Solicitor: Manzi violated rules for tax break

Councilwoman's attorney questions finality of finding

Posted

Following a media report revealing Town Councilwoman Stephanie Manzi’s children attend school in Narragansett and her husband claims a property in that community as his primary residence, the Johnston town solicitor has concluded that the couple is no longer eligible to receive the Homestead Exemption on their property taxes.

A March 24 story by investigative reporter Jim Hummel tracked the movements of Manzi and her three children over the course of two months, which included multiple early-morning drives from the family’s Johnston home on Hopkins Avenue to drop her children off at Narragansett High School. The children have reportedly been enrolled in that district since 2014.

“When I first heard the story with Jim Hummel’s report, we started to investigate to find out what was going on, and I sent it over to the town solicitor, Billy Conley, and he did his due diligence, obviously, and I told him you have to investigate,” Mayor Joseph Polisena said.

Hoping to curtail improper school enrollments, and at Polisena’s request, the Johnston Town Council in October passed an ordinance regarding the town’s Homestead Exemption.

The tax break program allows homeowners to pay taxes on 80 percent of their property’s value rather than the full amount – provided they live in their home.

The ordinance targeted property owners who allowed children from another city or town to enroll into the Johnston school system using a local address. It created a re-certification process for the exemption for the first time since it was adopted in 2007, and requires property owners to fill out a form and provide proof of residence. Manzi was a supporter of the measure, which passed unanimously.

In a 62-page opinion obtained by the Sun Rise, evidence gathered by the town’s legal department regarding Manzi’s residency was scrutinized.

“So as you can see, that’s a very thorough document with exhibits and so forth and a lot of the personal information has been redacted,” said Polisena, who stated he received the draft copy of the opinion roughly two weeks ago. “So basically the findings were that she violated the Homestead [Exemption requirements], and she’ll lose the Homestead and have to pay back the money she owes. She’s been informed, and she’ll be getting a letter like everybody else that gets a letter who is informed that they owe back pay, so she’ll be getting a letter soon.”

Exhibits reviewed included the video of Hummel’s report; copies of the council’s October ordinance approved by Manzi; a notice explaining the requirements for the re-certification process; a copy of the re-certification form signed by the councilwoman; a quitclaim deed signed by the couple showing them as “tenants by the entirety” in Johnston; articles of incorporation of Paul Manzi’s limited liability corporation, which used his Johnston address; Narragansett tax assessor information on the Narragansett address; Narragansett school registration packets used to enroll the children; voter registration documents; and motor vehicle registrations.

“It is Stephanie Manzi who attested to the fact that she and Paul reside in Johnston and do not claim another residence as their principal residence, despite her obvious knowledge (and acknowledgement) that Paul Manzi actually does claim to have a primary residence in Narragansett,” the opinion reads. “Therefore … because Stephanie and Paul Manzi acquired the homestead exemption in violation of [requirements] governing homestead exemptions, they should be permanently barred from receiving the exemption.”

Based on these findings, the Manzi’s would have to reimburse the town approximately $1,765 for the exemption benefits received from the Johnston property.

“Stephanie and I get along very well, but it is what it is. I can’t or don’t hold back things because the person is politically connected, I just don’t do business that way,” Polisena said. “[The investigation] took a long time, and when you see it, everything is in detail. There’s exhibits that back up what was investigated and what the findings were.”

During recent council meetings since the initial Hummel report, some residents have gone as far as to call for Manzi’s resignation.

“That’s up to her,” Polisena said. “She could only make that decision. She still calls all the time with constituent requests and they get done. So she’s still acting in and performing her job as a councilwoman. That’s up to her.”

Request for comment from Manzi by the Sun Rise were returned by her legal counsel, Mark Dana, a partner at Dana and Dana Attorneys at Law.

“Well, we have to wait, because what we have is an attorney-client multi-product memorandum, at least as I see it, regarding a legal opinion from the solicitor to the mayor. It’s not a finding, it’s not a determination, it’s not a ruling, and although it may seem like, ‘Oh that’s just parsing it,’ it’s not,” Dana said. “We need to know what their final determination is and what, if any, back taxes are owed. So we don’t have a basis by which to appeal yet, and I’m not sure we will until I see what they are going to send us.”

No determination has yet been made by Manzi as far as her district’s representation is concerned, Dana said.

“I have no knowledge either way, that was not discussed. We focused primarily on what this means and clearly it’s the opinion of the solicitor which we respect, but until it comes into some fashion as to a decision and what they are asserting is owed,” he said. “But once that comes down, she and I will sit down and say, OK, either this is your likelihood of success, or this is what you would owe, and what do you want to do?”

Polisena reiterated that he had accepted the town solicitor’s assessment.

“I’m very confident in Billy’s findings, I’m very confident that Stephanie Manzi was treated like anybody else,” he said.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here