Oct. 21, 2024 - Amended Regular Meeting

THIS MEETING CAN BE HEARD IN ITS ENTIRETY ON THE TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN WEBSITE WWW.MIDDLETOWNRI.COM OR THE DVD IS AVAILABLE AT THE MIDDLETOWN LIBRARY.

At a Regular Meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Middletown, RI at the Middletown Town Hall, 350 East Main Road, Middletown, RI in person, on Monday, October 21, 2024 at 6:00 P.M.

Council President Paul M. Rodrigues, Presiding

Vice President Thomas P. Welch, III

Councillor Peter D. Connerton, Sr.

Councillor Christopher M. Logan

Councillor Dennis B. Turano

Councillor Barbara A. VonVillas, Members Present

Councillor Emily M. Tessier, Absent

*AMENDED AND POSTED OCTOBER 17, 2024

POSTED OCTOBER 16, 2024

REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2024

TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN, RHODE ISLAND

The following items of business, having been filed with the Town Clerk under the Rules of the Council, will come before the Council at a regular meeting to be held on Monday, October 21, 2024, 6:00 P.M. Executive Session  and 6:30 P.M. Regular Meeting at the Middletown Town Hall, 350 East Main Road, Middletown, Rhode Island. Said meeting will be conducted in person, by telephone conference call/ webinar, members of the public may access and listen to the meeting in real-time by calling 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) or 1-888-475-4499 (Toll Free) and entering Meeting ID: 896 0216 6891 or on the web at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89602166891

If you choose to join the meeting by zoom or telephone, Council Rules allow for the Public to speak only during the Public Forum and Public Hearings. If calling in by telephone, pressing 9 raises your hand and pressing 6 will unmute.

The items listed on the Consent portion of the agenda are to be considered routine by the Town Council and will ordinarily be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Council, or a member of the public so requests and the Town Council President permits, in which event the item will be removed from Consent Agenda consideration and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. All items on this agenda, with the exception of the Public Forum Session, may be considered, discussed, and voted upon in executive session and/or open session.

Pursuant to RIGL §42-46-6(b). Notice – “Nothing contained herein shall prevent a public body, other than a school committee, from adding additional items to the agenda by majority vote of the members. Such additional items shall be for informational purposes only and may not be voted on except where necessary to address an unexpected occurrence that requires immediate action to protect the public or to refer the matter to an appropriate committee or to another body or official.”

Any person not a member of the Council, desiring to address the Council concerning a matter on the docket of the Council, not the subject of a Public Hearing, shall submit a written request to the Town Clerk stating the matter upon which he desires to speak. Persons are permitted to address the Council for a period not to exceed five (5) minutes.

The Middletown Town Council follows the codification of present-day general parliamentary law as articulated in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 10 th edition (2000), together with whatever rules of order the Council has adopted for its own governance. The motion to reconsider is one of the motions that can bring a question again before an assembly, and is designed to bring back for further consideration a motion which has already been voted on:

If, in the same session that a motion has been voted on, but no later than the same day or the next day on which a business meeting is held, new information or a changed situation makes it appear that a different result might reflect the true will of the assembly, a member who voted with the prevailing side can, by moving to ** Reconsider** [RONR (10

propose that the question shall come before the assembly again as if it had not previously been considered. (From Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, Robert, Evans et al., De Capo Press, 2004)

There were no reconsiderations.

1.    Executive Session - Pursuant to provisions of RIGL, Sections 42-46-2, 42-46-4 and 42-46-5 (a),  (2) Potential Litigation and (2) Potential Litigation - review, discussion and/or potential action and/or vote in executive session and/or open session.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to recess open session and reconvene in executive session at 6:01 p.m.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to recess executive session and reconvene in open session at 6:30 p.m.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to receive said claim and forward it to the RI Interlocal Trust.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to seal the executive session minutes pursuant to Section 42-46-7. RIGL.

PRESENTATION

2.    (Continued from the October 7, 2024, Regular Meeting)

Memorandum of William J. Niemeyer, Superintendent of Schools, re:  Middletown High School CTE Program.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to continue this item to a future meeting at the request of the School Administration.

3.    The Town Administrator will provide an update on the School Building Project.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to begin said School Building Project update.

Town Administrator Shawn Brown reviewed the following:

The design team continues to progress with the Construction Documents and will provide an interior space design update at the October 23rd SBC meeting.

The project team met with Bentley and their HVAC subcontractor at the existing MHS on October 10th to review the existing HVAC System to begin the process of identifying the areas to be repaired/upgraded.  A thorough investigation of the entire HVAC system shall be scheduled in the coming weeks.

Budget and Schedule:

The project remains on time and on budget.  An updated budget summary shall be produced for the October 23rd SBC meeting.

RIDE:

The RIDE Stage III DD packages were uploaded to RIDE on 10/1/2024.  Feedback from RIDE is pending.  The 60% construction document submission to RIDE is still scheduled for January 2025.

Planning Board:

The project team is prepared to present the master plan package to the planning board at a special planning board meeting scheduled for November 6th.

Fire Safety Code Board:

The design team has submitted an equivalency request for the use of window sprinklers in lieu of fire-rated glass at interior windows.  A hearing has been scheduled for December 3rd at the Fire Board.

The HVAC is at the current High School not part of the new Middle High School.

The project is on time and on budget.

4.    Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the Council, Citizens may address the town on one (1) subject only, said subject of substantive Town business, neither discussed during the regular meeting nor related to personnel or job performance. Citizens may speak for no longer than five (5) minutes and must submit a public participation form to the Council Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. All items discussed during this session will not be voted upon.

No one spoke during this session.

5.    Approval of Minutes, re:  Regular Meeting, October 7, 2024.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to approve said minutes.

6.    License of Burial, re:  Cynthia L. Smothers (for the benefit of Herman S. Santos), Section 51E, Grave 133.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to grant said license of burial.

7.    Communication of Tax Assessor, re: Cancellation of Taxes for certain Middletown Residents.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to receive said communication.

8.        Resolution of the Council, re: Cancellation of Taxes for certain Middletown Residents.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to pass said resolution.

9.    Application of Milk and Honey Kitchen, LLC dba Milk and Honey, 796 Aquidneck Avenue, for RENEWAL of a Victualling House License for the 2024-2025 licensing year.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to grant said license renewal.

10.  Communication of Melissa Kleinknecht, Varsity Cheer Coach, re:  Request for support to purchase new uniforms.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to receive said communication and authorize $4000.00 to be allocated from the President’s Discretionary Fund.

11.  Communication of James I. “Jimmy” Winters, President, NAACP, re:  Request for support for programs by placing an ad in the souvenir booklet for its 102nd Annual Awards Dinner.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to receive said communication and authorize a full-page ad in the souvenir booklet for the 102nd Annual Awards Dinner in the amount of $125.00 to be allocated from the Town Council President’s Discretionary Fund.

12.  Email communication of Nicholas Coogan, Chairman Middletown Open Space and Fields Committee, re:  Brown’s Lane, Burma Road Connector.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to receive said email communication.

Nicholas Coogan, Chairman Middletown Open Space and Fields Committee, addressed the Council requesting the Council consider reconnecting an old path from Brown’s Lane to Burma Road, inquiring if the Town is interested in re-opening the path for bicycles and pedestrians.

Discussion centered around the opening of the old path which is a Town right-of-way would involve Wanumetonomy Golf Course, the Catholic Diocese and the Navy; the suggestion would be to start with the Navy first, by contacting the Navy Planner to see if the Navy would entertain re-opening the path, the area has wetlands and Town Administrator Shawn Brown will contact the Navy for their input.

12A. Email communication of Karen Biastre, re:  Requesting a refund of taxes the town over collected with interest.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to receive said email communication.

Karen Biastre, Middletown addressed the Town Council reading the following into the record:

Discussion centered around Mrs. Biastre meeting with the Town Solicitor to review the information, state law was reviewed regarding the tax appeals process, St. George’s appeal/abatement and the Town Solicitor will report back to the Town Council.

Town Solicitor Peter B. Regan recused himself from acting on the following item #13 of business, due to a possible conflict of interest.

Attorney Peter Skwirz was present to represent the Town.

13.  (Public Hearing Advertised)

Public Hearing Remains Open.

An Ordinance of the Town of Middletown (Second Reading)

An Ordinance in Amendment to the Town Code Title XV, Chapter 152, Entitled “Zoning Code” , Article 4 – Definitions, Section 400, Article 6, § 602.  Schedule of District Regulations – Uses and Districts and Article 27C.  Short Term Rentals, § 27C01. Short-Term Rental. Application of District Regulations. (Planning Board recommendation is on file)

Public hearing remains open.

Philip Roberson, Middletown, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment.  Mr. Roberson explained that the ordinance takes value away from someone’s property and their ability to have a STR by right.

Gregory S. Estabrooks, Esquire, representing STROM, addressed the Council reviewing the following letter entered here:

Mr. Estabrooks noted that that if the Town Council passes the proposed ordinance there will likely be a lawsuit filed and would also request Attorney’s fees.

Attorney Peter Skwirz, representing the Town, noted the following: He will comment on the legal issues that were raised and leave it to the council to make the policy determinations.

First, the point that was raised about grandfathered status not being included in the ordinance. The zoning ordinance has a general provision as required by law to grandfather for all zoning ordinance amendments. So that would apply to this zoning ordinance amendment as well. There's really not a reason to put it in the zoning ordinance twice.

The second point, referencing the Judge Taft Carter, a decision that came down a few weeks ago. The decision is not binding on the town of Middletown. It's just a superior court initial decision and not a final decision. It's just a decision on a request for a preliminary injunction. Narragansett's ordinance was very different than the registration ordinance that Middletown has had on the books for a long time, unchanged. For instance, Narragansett wanted to put a cap on the total number of registrations that they could have in town and decrease that cap with the intent of phasing it out. When counsel referred to as a licensing ordinance, It's not a licensing ordinance. Your Chapter 98 is simply a registration ordinance. The cases referenced by Counsel previously, were other states, not Rhode Island and does not believe the ordinance is drafted to violate the dormant commerce clause.  You do not have to have the property as your residence, you just need to reside there during the rental period. There was a reference to the state fire code to regulate occupancy . There are provisions in the zoning ordinance completely unrelated to short-term rentals, just a regular single-family residence that limits the number of, for example, the number of unrelated people that you can have within the household. That has always been a part of zoning and not just part of the fire code. As for the ordinance not being consistent with the Comprehensive Community plan, Mr. Skwirz defers that to the Town Planning staff.

William Gauch, Middletown, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance, due to the way it is written, and suggests a temporary moratorium for short term rentals.  Mr. Gauch explained that the issue should be tabled for the next Town Council to address.

Marc Thayer, Middletown, addressed the Council noting that he is not a fan of how the proposed ordinance is written, but is in favor of an ordinance.  Mr. Thayer explained that an STR is commercial use in a residential zone.

Jeff Muller, Middletown, addressed the Council speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment, noting that the regulations are strict. Mr. Muller explained the benefits to the local economy from short-term rentals.

Edward McPherson, Middletown, addressed the Council explaining the need for data driven changes to the ordinance. Mr. McPherson noted that he is opposed to the proposed amendment to the ordinance.

Don Morin, Middletown, addressed the Council noting agreement that regulations are needed for short-term rentals, but noted concern with how the language is in the proposed ordinance amendment.

Erin Gauch, Middletown, addressed the Council noting that STR’s have no accountability and impacts the residents.

Kathleen Connell (Daughter), Middletown, addressed the Council noting the ordinance should not be amended, it should be a police matter for issues with STR’s.  Ms. Connell explained that she strongly objects to any regulation.

Kathleen Connell (Mother), Middletown, addressed the Council noting that she has never had an issue with her STR property rentals.

Suzette Sozio, Middletown, addressed the Council noting that STR’s are being strong-armed by the Town.  Ms. Sozio expressed concern that she may not get her registration for her STR.

Discussion centered around the Building Staff were told to process STR registration applications, people are concerned they are not guaranteed a renewal for their STR and the Town Administrator following up with the Building Office.

Discussion between Leon Amarant, Middletown, Attorney Peter Skwirz, Council President and Town Administrator centered around the meaning of “grandfathered in”, definition of abandonment of use, if you do not have your renewal application in prior to the adoption of this amended ordinance, you will not be affected (you can still file your application for registration of your STR) and the Town Administrator follow up with the Building Official about the window size requirement for STR’s.

Leon Amarant, Middletown, addressed the Council noting concern that the process for registering a new STR. Mr. Amarant did not agree with the establishment of an STR sub-committee of the Town Council.

Daniele Montefusco, Middletown, addressed the Council explaining that she believes in property rights and not being able to afford to live here, that is why people are doing STR’s.  Ms. Montefusco requests the Town Council to investigate the STR issue deeper.

Charles Roberts, Middletown, addressed the Council noting he believes in property rights and suggests resident input on all sides. Mr. Roberts explained the bad actors should be punished.  Mr. Roberts noted that he believes there should be some sort of ordinance.

Lynn Higgins, Middletown, addressed the Council noting concern with an issue with an inspector regarding windows in her STR.  Ms. Higgins explained that she does not rent often, but is working on getting her registration renewed for her STR.

Kathleen Connell (Daughter), Middletown, addressed the Council explaining that windows are expensive to replace and would like to continue renting as an STR.

Dan Garvey, Middletown, addressed the Council noting concern with the abandonment clause and how to prove that you are not intending to abandon your STR use.  Mr. Garvey suggests the laws be tightened up.

Discussion between Dan Garvey, Middletown, Attorney Peter Skwirz and Council President centered around abandonment of use for an STR, if the state changes the STR law that trumps Town ordinances, grandfathering in the STR use transfers with the property and how to prove you are not abandoning the STR use on your property.

Matt Pagos, Middletown, addressed the noting concern that during his inspection he had a window issue and feels like the Town is regulating everything to death.

Tami Holden, Middletown, addressed the Council noting that the Council should take more time with the proposed amendments to the ordinance.  Ms. Holden expressed concern with the 31 days or less timeframe for an STR and not placing restrictions on long-term rentals.

Council discussion centered around amending the requirement to live in the home to living on the property at the time of the rental and rental inspections.

Vice President Welch noted the following: There were two things during the discussion first as far as the subcommittee went and participation from the public. The public was invited to every single one of the meetings and actively participated, Mr. Amarant being one of them in all the meetings. So, they were not silenced. They were allowed to come or speak. Second,

A couple of people have mentioned being data-driven, that our decision is not data driven. And I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again because I think it bears repeating.

If you go to the police department and you get a list of violations that were at short-term rentals. For the past year, we did this in the committee and there's 133. I might be wrong, something like that. It was a very small number. Most of them were actually trash complaints. So based on that, you would say, well, there's 500 or 400 or 600, whatever, hundreds of short-term rentals. That doesn't seem like a very big number. It doesn't seem like there's a problem. Why are we even going through this?

And the analogy I'll give you is that let's say I live next door to a short-term rental new people show up for the weekend, they’re excited to be there. They want to go to the beach. They're making a bunch of noise. That’s okay. They go out to the bars that night. They come back, they're being loud, they're outside, and that's okay. I shut my windows, and after a while, it gets to the point where I call the police, and I make a noise complaint. But the police don't have a car that's available right then to come and deal with it. Or they do with the lights on, everything quiets down, and nothing becomes of it. I can't go knock on the door because the owner doesn't live there. So, I put up with it, nothing happens. Next weekend, it's another group of rentals. So, the data that we have does not show everything that actually happens. And people have said, we've been talking about this for a long time. I've been on the council for four years now, and when I started, we started the subcommittee again, but it had been talked about before then. It’s not a new problem, it’s something that we continue to look at because unlike most of the people that are here tonight, that are standing up for the short-term rental rights. There are people that are sitting home I hear from them. I get phone calls, emails, I see them in the store, they exist. So, my problem is the data that you're going to get does not tell the whole story. We have heard that summer homes have been a part of our town for 100 years, right? More than 100 years and this is true. A hundred years ago, Newport had the mansions of the wealthy that were only used in the summer.

Well, Easton’s point, I'm going to pick on them because that's where there's most of them.

We began to see conversion from farmland to Summer Beach Cottages. A hundred years ago, there were no rules regarding summer rentals because we didn't need them.

As our community became more developed, the density of the homes increased.

and short-term rentals are a whole different animal. Today, homes are purchased with the sole intent of renting a house during the summer season. This is a relatively new phenomenon; investors are able to buy a house either substantially renovate it or knock it down and rebuild and turn a profit by renting it as a short-term rental. What began as a few residents augmenting their household income has morphed into businesses operating in a residential neighborhood. Here's an analogy because I like them. I sell eggs on my stone wall in front of my house when we end up with a few extra dozen a fair amount of people out my way do that. Now, is that a business? If I turn my property into rows of chicken coops and put a walkout cooler in my driveway. I'm still selling eggs, but is it the same thing?

The consequences of this type of development are many. Neighborhoods are taking the brunt, Short-term rentals increase, and Neighbors decrease. Neighbors are what makes up a neighborhood. They are the family next door that'll feed your dog and take in the mail when you're away for the weekend, borrow a tool from, someone to help when you're in trouble or someone who has kids that become playmates, friends, and teammates of your kids. High rent paying vacationers might host loud parties, might stay up late and disrupt the neighbors nearby. The owners of these properties often don't live on the premises or in town or sometimes not even in the state, which makes confronting these disturbances difficult.

So, what do we do? More rules, which means more enforcement and that's easier said than done. I'll give you an example, making this up. A short-term rental is registered to rent eight guests, which means that the house has four bedrooms and at least four off-street parking spaces. The renters have some friends over. How are the officials going to ensure that no unregistered people are staying there overnight? They could knock on the door at two o'clock in the morning and ask for IDs. That's probably not going to go over well. The guests are being loud, prompting a neighbored resident to call the police. The cruiser shows up, the officers have to set up the noise meter to take a reading. That commotion then quiets the crowd, and no violation found. Now that doesn't mean the neighbor wasn't awoke nor couldn't get back to sleep. Next weekend, new set of renters. Imagine if you live on Ellery or Allston or Briarwood where houses are tight and the density of short-term rentals are high, you have multiple short-term rentals abutting your property. I live on Mitchell's Lane and I'm pretty sure there are six short-term rentals within a half mile of my house. Now there's more space out on Mitchell's, and to be honest, if it weren't for the driveways full of cars without estate plates on the weekends I wouldn't even know they were there. But any rules that we make have to go for everyone in all situations. The recent increase in short-term rentals and, in my opinion, those without on-site owners are the problem. The overwhelming majority of long-time short-term rental owners do a great job of screening renters, enforcing rules and are available to deal with issues. The surge of non-owner-occupied short-term rentals are making all the short-term rentals look bad, unfortunately putting them in the same boat. I think most residents will agree that there is a point at which there are too many short-term rentals and, in my opinion, we're there. However, everyone has the constitutional right to rent their property if they wish. So, we cannot legally ban them. We can't cap the number of STRs. We can't create a maximum density by neighborhood, and we can't make the registration's a lottery. What we can do is enact rules governing how it can be done. The two biggest issues I see are when the owner doesn't live on the property and the sheer number of rental guests by requiring the owner to live on the premises during the rental, it makes sense that unwanted behavior will be curtailed because the owner will be subject to disturbance just like the neighbors. Strom has said this ordinance takes the rights away from 94%of Middletown residents to rent their property. This would be illegal and is not what the ordinance is about. If you're unfamiliar with this percentage, approximately 6% of the houses in town are short-term rentals, which means 94% are not. Every homeowner can have a short-term rental provided that they live on the premises while renting. Additional strong pushback comes with the argument that we are forcing renters to share a house

with the owner. Not true. It depends on your setup. You might have a basement or a floor of your house which can be closed off during rentals. You may have an apartment over your garage. You might have a cottage on your lot. There are a number of scenarios that allow a homeowner to rent while residing on the property. Strom also has issue with the six-person maximum. The reasoning here is to allow the average family to be able to rent a short-term rental or three couples. Or somewhere in between, which will take away the bachelor party type event. It is these large gatherings that have the potential to disrupt the neighbors.

There are literally hundreds of short-term rentals now who do not have to abide by these new regulations as state law requires them to be grandfathered in. So, we are unable to limit bigger houses from continuing to accommodate the large groups. As I said earlier, every resident has a constitutional right to rent their property. Every resident also has the right to enjoy their property. If the house next door is infringing upon your right to enjoy your property because it's a rental business. We need to do something to protect you. I believe this ordinance is the best way forward to adjust the problem of unrestricted short-term rental expansion. I would also like to point out this is not just an issue in our town or state or nation. Governments everywhere are trying to come up with rules to control short-term rentals. I am most concerned about protecting the quality of life for Middletown residents and will be voting in favor of this ordinance.

Gary Mendoza, Middletown, addressed the Council noting that STR’s should be on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Mendoza explained the larger the property, most likely the larger the issues with renters on the property.

Councillor Turano inquired information regarding repeat offenders from STR’s.

Attorney Peter Skwirz explained that there is no license for an STR, it is a registration. Mr. Skwirz noted the Town would need state enabling legislation for licensing an STR.

Leon Amarant, Middletown, addressed the Council inquiring what other Town Council Sub-Committees were comprised of Council members only.  Mr. Amarant noted that it is not easy to get a Special Use Permit, and the proposed ordinance takes away 94% of the residents’ rights.

Discussion centered around other sub-committees of the Council (Budget and Sewer Sub-Committees), the Special Use permit process, Councillor Turano requested to continue this item for further discussion and if something changed in State Law regarding STR’s, that law would take precedence over the local ordinance.

On motion of Councillor Connerton, duly seconded, to adopt said ordinance on its second reading as amended.

Councillor Logan addressed the Council noting that this issue is being rushed.  Mr. Logan expressed concern about restricting the number of people in one rental. Councillor Logan suggested there be a change to licensing and have a three-strike rule.

Council President Rodrigues noted that there is no cookie cutter for STR’s.  Mr. Rodrigues explained the need to balance for all residents.  Council President Rodrigues noted he wants neighbors, not customers.

Councillor VonVillas addressed the Council explaining there was a first sub-committee that made changes to the ordinance and now the ordinance has fallen apart.  Ms. VonVillas believes that you should not do nothing, you should do something and can always change it in the future.

Councillor Turano addressed the Council suggesting a survey be sent to residents for their input on the STR ordinance. Mr. Turano also suggested that everyone should be grandfathered in.

Jeff Muller, Middletown, addressed the Council noting that this issue is based on emotions.  Mr. Muller suggested that all should adapt, explaining this is a vacation community.

Motion to adopt said ordinance on its second reading, as amended was withdrawn by Councillor Connerton

On motion of Councillor Connerton, duly seconded, to amend said ordinance from residing in the building at all times to residing on the property at all times; Councillor Turano voted NO to said motion.

Councillor Logan noted that he will support the amended ordinance.

Councillor Turano inquired why the Town Council is passing this ordinance, noting that this does not make sense.

There being no other persons present or on zoom desiring to be heard, public hearing was declared closed.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, to adopt said ordinance on its second reading, as amended; Councillor Turano voted NO to said motion.

Attorney Peter Skwirz left the meeting.

Town Solicitor Peter B. Regan returned to the meeting.

14.  Communication of Councillor Connerton, re:  MHS Mock Trial Team Donation Request.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to receive said communication and authorize $1000.00 to be allocated from the Town Council President’s Discretionary Fund.

On motion of Vice President Welch, duly seconded, it was voted unanimously to adjourn said meeting at 9:03 p.m.

Wendy J.W. Marshall, MMC

Council Clerk

supporting documentation is available at http://clerkshq.com/default.ashx?clientsite=Middletown-ri