Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues RDA redevelopment plan hearing amid financing and eminent‑domain concerns
Summary
The council continued public hearings on the Johnson’s Pond/Flat River Reservoir redevelopment plan and its implementing ordinance to July 28 after outside counsel said more work was needed to demonstrate statutory findings—particularly feasibility tied to financing—and residents and the RDA chair raised concerns about costs, transparency and eminent‑domain language.
The Coventry Town Council continued the public hearings on the Johnson’s Pond (Flat River Reservoir) redevelopment plan and the implementing ordinance to its July 28 meeting after receiving legal advice that the council must be able to support a statutory finding of feasibility, including clear treatment of any town expenditures.
Outside counsel for the RDA and the town (Moses Ryan) told the council the statutory standard for approving an RDA plan requires a feasibility finding that must be backed by sufficient information about financial implications under Rhode Island General Law 45‑32‑14. Counsel recommended the town take time to craft the approval ordinance and plan language so it can demonstrate the finding, rather than vote on an incomplete record.
Councilmembers and RDA members debated financing mechanics. Councilors noted the redevelopment plan was developed around a financing model that had anticipated a TIF district; several members said a TIF was inappropriate and urged alternatives such as a dam management district, bonding, grants, congressional directed spending or infrastructure‑bank loans. Staff said the redevelopment plan includes a range of funding options but acknowledged the town lacks a single committed funding source and that more specificity will be necessary to satisfy the statutory test.
Public commenters included RDA chair Britney Boyer, who said she voted against the plan because it lacked a clear funding plan and would place an undue burden on taxpayers; conservation and residents urged a lake‑management plan and said estimated stormwater costs are large (one speaker cited an $11,000,000 stormwater/water‑quality estimate in plan appendices). Other residents warned a redevelopment approach could change the character of the town and urged additional transparency.
The council voted unanimously to continue the hearings to July 28 to allow counsel and staff to provide clarified financing options and draft approval language that supports the statutory feasibility finding.
