/Master Plan: “Sherwood Village”; Sherwood Development, LLC
Proposed 192 Multi-family Units Consisting of 8 Buildings with 24
Dwelling Units (on 8.2 acres - WA) Each with 25% Deemed to be Affordable
AP 16, Lot 3; Zone R-20
New London Turnpike
The location of the proposed development is at the corner of New London Turnpike and Tiffany Road. The current zone is R-20 which means each house must be on a lot that has at least 20,000 sq. ft of land. As it stands right now no more than 17 single family homes can be built at this site. Because this is a development that contains so-called "affordable housing" it has "fast track" status whereby instead of having to obtain a zoning variance from the Town Council, they can go directly to and possibly get approval from the Planning Commission to build the 192 living units on 8.2 acres instead of 17 single family homes.
Here is the link to the actual agenda:
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4233/2010/84239.pdf
If you live on the Turnpike or Tiffany Road or nearby of even you have a home on Tiogue Lake I suggest that you attend this meeting. This is a "Master Plan" public hearing which basically is the only chance you will have to speak out on this project. If the public does not come out and voice their comments, questions or concerns then the Planning Commission could possibly approve the development as proposed that night.
The meeting takes place on Wednesday, Jan. 13th at 7 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 1670 Flat River Road.
>
> A copy of the plans are available at the Department of Planning, Town Hall Annex, 1675 Flat River Road.
> If you cannot attend the meeting, please write a letter or send an e-mail ASAP stating you cannot attend the meeting and that you would like your statement to be part of the record. Send it to:
> Paul Sprague, Director of Planning and Development
Town of Coventry
> 1675 Flat River Road
> Coventry, RI 02816
> RE: Sherwood Village
Paul's e-mail address is psprague@town.coventry.ri.us
Just wanted to make you aware of a Planning Commission meeting next Wednesday that has the following agenda item:
Wednesday January 13th 7:00 PM
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING-Continued
Comprehensive Permit/Master Plan: “Sherwood Village”; Sherwood Development, LLC
Proposed 192 Multi-family Units Consisting of 8 Buildings with 24
Dwelling Units (on 8.2 acres - WA) Each with 25% Deemed to be Affordable
AP 16, Lot 3; Zone R-20
New London Turnpike
The location of the proposed development is at the corner of New London Turnpike and Tiffany Road. The current zone is R-20 which means each house must be on a lot that has at least 20,000 sq. ft of land. As it stands right now no more than 17 single family homes can be built at this site. Because this is a development that contains so-called "affordable housing" it has "fast track" status whereby instead of having to obtain a zoning variance from the Town Council, they can go directly to and possibly get approval from the Planning Commission to build the 192 living units on 8.2 acres instead of 17 single family homes.
Here is the link to the actual agenda:
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4233/2010/84239.pdf
If you live on the Turnpike or Tiffany Road or nearby of even you have a home on Tiogue Lake I suggest that you attend this meeting. This is a "Master Plan" public hearing which basically is the only chance you will have to speak out on this project. If the public does not come out and voice their comments, questions or concerns then the Planning Commission could possibly approve the development as proposed that night.
The meeting takes place on Wednesday, Jan. 13th at 7 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 1670 Flat River Road.
>
> A copy of the plans are available at the Department of Planning, Town Hall Annex, 1675 Flat River Road.
> If you cannot attend the meeting, please write a letter or send an e-mail ASAP stating you cannot attend the meeting and that you would like your statement to be part of the record. Send it to:
> Paul Sprague, Director of Planning and Development
Town of Coventry
> 1675 Flat River Road
> Coventry, RI 02816
> RE: Sherwood Village
Paul's e-mail address is psprague@town.coventry.ri.us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)