Council approves multiple damage claims, raises enforcement questions for Rhode Island Energy

The East Providence City Council on June 2 approved a batch of damage claims stemming largely from potholes and emergency‑response entry, and directed staff to explore stronger enforcement against utility contractors following repeated denials of responsibility.

Council members voted to approve individual claims read by Solicitor Marcelo, including claim #2628 (Timothy Amarall) for $300 for damage after striking a pothole on South Broadway; claim #26027 (Mary Bennett) for $2,310; and a high‑value claim #26043 (Paulo and Maria Duza) recommended by the fire chief for $234,754 after personnel gained access to the wrong property during an emergency call. Councilman Lawson moved each approval and the motions passed. "We have the photographs," Solicitor Marcelo said as the claims were presented.

Why it matters: councilors said the recurring pattern of street damage is a persistent local concern and pressed for clarity about when private utilities are responsible for repairs. Council Vice President Rigo asked whether the city could seek reimbursement from Rhode Island Energy and asked staff to check insurance and contract obligations. "Is there any way of us getting reimbursed by Rhode Island Energy?" Rigo said, noting the utility had rejected at least one claim. Members emphasized that whoever disturbs a roadway should be required to restore it "curb to curb," whether that party is the city or a utility.

Council executives asked the public works director and the solicitor to review contracts and insurance and report back on enforcement options and possible ordinance or policy changes. The discussion noted the practical difficulty of establishing root cause for competing repair claims; one council member said the city would need to determine whether the utility, the city, or another party was responsible before seeking reimbursement.

What happened next: after completing the sequence of pothole and related claims (including approvals for claim numbers reported in the meeting), the council moved on to other agenda items. Members said the issue of utility enforcement would be pursued in follow‑up memos from staff.

Ending: council members instructed the public works and solicitor offices to investigate contract language and available insurance recoveries and to return with recommendations on enforcement and policy for future roadway and utility repairs.