EAST PROVIDENCE — It was learned at the Tuesday, May 26, School Committee that the on-again, off-again saga, which has become of the proposed installation of an artificial turf field at East Providence High School through a public-private partnership, is apparently off again for the moment.
Committee legal counsel Bob Silva told the Committee he along with City Solicitor Tim Chapman, City Planning Director Jeanne Boyle and a lawyer for the Bayside F.C. youth soccer organization, the group seeking to construct the field, met for two hours earlier in the day to hash out some concerns in the language of the agreement raised by Mr. Chapman and the Planning Board.
The likely result of the legal conversations will be a so-called “three-party agreement” between the city, the School Department and Bayside. The pact would remain 25 years in length and be termed a “usage” agreement. Bayside’s financing package is in place, Mr. Silva said, and hasn’t been affected by the drawn out negotiations. But if the complex will be completed by the start of the 2015-16 term is somewhat in doubt.
“The issues raised by the Planning Department and the City Solicitor will be addressed,” Mr. Silva said. “Additional language will be put together to address the questions raised.”
The proposal, calling for Bayside to pay for the construction of the roughly $1.4 million turf field, has twice been passed by the City Council since the School Committee approved the initial plan some six weeks ago.
The City Solicitor, however, has expressed concerns with the agreement, mainly over management and liability.
At-Large School Committee member Joel Monteiro, who advised against seeking Council approval when the matter first crossed his board’s dais, remained adamant the School Department has sole jurisdiction over the matter under Title 16 of state law and that engaging in a three-party agreement would set “a bad precedent” for future school-related projects.
“I knew ratifying by the City Council would go sour real bad…We didn’t need it,” Mr. Monteiro said. “If the solicitor insists on a three-party agreement, that’s bad news.”
He added, “I’m concerned our September 1 deadline to have our fall sports teams on the field is, if not blown out of the water, the barrel is loaded.”
Mr. Silva, though, disagreed, telling Mr. Monteiro Title 16 gave the School Committee/Department the right to “manage” property but not to “hold title”…”That’s why we’re calling it a usage agreement and not a lease.”
The two sparred for a bit more, remaining at loggerheads on the topic.
Mr. Silva added, “I’m confident we’ll move ahead and get this done. Do I guarantee it? No. I can’t guarantee I’ll be here tomorrow never mind the field, but we are moving along expeditiously.”
An amended agreement will be presented to the School Committee when it is available, Mr. Silva said. “I asked the parties to expedite the process knowing time is a factor.”