Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Claims topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pawtucket claims committee denies untimely pothole claim, approves several others at $300 cap
Summary
The Committee of Claims and Pending Suits on May 6 denied a pothole claim as filed past the city’s 7‑day rule and approved multiple timely claims, generally awarding the $300 cap set by ordinance. Members discussed drafting clearer staff policy on multi-jurisdiction notices.
The Pawtucket Committee of Claims and Pending Suits met May 6 to consider a slate of pothole and property-damage claims, denying one untimely submission and approving several others under the city’s $300 cap.
Barbara Pacheco described hitting a pothole and later experiencing a failing tire, seeking $126.36 in reimbursement. “I know it’s…past the 70 rule,” Pacheco said, explaining she delayed filing while arranging repairs. Committee members concluded the claim missed the city’s seven‑day filing deadline and voted to deny it. “It’s part of our ordinance…you got to file within a 7‑day period,” one council member said, noting the committee’s longstanding adherence to the rule.
By contrast, the committee approved Stacy de Cruz’s claim at the $300 maximum after staff confirmed an initial, timely filing had been made with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. “Once we know they filed within seven days somewhere, we’ve always accepted,” a council member said. The body applied the same reasoning to similar claims by Miguel Miranda and Robert Massie, approving payouts at or up to the $300 cap.
Councilors also addressed claims that properly belonged in other jurisdictions: three matters were denied and referred to Central Falls or Providence public works or to RIDOT, where the committee concluded the damage occurred. Members discussed drafting a short written policy to clarify how many days claimants have after being notified by another jurisdiction.
On property-damage claims, the committee approved small reimbursements, postponed one larger claim to determine whether a city vehicle or a contractor caused the damage, and denied one claim where times and records conflicted.
The committee’s roll-call votes matched the motions on the record; several council members urged the clerk and solicitor to work with staff on a brief procedural policy so future claimants and staff have clearer guidance about cross-jurisdiction filing and notification.
The committee adjourned after disposition of the items on its agenda.
