Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this special city council meeting, uh, June the ninth, two thousand and twenty six.

At this time, I'd like to call this meeting to order, and I asked the clerk to please call a role.

Councilwoman Graziano, present.

Councilman Anduhar.

Present.

Councilman Retz.

Present.

Councilman Trafficanti.

Councilwoman Vazeri, present.

Councilman Camapiano.

Present.

Councilman Banano.

Present.

Council Vice President O'Reilly.

Present.

Council President Wall.

Here, thank you.

Uh the first item on the agenda this evening will be public comment.

This will be public comment on docketed matters only.

Um, if you do want to make public comment this evening on Docketed Matters, please step up to the microphone, um, state your name and address for the record, and you'll be heard.

You'll have to have four minutes.

Four.

I'm gonna set the timer.

Mr.

Vice Vice Chairman.

Good evening.

My name's Anthony Melillo.

I live at thirty three Harvard Street, Cranston, Rhode Island.

And as the president said, I am voice chairman of the Creston Public School Committee.

President Wall, members of the Cranston City Council, and members of the public.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today during an urgent need for a school facilities bond.

As a member of the school committee, we have a responsibility to provide safe, healthy, and effective learning environments for nearly eleven thousand students that attend Cranston Public Schools.

After reviewing the district citywide building assessment completed in March of two thousand twenty-six, it is clear that many of our facilities have reached a critical point where a major investment can no longer be delayed.

Roof systems at Dew Temple, Arlington, George J.

Peters, Hub Bain, Parkview, Edgewood Highlands, and Cranston West Auditorium have deteriorated deteriorated to the point where leaks, failed flashings, open seams, exposed materials, and structural concerns are present.

When roofs fail, the damage doesn't stop at the roof.

Hubie Bain relies on boilers dating to 1971.

The stadium boiler is dated back to 1965.

The Dew Temple primary boiler was installed in 1933.

93 years old.

These systems are increasingly difficult to maintain.

Replacement pots are unavailable, probably antique.

And a major failure could lead to hundreds of students without heat during winter months.

At Cranston West, a Patterson Kelly heating system installed in 2000 was found to be operating at only 9% efficiency.

The recommended replacement cost for that alone is 6.5 million dollars.

Now we risk losing far more than through emergency repairs and accelerated building deterioration.

Fiscal responsibility.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chairman.

Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to make public comment on Docketed Matters only?

I see no one.

Is there anyone online who'd like to make public comment on Docketed Matters?

There is no public comment online.

But this time I'm going to close public comment.

If there are no objections, I'd like to take new uh new matters before the council as a block and move them, refer them to the appropriate committee, which will be a finance committee this evening in a short time if there are no objections.

Okay.

Hearing none, and motion to send all new matters to uh finance committee this evening.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Um clerk, please call the roll.

Councilwoman Graziano?

Yes.

Councilman Anduhar?

Yes.

Councilman Rets.

Yes.

Consident Trafficante.

Yes.

Councilwoman Vizier.

Yes.

Councilman Campo Piano.

Yes.

Councilman Banano?

Yes.

Council Vice President O'Brien.

Yes.

Council President Wall.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

There being no more business before this particular special council meeting.

This time I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, signify by saying nay.

The ayes have it.

The motion carries.

Um we'll start in about two minutes with the special finance committee meeting.

Thank you, everybody, for coming.

Sorry, we're late.

Um, at this time, I would like to call a special finance committee meeting to order.

Today is Tuesday, June 9th, and it is six fourteen PM.

Clerk, please take a roll.

Present.

So at this time, I would like to open up for public comment.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment on document items only?

Now is the time.

Please step up to the podium.

Anyone in the audience that would like to um speak on document items for the finance committee.

At this time, we have new matters before the committee.

I'd like to emphasize to the council that when we go for bonding authority, this is only for authority.

It has to go to the legislation for approval, and then it comes back to the city council.

Well, actually, it goes to the city council to approve sending it to the legislation.

But I want to emphasize that any bonding that we do, we have to come before the council to get your approval.

So if we have, for instance, the first item I have here is fund 200, which is 25 million for the school.

If you said we we would like to bond or we want a bond, or the school would request the bond 10 million dollars, I would have to come before the council and get your approval to do that 10 million dollar bond.

But so what we're doing tonight is just authorization giving us the ability to bond and also to put it on the ballot so the voters will vote on this in November.

So if they don't vote and approve it, then it's not going to materialize.

So this is what this is for, only for authorization.

We've done this many years, and it's usually over a two-year period.

Uh, we like to do something uh every two to three years, and so it doesn't uh have a and that's adverse effect on our debt service.

So I want to emphasize that before I get into anything.

Uh but basically not to get into the all the acts because they're quite uh extensive, which includes also the debt service attachment of uh, I believe it was at four percent, and that's just uh uh uh a thumbnail uh interest rate.

Uh we don't know what it would be until we go to bond, but gives you an idea of what it would cost.

So, for instance, for school, um, this would be the the purchasing or acquisition of land and buildings, construction, renovation, improvement, alteration, repair, landscaping, furnishing, and equipping of schools and schools facilities throughout the city, subject to the approval of state housing aid at a reimbursement rate or state share ratio of not less than 35%.

So fiscal advisor and bond council use because I question it 35%.

It doesn't mean it's going to be 35.

They just put that as a bottom ceiling.

More than likely it'll be either 50 percent or hopefully even greater than that.

But um, so that's that's for the school.

Public safety is acquisition improvement, renovation, and repair of fire and public safety equipment.

Uh public big buildings would be construction improvement, renovation, repair, alteration, furnishing, and equipment uh public buildings through acquisition and demolition.

Uh if required, parks and rec would be construction improvement, same type of uh terminology for playgrounds, athletic fields, and related equipment.

Highway would be for design, construction, repair, rehabilitation, and improvement of streets, sidewalks, and bridges in the city, including but not limited to paving, drainage, traffic control, devices, road maintenance equipment, safety improvements and landscaping, and all cost incident or related there too.

And finally, storm drains would be repair, construction, and rehab of storm drains.

So there's five categories.

Uh let's see, one, two, three, four, six categories.

And they're broken down the schools, 25 million, eight million for fire and police, two million for public buildings, four million for parks and wreck, eight million for highway, and four million for storm drains.

And again, this could be spread over a two or three year period.

And again, it needs to be approved for any um uh projects that we may want to do by the city council.

Thank you, Director.

Uh Councilman Banano.

Thank you, Director Strom.

I just have one question to make sure I understand this properly, and uh the public does as well.

So theoretically, the finance committee could pass this tonight.

It goes to the special city council meeting, they pass it, goes to the general assembly.

If that passes, it goes on the ballot for the for the people.

If the citizens of Cranston, by way of the election pass it, it will then theoretically, once you you as the city and the as the administration decides to bond the money out, come back to the city council for like a final approval before it's bonded out.

Is that is that the flow?

It would be a uh final approval based on the projects that you would want to do.

So for instance, uh the eight million for the uh uh public works.

You may only want to do uh through the public works directive, four million this year, two million next year, two million the year after.

So it can be spread out, it's not all or nothing.

But essentially it's like a big circle.

It starts with us, goes around a big circle, and it will end with the city council with your approval with the we can actually bond.

Okay, that was my only question.

I just want to make sure I had that flow correctly.

So there's no debt service, uh principal or interest debt service until we bond.

And what we try to do with bonding is we try to arrange it so it, you know, the first year may only be interest, and then the second year will be interest and principal to keep the debt service at our uh reasonable amount.

And right now, I have a on my um uh spreadsheet, it shows where the debt service right now is dropping every year for the next 10 years.

Now, consequently, if we add more bonding to it, it's gonna replace some of the things that are coming off.

Bob, I understand that you you try to incur as much debt as you retire to keep a balance.

You try to keep the debt service low.

But I want to talk about one particular bond, if I may, sure.

The school bond.

Uh we met as a school buildings committee and councilman Andal and R and on that are on that particular committee.

We were discussing a potential school bond.

At that time, we're talking about a $50 million bond, if I recall correctly.

And of that $50 million bond, there was about $37 million worth of projects that were identified, immediate projects that were identified with about $13 million of an escalation clause, which brought up to $50 million.

Do you know why it was not brought forth as a $50 million bond rather than the $25 million bond?

Uh, I think that this time because of the financial situation, and uh we didn't want to incur any more debt by now, and then every door every department or group had a kind of there was more money probably requested in other areas as well, but we just had a um put in a reason reasonable amount that's available.

But like you said, once the bond is approved, you're not gonna of course dedicate the entire 50 million dollars in one shot.

You're gonna kind of balance it off with other projects.

So why not why not float the 50 million dollar bond?

Well, uh, in addition to that, we do have 20 million that's available to bond right now.

That's in school buildings, yes.

And aren't those projects identified already?

I'm sure they are, yeah.

But I mean, on terms of dollars, it's 20 million right now.

So what I guess to look at it this way, the 20 million is available in authority, and the 25 would be an addition to that.

So we would come if you combine the two, it's almost like 45 million.

Yeah, but again, those that 20 million dollars that's left.

I know they're identified projects already.

Yeah, they're probably under construction, right?

In most cases, I just don't understand why you know we need not float the 50 million dollar one to identify that 37 million dollars with the projects over a course of three or four years, five years.

I can't give you a definitive answer why.

Is anyone else on the council?

Councilman Capabiano.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Director Straum.

Do you have an approximate number of how much that is being retired in the now in the next year the year that we're in right now, 26?

It's I'm rounding off now.

It's 13.8 million between principal and interest.

Next year, it will go down to 12.5 million.

The year after, 12.4 million.

So I don't have specific what the Pacific uh bonds are, but I can tell you it drops from 12.4 to 12.3 in 2030, it drops to 10.7.

Uh 31 is 10.7, then it drops to 10.4.

But it should not exceed what we currently are bonding for, or or not bonding, but what our interest and principal payments are.

So we're I would say we're in pretty good shape as far as debt services because it's a gradual decline.

If and it would stay that way, but I'm sure we're going to do some bonding for sure.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

Mr.

President.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, as I can see, and I appreciate you being very clear for the members of the council and members of the public of how the bonding process goes.

Because a little, you know, sometimes we're not really sure that when we we approve this, it goes to the General Assembly.

Um, if the General Assembly approves it, it goes on to the ballot, the voters improve of it, then we have the ability to bond, and it still comes back to us, and we can actually modify that figure depending on the financial situation of the city and then you know as and the needs as we see it.

So thank you for being very clear on that matter.

As I look at these resolutions, how can I say this?

This is um a lot of general maintenance of our city assets, things that need to be done.

Um that at times you can't just kick them down the road.

So um, I'm gonna be in favor of passing these resolutions.

Um, but with a mindset that when it does come back before this council, if I am sitting in the you know, in this chamber, that I'm gonna assess the finances of the city at the time, and that's gonna address how I'm gonna vote.

So thank you for being clear with that.

Well, I think that's all in my opinion, it's all predicated on how our debt services for that fiscal year.

So if it's continues to come down and re is being reduced, then we could add what's necessary to keep up with what's the demand for uh certain projects.

Thank you, Director.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh, I re yield my time.

Mayor Trevor Gantt.

Bob, can you tell me how much bonding authority is left in each of these categories?

For example, what's what's left in the storm dream in drainous improvements?

I'm gonna have to get back to you on that.

I didn't bring the worksheet with me.

I can provide that to you, but I don't have it with me.

That's unfortunate because it would be nice to know which left of the bond authority each of these categories, and it's a necessity to go alpha bonding if we have enough authority in a particular bond.

We based it on what was passed on the capital budget, and we also uh tweaked some of it uh so that it would be more uh uh in line with what the demand is, but we was based on the capital budget that was approved by the city council.

And that's the the bonding authority is basically a lump sum for each of the categories.

I don't know what's left in those authorities.

Well, I mean, I know we passed it, but I want to know what's left in each of those authorities.

We're gonna at the end of the night, we're gonna have us see if we pass it through this the finance committee.

We're also at the end of the evening, 7:30.

We're gonna have a regular special uh city council pass off.

Thank you.

I appreciate that, Bob.

Councilman Calmiano.

Thank you, Chair.

On the um the flooding and the drainage.

We had the uh the meetings earlier.

It was my understanding that we may be able to use the 30 million in that sewer fund to address drainage and um flooding.

It is that a true statement.

I'm not sure on that.

I have to check.

Frank, would you know?

I believe Director Renzuli has the that is.

I don't have uh excuse me.

You know the answer?

Oh, okay.

You no, no, Director Rinzuli.

So there has been an ordinance drafted that needs to be submitted that we are told legally we can do that.

So you need to pass it by ordinance.

Well, that's good.

But that is something that I have drafted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Councilman Ritz, you have a question.

I just had a question.

Uh, with the interest rate you predicted it'd be somewhere around four percent.

Is that with our current bond rating?

Because I didn't know if our bond rating might adjust with the choice.

I think what uh the fiscal advisor just used that as a uh a barometer of what the interests could be.

It has been less than that.

But it all depends on what the rate still wondering if you think there'll be an impact with uh the bond rating of how low our reading guy funds is, or you think it should still align around that.

No, I think it's based on our financial status right now with the bond ratings raters.

I think we can maintain that.

Yes.

Hopefully, it'll be even less.

Uh before this meeting, as given to you by the uh Ms.

Are slightly amended from what was posted based upon advice of bond council.

So I just want to point out what those are.

They're not excuse me.

They're not, they're not there were non-substantive changes, but they were just language changes that bond council um thought was necessary.

So we basically um second each of the resolutions where we sit we there the where the language says in an amount not to exceed X amount of dollars.

It used to say including but not limited to X amount of dollars.

Um you basically said it used to say up to including X amount of dollars.

The bond council wanted to say uh in an amount not to exceed that amount.

So those are all reflected in the current resolutions that you have.

So just so the public is aware, again, they're they're not substantive changes there.

Language changes that bond council wanted, but we're gonna be passing what I'm gonna call a sub A resolutions that we have up that you have now passed out tonight.

Thank you for them, Mr.

Solicitor.

Any other questions?

At this time, is there any objection in taking these six resolutions as a block?

See none may entertain a motion to approve.

So moved second.

Any discussion?

Clerk.

As amended.

Yeah, you are uh as amended.

Seeing none, Clerk, please take a roll.

Yes, Councilman Ritz.

Yes, councilman Trafficante.

Yes, Councilman Vizier, yes.

Councilman Heroyan, yes, councilman Wall.

Yes.

Passes at this time.

The council is going into executive session pursuant to RIGL four two-four six five session pertaining to collective bargaining to discuss and review potential amendments to the current collective bargaining agreement with uh IAFF local one three six three, which are the Creston firefighters as negotiated by the administration and assessment fiscal impacts.

So move.

Any discussion?

Go ahead, please take a roll.

Councilman Graziano?

Councilman Andy Walk?

Yes, Councilman Ritz, Councilman Trafficanti.

Councilman Baziri.

Yes.

Council Vice President Heroyan?

Yes.

Council President Wall.

Yes.

At this time we are in executive session,

So move, Mr.

Chairman.

Any discussion?

Clerk Clexega.

Present.

Yes.

Consider it?

Yes.

Yes.

President O'Reilly?

Yes.

Oh, there was discussion on the update of the contract, but no votes were taken.

So at this time, I would like to refer.

May I entertain a motion to refer the collective bargaining contract to the full council?

So move on.

Mr.

Chairman, can I make a motion to seal the executive session?

Any discussion.

I'm going to call the public works committee meeting to order on Tuesday, June 9th, twenty twenty-six at seven.

Oh eight PM.

Um director, may I please get the role.

Present.

Present.

Present.

Public comment, you get four minutes.

You can come up to the podium.

Please state your name and address, and this is for docketed items only.

Hello.

You have Cheshire Road before you today.

We were here last with you in City Council in February to discuss the ordinance that you passed to close Chiswick Road to do traffic.

Since that time, there's been little to no movement from public works to either erect signage or remove the street as a cut through option for vehicle particular traffic or to work with the police department on enforcement, or to work on a traffic study to see if this has even worked.

So I encourage uh the council to work with the mayor's office to get this addressed as soon as possible.

Again, there are six kids on the street.

There are eight people over the age of 65.

There are over a thousand cars, hundreds of cars from out of state every day.

And we hope we get this addressed soon before something tragic happens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in chambers this evening for public works?

Seeing none, may I please move to online?

Is there anyone online who would like to speak on docketed matters only?

There is no public comment online.

This evening, and we're gonna head into new matters before the committee.

Um we have a petition from Verizon New England requesting permission to place one two-inch conduit, approximately 4,035 feet, and 19 hand holes starting at poll P16 on the corner of Hope Road and Camden Lane, which continues along Camden Lane as it heads towards Kendall Court.

Um, I have received a letter from Director Corello, who's the director of public works, and he recommends approval.

So may I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second any discussion on this matter.

Okay.

May Director, may I please get the role?

Councilwoman Graziano.

Yes, husband and councilwoman Vizieri.

Yes, Councilman Campa Piano.

Yes.

Councilman Banano.

Yes.

Councilman Horyan.

Yes.

Council President Wall.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Next up on new matters before the committee.

There's a request from Rhode Island Department of Transportation for a permit to allow construction within 25 feet of the exterior boundaries of a historic cemetery, which is state farm cemetery number one.

Um, and this is pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws, Section 23-18-11.

And this is for the regulation of excavation around cemeteries.

Um, I am going to table this and head to the next, put this on the next agenda and have the Rhode Island DOT come forward.

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion?

No discussion.

May I get the roll, please?

Councilwoman Graziano?

Yes.

Cousin Andrew?

Yes.

Councilwoman Vazeri.

Yes.

Hasman Gabapiano.

Yes.

Cosman Banano?

Yes.

Councilwoman Horan.

Council Vice Council President Wall.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, Council Communications.

This evening we have a number of communications.

Um, let's start with Council President Wall.

Um, this is discussion of property at 243 Deerfield Road.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, this won't take a long time.

And um, if Tom, do you have those pictures up there?

Okay.

Um if you look at the first picture, I'll be honest with you.

Deerfield Roads, very nice street.

Um, most of the people take pretty good care of their homes.

They take a lot of pride in them.

Um, this is a property for the last two years that has been in disrepair.

It's one of many in our area.

Um, I believe the bank owns the property.

Family had some circumstances.

The bank has owned the property.

I won't give you the name of the bank because we didn't we didn't notice them.

Um, but when I say the bank owns the property, I'm telling you they have more than enough money.

I assume if they're a bank to mow the damn lawn every week.

Now, the school is right down the street from you.

Parents who walk up this up the hill from the school have complained.

They said not just the grass is unsightly, now it's become unsafe because this this time of year with the moisture and the ticks.

So now it's become a health problem for the people who live around.

A lot of times we talked about uh various ways to deal with um housing issues like this in our area, and this is a perfect, this is a perfect example.

And Tommy, you can show a few of them.

Um they're all the grass is about 10 inches in some places a foot.

However, director Maretti did, you know, we did put this on, and they did just mow the lawn.

So it took about a foot of grass to get it mowed.

I don't think that's fair.

I think that the bank owns it, they need to be a better neighbor to our people.

And I think we have to have a mechanism to find them if they don't.

And that's why I put it on there.

You can see, and and the truth is the pictures don't do the do how horrible it is justice.

Yeah, trees overgrown.

Um it's growing all over the back.

Last year, when the leaves were weren't uh uh raked for long periods of time, we worried about a fire issue.

So there's a minimum housing problem.

This is this is what it is.

So I put it on there, and I think something needs to be done as we go forward with something like that.

I know my neighbors are going to be very vigilant about this.

Um, we're gonna definitely call the mayor's office.

But I think when we do it now, I think that we have to look at what some of our minimum housing ordinances are and find them when it gets to a certain point.

So maybe pull them into municipal court, you know, until we have some type of housing court in place.

Um, because this is the issue we're having.

I don't have a lot to belabor.

You can tell it annoys me that we have to do this.

I put this property on before.

Um, nothing's being done.

If the bank doesn't know that the grass has to be mowed in the spring, about every week to 10 days.

I I mean, I they need somebody, you know.

I'm sure if I'm sure if we went to that bank and we went to look at their landscaping in the parking lot, it's not growing over like my neighbor's home.

Thank you.

I I uh relent my time.

Um, anyone else on this?

Um Vice President Horrian.

I think just like President Will said, we need to come up with a procedure.

It's not Fiat that properties like this have been going on, going on our agenda and are uncapped.

Um, I keep up my lawn, I cut it every weekend.

We need to do something better here.

It's not FIA for the neighbors, the neighborhood, and there's many properties like this.

So I think we all got to work together and come up with a way to get something done and fines.

Councilman Bonano.

Thank you.

Um before I sort of change careers, I guess you would say, I worked right after college for a real estate brokerage that almost dealt exclusively with REOs, which is uh real estate owned, which are foreclosed properties.

Um, and part of the responsibility of the real estate agency was to maintain the vacant properties um before they hit the market.

And a lot of times with a foreclosure, not to get into too much detail, but there's a lot of title work and legal work that needs to happen.

So these properties can sit vacant for an extended period of time.

Um, Mr.

Lima, can you can you go to the the a picture of the postings?

Yeah, that one.

So it's tough to see, right?

Right here, but it says in case of emergency contact.

A lot of times by uh bank rules and by in some cases, depending upon the type of foreclosure by uh law, the property has to be posted like that with a contact information to either a real estate company or what they call a servicing company.

And I can't see who that is, and I wouldn't want to mention the company uh on the record, but all a city would have to do is if a property like that was reported to a director, like director Renzuli or the uh director of constituent affairs, and it comes up that the property is what they call an REO or foreclosure, all the city would have to do is call that company and say, if you don't cut the grass within a week, we're gonna call the bank directly.

And I could tell you from personal experience working in that industry uh right after I graduated college.

If that bank calls the real estate brokerage, it's not a fun day in the real estate brokerage because it jeopardizes all the future listings of that particular broker.

So I would politely suggest um, I know director Moretti is here, and Director Renzuli are here.

If we get something like like this where it's a foreclosed property, all we have to do is call, send an inspector out there to take a photo and call that number, and this will be for at least an REO for a foreclosed property.

This will be dealt with, you know, probably by the time the phone hangs up.

And it will probably save the city a lot of work as well as um you know us a lot of work and it'll probably save the the inspections department a lot of work because these banks don't want those properties to look like that.

So um, just a little part of my my personal experience.

I think if we call those servicing companies or send a letter to them, these properties will get uh the the problem will be rectified right away, and I doubt it'll happen again because now they'll know they're on the radar.

So just a polite suggestion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Councilman Bonano, Councilman Anderhar.

Thank you.

Um I just want to remind my colleague over here, Councilman Bonato, that a lot of times when there's title issues, um, there is no real estate company, so you have to deal with that management company.

So my theory is uh you know, there's a huge title issue.

The bank's taking forever.

And you know, our laws right now, especially in the housing court are $50 a day.

That's when you could find them.

Um, there is a resolution that passed.

We're just waiting for it to become law where we will be able to find someone like this $500 a day.

So it will be um a generator for for income for uh for the city.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh Council President Wall.

Just to circle back in all fairness, um, I did send this into the administration.

Um, and uh Miss Ms.

Marquetti did go out, and she she sent sent in.

I have a letter from Director Moretti that she's gonna go out again and check in on a regular basis.

She's gonna be out there on the 16th again um to take a look at it.

Um you are using a lot of city city resources to babysit people who have plenty of money to mow the damn one.

I mean, I mean, so I feel bad.

I appreciate the effort you put in, and I appreciate uh Ms.

Moretti's uh Miss uh Marchetti's efforts, but we shouldn't have to play a nursemaid to them.

And that's what I'm saying.

They if we pull them in and find them heavier fine, perhaps they'll get things done.

Um that's I see it.

I don't know.

I think we've been overnight for two years.

Okay, it sounds like um Director Moretti would like to say something.

Just quickly, I've been looking, I've been sitting back there, made notes on everything the council has had said, and I'll I'll be taking that back to the appropriate departments uh as you mentioned.

Thank you.

Yeah, and that thank you, um Director Murray.

And if we could get the the code or law that they would be the code here in the city that they would be enforcing if there is one, if there's not, um, then maybe that's something we need to look into.

Um, because it's hard I know I understand um going out and enforcing things without backup on your ordinances is very difficult.

So we would love to see what they what code they would be enforcing.

Anyone else?

Great, thank you.

Um next is uh mine, uh Chair Graziano for this committee.

Um this is the discussion on uh title 10, chapter 12, section 280 of the city of Cranston Code ordinances.

This was um traffic prohibited on certain streets, local access only for Chiswick Road, which we recently passed as um through ordinance, excuse me, yes, through ordinance committee and then through city council.

Um, and my understanding is that we are going to get an update on this.

Um the residents, one of which spoke this evening.

I know there's a couple couple people from that area here this evening, um, are looking to know how the city is going to start um doing signage and then um ensuring that the GIS is notified that this is a local access only and that this ordinance is given out.

Director Renzula, you have an update.

Um, yes.

As far as far as the signs being changed, I wish the director Corral had stayed, but um I oh you are.

I I'm not sure why the signs have not been changed.

Public works.

Yeah, I'm not sure what signs.

I mean, right now I believe they put no left and right turn signs in there.

They have the signs up that it is not a through roadway.

And the other thing is that I have reached out to MapQuest in Waze, and I just want you to know it's not the most easy thing to do to try to get in touch with a corporation like that to try to tell them that we have one local road in Rhode Island that is now considered local traffic only, but you cannot speak to a person.

I have emailed them, I let them know map quest did get back to me, and they said that they would change the route because what I did do is set up a route from the western side of Cranston and going to the east side, and it does direct you down Chadwick, Chiswick as one of the options.

The other ones are going down to Norwood and coming down broad, etc.

So they they do give you options, but we did let them know that this is considered a local road only, that there's no true traffic.

They said that they understand, and it said they may take anywhere from two to four weeks to try to update on their mapping.

Other thing is um a lot of work, but I do appreciate it.

Um map quest is kind of old, so maybe um I'm not sure if we use like Google Maps, Waze.

I did contact Waze.

Okay.

And I have not heard back from them in Google Maps, same thing.

It's very difficult to find something, you know, in an email that you can send out, but you know, we'll continue to look to try to get that information to them and let them know.

Okay.

And it's up to them to update what they consider to be the appropriate route.

Okay.

Um, I think that the residents had a few suggestions.

Would you mind if I sent it over to you?

Sure.

Okay.

Welcome.

And I'm gonna head back to Director Renzuli for you had something else.

Yes, I have I have all the updates actually from GIS for the for the map for the map company.

So I had already done ways.

Um Google was already done, but I'll just explain from the GIS director.

RGIS does not have data that models our inventory's traffic or parking conditions or their supporting signs.

So no action is taken on any city-owned local data sets.

One exception is that we do maintain a database of stop and yield signs.

But upon notification from the clerk, they have started to include reviewing of these kinds of ordinances and notify the following commercial entities of traffic pattern changes as they're approved.

Google Maps does spot updates, not always accepted.

Google Maps as a concept content partner, open street map, which is crowdsourced, ESRI base maps.

That's for basemap, geocoding, imagery, and routing feedback.

They submit requests for updates to Arc GIS street map premium data, such as a um a missing road, an incorrect street name, Waze partner hub for navigation, and here maps for navigation.

So that's from the GIA GIS director, um Diorusso, and she does a very good job.

That's a pretty substantial list.

I know from dealing with Waze, I had to join in all different ways and just submitted it like 10 times.

So I don't know if anyone can confirm whether it's working with Waze.

Um but like the director said, all these companies do this on their own time.

Yeah.

There's there's no like way to track completely when it will no one will ever be directed down that road.

Okay.

But the GIS director said this is a pretty substantial list.

Okay.

And then um, I don't know if Director Renzula or Director Moretti wants to answer this question.

So the other question was whether or not the police would now that or when everything has been all set and submitted, they would come out and do another study, traffic study to see if things have changed.

I I can speak with them, but I could um they've been traffic studies in the past that has not shown excess speeding on that street, and that goes back, they've done two or three studies.

So historically, there has not been uh uh a nuisance, if you will, per the definition uh within very much within tolerances uh of everywhere in the city.

Something to note, and I think it'd be a difficult for police um because uh about two three years ago, uh uh there was a traffic study attempted to be done, and I guess the neighborhood group got together and uh requested that it done.

So we went forward and did it.

So police in the middle of the study had to change the battery in it while the officer was changing the battery.

They noticed it someone speeding down the street, actually screeching tires, and that person got pulled over.

And uh and uh so then questioning the person, it was a resident of the street that I guess this association, this group got together and said they wanted to uh distort the results so they could speed up and down the street so the traffic study could be skewed in correctly.

So I'm not sure the motivation of police to want to do that because it basically undermined their uh the diligent efforts with their resources.

So I I'll still speak with the colonel again on this, but I just know that the sore point um that that probably wasn't the right way, and that person did get a ticket, just so you'll know.

Well, uh okay.

Um I I don't know if this happened or not.

I was not.

They did.

I can give you the police report.

So I um am just look to make a request as the Arson from Ward One if they could do a study of counting how many people drive down the street, because it was my understanding that the traffic safety officer said that there was an excess amount of people traveling on that road, which is why we did the local access only.

We did not go into the speeding.

So that was the reason and my understanding from us passing the ordinance.

So I think we need to know if there's less people traversing on that road.

I'll I'll talk to the colonel, but I don't think the police department does count on number of cars that go up and down.

They would just, I don't think this is there's no ordinance limiting the number of vehicles going up and down the road.

So I don't think they're gonna do that.

If they're violating a particular ordinance, the police could enforce an ordinance, but to count the number of vehicles going up and down, I don't think they do that.

They have a okay.

Well, we'd love to have a police officer go down there.

That would be great.

Thank you for that suggestion.

To do what though?

To see it to see if they're violating the ordinance.

That's what you just said.

And in any particular one, there's no left hand turn.

Is that what it is?

Um, it's local traffic only.

Is that legal?

Is there a definition that that is legal?

I get an attorney right here.

I think I think there's an ordinance that allows roads to be designated as local traffic.

I think we have one of the best.

I'm sorry.

I believe that we do have an ordinance that allows the city council and the administration to destinate roads as local traffic only.

What is local?

Define local.

So you live there.

People on that street only pass on it.

Right.

No one else, mail, mailman.

Mostly mostly local.

So it's a private road.

No.

No.

It's local traffic.

Okay.

Well, well, I'm not sure you have a reason to be there.

So if you live there, obviously you have a reason to travel that road.

If you're delivering a package, yes.

I'll check with the colonel to see what he can enforce.

I think it's a definition, but I'll take I'm sure the current colonel will be aware.

I'll certainly ask him.

Okay, thank you, Council President.

So and thank you for all I get the ways and the Google maps and all that stuff.

Um, but did I originally hear that there's no sign put up yet?

We passed it, right?

So it sounds like something might be missing.

One of the signs might be missing.

If I may, through the chair, I was on Narragansett Parkway Thursday, and I actually pointed the sign out to my daughters and said daddy voted for that.

So it's um so it was there Thursday.

Now I wasn't on the other side on on Broad Street.

Um, so I don't know if we can sort of talk with the resident, maybe figure out what sign the nice gentleman was referring to.

But I know that there's at least one sign on the parkway that I mean, if it was any bigger, um, it should be a boat in the harbor.

Um, so it was a significant amount of signage there.

And then maybe Director Correa could just confirm that everything up like is up and is in accordance with the ordinance.

If you could just confirm that and shoot me an email.

Thank you.

Can I it in I wasn't quite quite done with this?

So I don't know.

I'm not familiar with the streets, so you're familiar with the councilwoman.

How many people live on the street?

Approximately how many side, 24.

I mean, in different cities, I know I think too to the director's point.

I know they have no parking, it's local traffic only, no only people in a certain area.

They have it in big cities too, larger than us, where only those people can be on those streets, and they ticket them.

How do they do it?

That's a good question.

I assume they they know the license numbers of the people who live there.

And when somebody goes through, he said, This isn't your street, and they start ticking them.

Now, I don't know exactly how they do it, but I think we could probably ticket people who are not not being there.

And I I know it costs money to have someone there, but I guess we'd make it up in revenue for uh for a while, and we stop making it up in revenue, then we won't have to be there, and and the neighbors will be happy.

Uh that that's what I'm seeing.

So I think it's time to enforce this.

We put the sign up, make sure it's visible, and enforce it.

So I have I I don't have I I was getting lost on that matter.

Okay, oh so 13 people on each side.

I just did a quick count for you on near map.

So aside from let's say everybody's got three, let's say everybody's got three cars, got 39, those 39 cars.

Yes, we could take the rest.

Yeah, and and I'll I'll also state that I didn't make up this ordinance, it already existed in our book, and there's other streets like this on there.

I just want to thank you for that.

I just want to clarify there.

There is it's a ordinance 10.12.280 traffic prohibited on certain streets, local access only.

There's no traffic shall travel upon the following named streets or highways in the direction specified, except those which vehicles require access to properties located along the name street or highway, and then they list a bunch of streets.

So it's been it's been an ordinance on the books for a long time.

So there is an order set for that.

Will be an ordinance that if you're not local traffic, you're you're violating it.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

So it it sounds like we have a plan.

Director Correo is going to check the signage.

Um, Director Moretti is going to look into um police enforcement.

Thank you for that suggestion, which would bring in additional revenue.

Um, and also confirm what studies we can do that in are in correlation with the traffic engineer's recommendation.

And then it sounds like councilman Andrew Harr has another statement.

Yeah, madam chair.

I don't know if if we can, but I think if you could ask the solicitor if we could call up the gentleman from Cheswick so he could give us the pinpoint exactly what sign is missing because I believe I saw the expression on his face.

So I just want to give him the opportunity.

Am I allowed to take a uh statement from a public member right now?

It's up to you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Do you want to come up?

I do want to say that uh Cheswick is listed as as one of his streets in the order.

So yeah, for the record, my name is Kevin Essington 60 Chiswick Road.

Um there was a sign, new sign put up for southbound traffic on Broad Street.

All of cut through traffic on Cheswick Road going northbound on Broad Street is northbound.

So you're going north on Broad, take a right on Chiswick for the nice short cut through to get on the Narragansett and go north.

The sign you saw, counselor, you're and then the opposite going the other way.

The sign you saw was local traffic only, which is great.

However, there is no no right turn sign at that intersection, nor is there a no right turn sign on northbound for Broad Street.

Okay, I do know that we got rid of the no right turn from four to six because that was a still present.

Okay, that needs that was supposed to go.

Okay.

So I think what we're gonna do, because there's a lot of confusion about what signs.

We'll check with the traffic engineer.

Frank, the uh excuse me, Director Crayo will follow up and let us know what's missing and what needs to be done.

Happy to do a site visit at any time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm glad we clarify that.

That's very helpful.

Honestly, that's yeah, that's very good.

So good suggestion.

Okay, thank you.

Um these are all me.

Wow.

Well, oh um, councilwoman Vazieri.

Have we thought about barricading the end of the road so you can't go through?

That makes it a dead that makes it a dead end, and the place and fire don't like that.

But I don't know.

We've done it elsewhere.

We did it on blueberry.

I know, I know, I know.

That was a whole thing.

That was a whole thing.

I'm sure they would love that.

Anyone else?

Great.

So um next on my um is discussion of draft drafting a resolution to apply um for that grant program.

Um councilman Capapiano, Councilman Ritz were both with me.

Um at the um Rhode Island Recovery, and they mentioned that they have a grant program.

Um, and I thought it would be a great idea to look in this is just a discussion to look into this grant, what it entails, and having our our grant writer write it up to do lot flip, um, excuse me, lid flipping and ensuring that our recyclables that are going out of Cranson are not thrown into the trash.

And I was looking for um Councilman Ritz and Councilman Campbiano to weigh in on this.

Yeah, I think it's a fantastic idea.

You know, I appreciate Councilman Campion setting up the visit.

Uh very eye-opening, they're very educational.

I think this is a fantastic uh suggestion here, uh, especially with a grant funds.

I mean $663,000 for cycles that had to get into the trash.

I know Councilman Banano was talking before about the wet cardboard.

Um, and that was a big piece of it.

So I think anything with this campaign is is a win-win, you know, potentially we get a position out of this, and we can see the city's in substantial amount of money.

Okay, anyone else?

Thank you.

Councilman Capapiano.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh yes, and I was thinking maybe we can set up a meeting with um with the person that was there that day and get a little further information so we can put this and nail this down so we can help out.

Yes.

I'll set that up.

Okay, great.

That was my intention.

I just didn't have enough time to do it.

Um, but that's why it was on here.

But it looks like we'll we'll work together and put that forward.

Oh, uh Councilman Trafficanti.

I I realize it costs the city dollars.

But wait, we don't recycle.

I realize that.

But we pay waste management a sizable amount of money to administer this program to educate the people on recycling and to enforce it.

And it's a shame that we lost a lot of money in the city crison because people were not recycling properly.

It's unfortunate they don't have an education program that they can deliver to the people, make sure that they know how to recycle.

It's unfortunate, like I said, it's happening.

And I'm not saying don't pursue this grant, but perhaps we shouldn't we should talk to waste management also to participate in giving us this money for them because I think this, but I do agree in general, there should be more education out there.

Um we we could also host something at one of our meetings and have somebody come in and do a quick little presentation.

Um writing it on here.

Okay.

Yeah, so we got to put this on here so we talk about it.

Um councilman.

I'm gonna stay relatively calm as opposed to when I usually talk about garbage, but um, I think this grant is a great idea, and I thank the three of my colleagues here for for pursuing it.

Um, I also think that the city could save a significant amount of money.

Um if they were allowed to um witness when a trash load gets rejected.

Um, I said it in the budget meeting, and I'll say it again that if the people determining when a recyclable isn't recyclable are the ones getting paid because the recyclable isn't a recyclable.

I'm not gonna say they're doing anything nefarious, but the opportunity is there, and um uh I would like that opportunity to be eliminated.

Um, and I mean I I don't know how in another state wet cardboard can be recyclable and in Rhode Island it's not, or how in another state the cap, for instance, you know, or or a silo foam container can be recyclable and in Rhode Island it's not.

Um, I I would like some more education on that.

So maybe, like you said, having them come in and talk to us uh and talk to the residents.

I don't know if that was going over at the trip.

I I I yeah, um again, I wish I could have been there, I was working that day.

Um, but uh you know people need to understand that too.

Just because there's uh the the triangle with the arrows doesn't necessarily mean that we recycle it, and that that's a big issue as well.

So I think anything that can help us get more educated is great, and I think that uh um this is a good idea.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And while I am not working for Rhode Island Recovery, they did explain a couple of things to us specifically.

Um, number one is they do get paid by an outside vendor for the recycled items.

So someone takes the plastic items, someone takes the aluminum items, and they do get money, whether or not that money compares to the money that they get from uh dumping the load and getting it from the town or the city.

I don't have the answer to that question.

Also, they explained to us that if the cap isn't on the um bottle or the item, that it just bounces around and falls through their machinery to the bottom, and that's why they don't recycle it.

So there's a higher probability that the cap will make it through their machine and get recycled if it's on the item.

And cardboard, they said when it's wet, it mushes up and also mucks up the machine and gets stuck.

Um, and styrofoam.

There are not a lot of cities and towns and states that recycle styrofoam.

We actually used to recycle it here in the state of Rhode Island, and you just have to drop, but you had to physically drop it there.

They no longer have a vendor that buys it.

So that's why we no longer recycle styrofoam.

Does I don't know if that helps, but um, thank you.

Okay, I will see if they can come to one of our meetings.

I'm sure that'll be fun.

Warn them.

Yes.

I'm volatile.

Warn them.

Okay, I will.

Council President Wall.

Not to repeat what Councilman Trafficani said.

Um he makes an excellent point.

We've been dealing with waste.

I'm sorry.

Let me let me move it over.

Now, as I said, not to repeat what Councilman Traffic Henry said, but he makes up a valid point.

We're a pretty good account for waste management, and we've been with them for a number of years, and we constantly negotiate our contracts.

And I'll be honest with you.

I think years ago, when they first became our our service person for trash, I think I got a big post, little cardboard post that I was supposed to stuff near my my trash.

They don't seem to do much in the way of education unless you go out to waste man.

You actually went to the by the way, you went out to a state facility to see how we recycle what was rejected.

I didn't know cardboard couldn't be rejected if they got wet.

Well, you know who benefits from that?

When they reject our trash, they make more money.

So it's not surprising that when we negotiate that contract, you know, provide a little education to us.

The truth is they make a lot of money when we screw up.

It's not right.

That's all I get to say.

Um, I just wanted to interject and say that I believe this grant is due on June 18th, as far as I know.

So whoever wants to contact the grant writer, I think reports to the council president.

Should probably do that ASAP.

Thank you.

Enough time.

Thank you.

Maybe this is for next year.

We can ask.

I also they do it in February too.

They'll review this one in August.

And February is in March or something like that.

Okay.

Well, we'll ask.

We'll ask.

We'll put in a request.

Um what why did I think it was a rolling grant?

Well what I have in front of me is just what the previous direct, you know, the interim clean city coordinator sent along.

Well, we'll see it's different, but it says 100,000 and it's from Rhode Island Resource Recovery, so I thought that was the facility was very educated, doing a good job of explaining all these things.

Yeah, for stuff.

Uh we'll I'll send it out.

We can give it to the um grant writer.

I'll send it to Dan and he can give it to the grant writer and we'll go from there.

Great.

Thank you.

And then if no one else has anything, I'm just gonna snowball into the next one, which is I don't know if Director Moretti can answer this question because I guess I should have tried to invite the records online.

Okay.

Okay.

So this is a discussion for the improvement for recycling um for parks and other recreational areas in Cranston.

I see the director is online, and I would just love to know if we could improve our program and see if we can start recycling, because I know at our baseball fields we throw out a lot of recyclable items.

So if you could give us some insight in how we can be helpful, we would love to do that.

Sure.

Um, I think one of the first things we have to do is get back to the basics.

And when I say back to the basics, um we have a ton of illegal dumping that we need to educate people and try to um eliminate some of the illegal dumping before we even talk about recycling.

It's you know, a city of the size, it would take it usually should take us a couple of days to get to every single park and venue.

And it takes us pretty much all five days because we're always constantly, constantly picking up illegal dumping.

And um, I'll be honest with you, we would probably make a lot of money just from the bottles and the caps that are just thrown um everywhere but the the uh proper receptacles.

Um there's bottles everywhere um from basketball courts to tennis courts, pickleball courts, you name it, there's a bottle usually everywhere.

So I think education um is is important in enforcement.

And and you know, uh, I'm gonna give you a couple of instances that just happened over this past weekend just um to give you a little bit of perspective.

Um we have a poor portable uh bathroom at Khelsey Field, which is on Dyer Avenue.

Um we went to go have it uh serviced uh this past Monday, yesterday, and uh the the service uh person was met with five gallons of oil thrown into the bathroom.

Um somebody must have changed the oil in their car and decided that they weren't gonna legally dump it somewhere, they just were gonna put it in the toilet.

Um we've we've also um uh taking in three or four gallons of paint, full gallons, just left in receptacles.

Um we all know that even if we do put out receptacles um for um recycling, um uh contamination is almost immediate if if we don't follow the guidelines.

And again, I think before we even get to that that step, um, we just have to get better uh as a community and and do the right thing as far as um using the receptacles the way they should be.

That's just my opinion.

I I'm all for recycling.

Um I know you know it's it's it's it's it's a great program, but I just think um, and I didn't even get into the dog bags, the dog boot bags.

Let's not even get go there.

Um, because that's just another whole different realm of of getting into the weeds, so to speak.

But um, I would be all for it, but I think we got a long way to go just to get um back to reality and in the proper um the proper way that people throw out their garbage in parks and and then we can stop from there.

Okay, thank you.

So who doesn't force we how do you enforce what's in the receptacles?

Is that even possible?

Uh we don't have that authority.

Uh to be honest with you, uh, I mean, we have our employees that go there and and they give me reports as to you know what they're seeing in these um particular barrels.

Um, and again, you'd be surprised to see um there's a lot of uh hefty kitchen garbage bags with the ties at the top, pretty much every day, everywhere, every spot.

So um if you know, and it's a big expense, but uh cameras is and and taking pictures and and embarrassing people is is one of the ways you could do it.

I mean, obviously it's gonna cost money, but you know respect and respect for the neighborhoods, respect for the facilities, and quite honestly respect for themselves.

I mean, um, I I think with enforcement comes with um, you know, an environmental uh person or um or the police.

I mean, I know our our employees are not equipped to do that.

No, no, no, I understand that.

Thank you.

Um, so you know the kitchen bags that I put in the baseball field are from the concession stand, right?

I'm totally not talking about uh your site, trust me.

Um it's a lot more sites out there um that do it incorrectly.

And um, I'll be honest, which I wish I knew uh as much as I know about Chipotle, because uh I I see more Chipotle than uh anything I I've ever seen in my life since I've uh been around uh Cranston uh receptacles, that's for sure.

And unfortunately, 90% of the time they never the the garbage never meets the uh the barrel.

So I'll say um, and this is just for thought.

Um I mean I am saying that um I will commit as Crancinese Little League that I will if you can do it, I will get we can get a receptacle and I will pull that thing in and out every night and keep it in the thing.

If somebody can pick it up, I would be willing to do that.

And I think Cranston West has some nice facilities, so I'm wondering if they could commit if you did like a pilot program just at three different stands throughout town and see how it works if we keep them off the property and just have them there when there's games, if we could pull them in and out and keep the stuff.

I mean, I I'd be willing to do that as part of a pilot program if that's something you want to think about.

No problem trying that.

Um no problem at all.

Um, I think one of the uh a better place, um, but obviously we wouldn't be able to take it in and out every night.

Um the high volume basketball courts.

I mean uh Dorak Avenue, for instance, you can go by there any any day um and you'll see about 40-50 bottles spewing all over the basketball courts and the entrances.

Um and and there's barrels there.

Um yeah, no, I get that.

Yeah, that's what just to see how to do because right now it comes to my house.

So um I pick through the trash and I take it home.

Yes, I do.

That happens.

Councilman Banano.

The first of all, I want to say that direct script director Piscapellio and his staff um do a great job.

I think they're doing the best they can uh with the situation that they're in.

And I think that you know none of my comments here that I'm gonna make in a second have any uh ill will towards the director or his staff.

I will say since we're talking about this and illegal dumping was mentioned, the bottles, I don't think you're gonna, I don't think you're gonna help that unless they have to get into receptacle, whether or not it's a garbage receptacle or recycle receptacle, that's due to just people not doing what they're supposed to.

The illegal dumping and the paint cans and the five quarts of oil um and things like that.

I think that stems again back to we do not have an adequate garbage contract.

When I was a little kid, you could put your kitchen sink, your kitchen counter, you could put anything you wanted on the curb, and it was collected.

We don't have that anymore.

And because we don't have the ability to get rid of a mattress unless you want to pay an amount of money or drive.

So who who if you have a regular car, if you drive a Honda Accord, right?

How are you getting your mattress to where it's supposed to go to uh to to get rid of it?

So I think the issue is we don't have we don't have the ability to put stuff on the curb and have it collected, therefore it goes on the side of the road or in a park or late at night somewhere, somebody's dropping off things that they shouldn't be dropping off in a city receptacle.

So now it's the city's problem.

Because you know what?

Deep down, some some people think, hey, the city should be collecting my garbage at my house, they can deal with it at the at the park.

And that is a problem for the kids and the people utilize in the park, but it comes back to again we we've got to be able to um to have a better garbage collection situation, like Councilman Traffic Handy and Councilman Wall have both said.

So I would like at a future meeting, um, a discussion point on the garbage contract, when it's due, when it's coming up, and if I could request that now, maybe in the next public works committee meeting, we have that conversation so we can further talk about this when it's actually on the agenda.

So if that's okay with the chair and the president, I would like to request that for the next meeting.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay, anyone else?

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Mr.

Moretti, uh, as a point of information, what did it cost the city in the previous contract for trash that wasn't recycled properly above the contract?

If I recall that the last year was about $600,000 of mixed, you know, mixed uh rejected loads is the expression.

Okay.

I I think this whole meeting is about trash.

Um next is Council Vice President Heroyan.

She has waste management and trash receptacles, covers, no covers.

Who's responsible?

Is this a PowerPoint presentation?

No.

Director Moretti, could you come up?

I feel like this is a discussion on many meetings.

Um, he just asked if we could have the contract maybe next meeting.

Would it be possible for someone from waste management to come in and speak to us?

I know I'm extremely frustrated.

Not one week goes by when I don't get at least 10 inquiries about no cover, no wheels, they're back ordered for three months.

I discussed this at our last meeting, and somebody that was publicly here came up to me and said, I just want you to know I have a family member that works at waste management, and Cranston's contract doesn't your city doesn't want to pay for replacement pots or new covers.

I left again on our trash day, drove by rugby, corner house, right across the street, four garbage cans, none with covers, all damaged.

My ward too is horrendous.

We can't go to every house and knock on and say, Can I request you to get new garbage cans?

We need waste management to do a better job here.

We need them to drive up and down the streets and see how many trash cans are out on trash day.

The other thing we need is at least once a week, probably five times a week.

There's ring doorbell cameras being posted on social media of their garbage cans being thrown down in the road, broken, another car hits it.

Like this is going on way too long.

It's not your fault, but we need someone from waste management to stop being accountable to the city and probably come speak to us, and we need to figure out a way to get the covers to get the wheels, not be told they're on back order for three months.

We're going into hot summer months.

No one wants to smell their neighbors' garbages, nobody wants rats.

How can we all work together and fix this?

To answer your question, be happy to ask them to appear.

I think it's a good very good idea.

Uh we'll do that.

Um something I do want to note though, the council does approve the contract.

So something to keep in mind next time the contract comes up that we take a look at it maybe more deeply.

And it's also a matter of money.

Some of the issues, frankly, is to say it will cost money if we include it in the contract, then but we have to come up with the funds to support that.

So it's a combination of both, I think, councilwoman.

And I don't think it's entirely waste management's fault, if you will.

But I think it's it'll be an excellent discussion.

It'll be an enlightening discussion on both sides.

And um, like councilman Bagano, please have that.

I'm sure he's taking note.

Some ward too on trash standing morning.

Actually, I did have the opportunity today to be walking some of the streets, and I believe it was in the ward three area.

And there are several cans and bins that are broken.

However, we've got to keep in mind the city has to pay for those.

And waste management does not.

So what happens is when they put presented their contract, the last one, we were anticipating a cost of approximately like 5.2 to 5.5 million dollars a year for the tipping fees and everything.

It actually came in at six point something million dollars.

So we were very short in the estimate of what we were getting.

And as a result, we had to take out the bins that we had had money in that contract for in order to make the proposal that they had palatable to be able to approve.

So we're very limited on the bins that we can get, and we do get several calls, and right now we are out of bins.

They're $50 a piece each one.

And the replacement products are tire as the wheels and the covers.

That is something that if we're notified, or I should say waste management is notified.

Obviously, there's a phone number that we give them.

They are to contact waste management, and waste management does provide them with those parts, or they will go out there that they have the trash.

They do replace the wheels and they do replace covers.

It's just the city is very large.

We have quite a few of those that are broken, and unfortunately, we don't have the resources financially to continually replenish what waste management needs in order to replace every one of those bins that are damaged.

What about when waste management happened to me personally?

And it was on my ring doorbell, through my garbage can, the cover came off, got stuck on their truck, they left it in the street and it got hit by a car.

That's on them 100%.

The city should not be paying for it.

That is on the drivers, and I did watch the truck because we were walking the street and we happen to be behind the truck.

He did a relatively good job, but again, you're talking hydraulics that are run from a stick inside the machine in the driver's side.

He's lifting them up, he's dumping that material in, and he's putting he's not in a position to literally place it down.

He does put it down.

Sometimes it's a little more aggressive than others.

It's something that we could, when waste management does come in, it's something we can talk to them about because obviously some of the damage that does get on those bins is caused by them.

And it's not so much negligence, but it's part of their operation.

How many other companies?

I believe the last time we did it, there was only one other contractor.

But in general, I believe there's at least three available to bid, but the others all bid much higher than what waste management had come in with.

Maybe before the next contract, we could have them all come before us and also see the product they're leaving for the city and town.

That might one might need a lot more repairs and be made differently than the other one.

Councilwoman Vazier, when is the next contract up for renewal?

I don't recall exactly what the contract was.

I know it was, I believe, one to two years, and then there was a renewal for a third, fourth, and fifth year.

Yeah, I look, I happened to just look today.

It looks like there's at least three to four more years.

Wonderful.

Yeah, and it did go up about 600,000 this year.

Yes.

And one of the things I believe that they did do when they financed this was they did drop their price, but they were going to be making that up in the future years in order to get to where we needed to be in order to approve the contract initially, which was I believe it was last year.

Okay.

Um, council president wall.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

If I mean, is you look if you look at the the history of this, I mean, God, and and Traft Crowley could help me out a lot more.

These bins, the ones here in front of our house, probably 20 to 25, 30 years old now.

When they first brought this in, that was over 25 years ago.

So a lot of these bins before that, some of us who are in my age group remember, we used to have to buy new trash barrels every so often.

And that be honest with you, that cost was on was on the person who who owned the home.

Um, I don't, and I know when we first bought the the big trash bins, and Providence had it before us.

One of the one of the selling points is this, so you know, rats won't get in them.

Now the lazy rat can eat the bottom because there's a big crack in the bottom.

Sounds like everybody on your streets got the top off there, so they can get in the top first mortgage board.

It's defeating the point.

We got to think of something.

I mean, there's gotta be some point where we negotiate it where we replace, we fix certain trash uh we used to fix certain uh certain covers and things like that, but there's limited resources.

At some point we gotta say your trash barrel no no longer serves serves public safety.

And it's not just smelly trash.

Rat spread disease.

So it's it's bigger.

I mean, and we gotta think about perhaps ordinances that enforce that.

You had a house that was unkempt and unlivable, uh dangerous to the city, we would I would want you to do something about it.

Your trash barrel is unsafe to the city.

I think we need we have to I mean it's not gonna be a popular thing to say, but I think we need to do something about it.

We have to tag them.

Some cities tag them.

That's yeah.

And that this is not just an uh nice to have.

This is uh as we get into the rat season if we recall.

It's gonna get worse.

So a grant for that.

I'll tell you, if I had a grant of six, you know, a hundred thousand dollars, I'd want to spend it on trash barrels.

That's I'll tell you the truth.

Um but I don't know, I doubt there's one of those because it sounds like the people who sound like the people who dump our trash kind of benefit from things not working out so well.

Um, but thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Banano.

I don't want to belabor the point, and I think um Director Correo mentioned that he followed the the trash collection truck around, but I I also find in and Director Piscapellio in the last uh group of c oh the last conversation was talking about bottles and things strewn all over the place.

I can't tell you how many times that I put my garbage out and um if I'm home on that particular day, I notice that not all the garbage gets from my properly packed barrel into the truck and it goes and floats down the road and probably winds up somewhere on reservoir.

So um I think that could be contributing to part of the problem of you know, some trash all over the place as it blows into parks and things like that.

So not only do we have to worry about the the automated arm smashing the barrels on the ground, which I've seen them do.

We also have to worry about some of the garbage um flying out uh of of the of the trash can.

Uh especially the recyclables.

Because usually my you know, most people's trash is in a bag, the garbage part of it.

But the recyclables are loose.

So it's easy for a stray bottle to get in the middle of the road, and that contributes again um to our city not being as beautiful as it could be.

So um I would like to have more conversations about this.

I don't want to belabor the point too much, but that's another potential issue with an unmanned automated system.

Um, you know, it's it's a classic example of the carting fees have gone up, the trash fees have gone up, but there's not three men to a truck anymore, there's one and it's automated and there's trash all over the place and the c barrels are getting broken.

Um there's gotta be a happy medium in there.

If we're paying more uh as citizens, we should be getting more as well.

So this is one of those things, like I said, that that you know, people want their streets plowed, they want their garbage picked up, and and you know, they want their first responders in schools to be strong, and those are the those are the things that we should be concentrated on as a council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Public works.

Okay, great.

With nothing else on the agenda, can I get a motion to adjourn?

So we'll all those in favor?

We are adjourned at 808.

You need about five minutes.

Like to call the ordinance committee to order.

Today is June 9th.

It is eight twenty-one or eight nineteen PM.

Clerk, please take a role.

Present.

Seeing none.

Um, I want to go right into the new matters before the committee.

Um go into the resolution of the city of Cranston in support of House Bill 2026 H 8483 by Representative Joseph McNamara.

Forthcoming Senate companion legislation by Senator Lamis Vargas and sponsored by Councilwoman Graziano.

Councilwoman, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Um so this would specifically support um a uh property on street, and it is within the 200 feet from the Edgewood Congressional Church.

Um we actually reviewed this.

We received a letter um from the congressional church, which I'm sort of looking for right now in my packet, um, from the Edward Congressional Church, um, where the pastor signed off that he is not in opposition um to a liquor license at 1814 Broad Street.

However, because this is set by legislature, this would have this has to go before legislature, which we're trying to get through so they know that the city is supporting them or not supporting them.

Um the vote will be taken this evening to determine that.

Um, but they do not object with the idea of allowing a liquor license for this particular parcel.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Mr.

President.

Um, I just and I'm glad the letter came in as one of the concerns I had.

How is uh how'd the church feel about it?

Um I do wanna uh uh make a motion to enter the letter from the Edgewood Congregational Church.

Uh Mr.

Kenneth Scarborough uh Scarborough, the moderator of the Edgewood Congregational Church.

We enter this letter that we all have into the record.

Is there a motion to entertain the letter into the record?

Second.

So without objection without objection.

Second.

Any discussion?

Go ahead, please take a roll.

Councilwoman Graziano.

Yes, Councilman Anduhar?

Yes, Councilwoman Vazieri, yes, councilman Capapiano, Councilman Banano?

Yes, Councilvice President Horroyan, yes, Council President Wall.

Yes.

Okay.

Moving on.

Anyone else?

Any further discussion?

May entertain a motion to approve.

So moved second.

Any discussion?

Clerk, please take a roll.

Councilwoman Graziano?

Yes.

Councilman Andujar?

Yes.

Councilwoman Vaziri.

Yes.

Councilman Cavapiano.

Councilman Banano?

Yes.

Councilvice President Heroyan?

Yes.

Council President Wall.

Yes.

It passes.

Um let's move on to new matters before the committee.

Ordinance and amendment of chapter 17.

No, sorry.

Ordinance and amendment of Title 8, Chapter 8, Section 200 of the City of Cranston Court of Oss Ordinances 2005 entitled Outdoor Fires, Cooking Fires of Any Kind.

Councilwoman Heroyan, the floor is yours.

Okay, this was brought to me before the Cranston Fire Department.

Um it is here tonight.

As the ordinance stood, they just asked for it to be updated.

You can only have an outdoor fire right now if something is on it cooking.

Things have moved forward over the years.

This has not been updated in years where people have propane fire pits and they also have gas.

The fire department was asked by some restaurants establishments to have outdoor fire pits that would be have gas connected to them or propane.

They would like to have it on the ordinance so that they can inspect these, so they are safe.

I am aware I was made aware of some businesses already in Cranston that have been having outdoor fire pits.

We need to have this correct, and we need to have the fire department inspecting it so that we know if natural gas or propane is being used, it's being used correctly and everybody is safe.

So this is just to update the ordinance.

If anyone has any questions, um fire marshal is here and willing to answer them.

Thank you.

Anyone, Mr.

President?

I think it's just a common sense uh update.

Um, as things change, different apparatuses come about.

Seems like you know, it's on the same ordinance, basically changing with the times.

I'm gonna be in full support.

Councilman Cambubiano.

I'd like to ask the chief a question.

Please just state your name in your address.

I'm in the fire marshal, city of Cranson.

Thank you, Fire Marshal.

Um, how does this affect wood fires?

Well, does it affect wood fires?

That's all still in the ordinance where if you have a wood fire, you can use a wood fire for cooking.

Um, that's the way the ordinance is written right now.

That's the only way you can have a fire pit with wood is if you're cooking.

Um you're not cooking, then you're supposed to put it out once you're done cooking.

Um, I think this might help with that ordinance because there are some people that still they still burn wood and people complain.

We'll we'll make them put it out.

If we go there, we'll make them put it out.

So maybe people will get the the listed propane ones and still have a fire pit in a uh yeah, because um, as you know, I've had multiple complaints about uh wood fires, and it's they start off cooking, then they go in the house and they end up with a smoldering fire, and the smoldering fire periods through the neighborhood and now there's smoke everywhere.

Um is there anything that we can do to address that?

Can we tweak this to say that once the it's they can't smolder?

Is there anything we can maybe not now, but in the future, maybe we can enhance this.

Yes, that's what we try to do.

Like sometimes we'll get calls we go there and they're cooking.

We tell them that once you're done cooking, you get it, you have to put it out.

If we come back here again, we're gonna put it out.

And that that's the most we can do in as far as enforcing it.

All right, thank you.

And I know sometimes we'll go out there and they're cooking.

So I'm sure the neighbors think that we're not doing anything about it, but if they're cooking, the way the ordinance is written, it's it's all right for them to do what they're doing.

We tell them if we have to come back here again, we're putting it out.

Any further questions?

Councilman Ritz.

Those propane heaters that have like that wouldn't have these, right?

Because that's included with it.

Yeah, okay.

Propane patio heat is because and like some of the the restaurants are talking about them.

I don't know if you see them, it's almost like a tabletop, it has the rocks.

Unless you add this into the ordinance, they can't have that.

They can't have anything like that.

It looks kind of vague, but as long as you put it in by uh building code and fire code, which can change every three years, the cycle changes.

That's why it's just in there as you have to put it in by building code and fire code and have it inspected.

As long as you're doing that, I think they'll be safe and it'll I think it'll be good for the for the whole city.

Consulwoman Graziano.

Thank you.

Um, I just want to say that I think this is a is is a smart idea because I I mean, I'll just say it, but all over the city we see these, and I would feel more comfortable if the fire department had a record of which ones were at which location and they were being inspected.

It would give me peace of mind.

Um, especially when I'm one of the patrons of those establishments.

Um, so I I do support this because I know that they exist out there, and obviously the fire department can't run around and regulate all these little fire pits all over.

Um, you know, who has an illegal one.

Um, but this this'll get it started so they can be in compliance.

Councilman come uh Bonano.

Uh thank you.

Um I I fully support this as well.

I think uh if the fire department wants it and it's about a fire, that's that's probably a good idea.

Listen to them.

I just have one question, and maybe I don't know even know who it should be directed to.

Perhaps uh attorney Marcello.

Um in the new section C one, it says they shall be listed.

Where should we should we further specify where they should be listed?

I assume this means they should be listed and on file with the fire department or no, so listed is UL listed a list, so it's so it's safe.

So it's listed under underrated laboratories, but it's not you don't just have underrated laboratories.

There's the global date they list them.

There's there's a number of different listing companies.

So that's uh that's sort of uh industry term.

It's okay.

Right.

So you're not buying one, like you can buy stuff off of Amazon that's not listed.

You look at some of the electrical stuff that you buy on Amazon, and it doesn't, it'll have a listing on it, but it's European listed, that they're not safe in the in the US in my terms, they're not safe.

There's some stuff that you can buy on Amazon that's European listed, and they're not safe electrical appliances.

We see them all the time when we go to small fires in houses.

99% of the time, the stuff that you buy on Amazon that's not listed in the United States of America.

All right, well, I I would say that the way this is written, it should it should be further specified based on what you just said.

Because if I buy something that's listed in Europe, well it's listed somewhere.

But that's why if we if we inspect it, yeah.

So I would say they shall be listed.

I mean, maybe you can suggest some language because I would like to just make that a little bit more specific.

Like I said, I've no issues with it.

It should be safety listing approved by uh a United certified United States of America safety listing entity.

Right, there's a number of companies that do it.

You enlisted is the the main one.

Okay.

Can I um if it's all right with the chair, can I make a motion to amend C one to say that should be listed with an entity uh authorized to um they shall be listed with a certified United States listing entity?

safety listing entity right there's a number of companies that do it you will listed as the the main main one okay you will can I um if it's all right with the chair can I make a motion to amend C one to say that should be listed with an entity uh authorized to um they shall be listed with a certified United States listing entity so moved they should be I should say they should be listed by a United States listing entity everybody got that I have a question so how chief how many um you all is underwriters limited right that's the that's the gold standard basically in America right but there are other listing companies that right so if there's electrical components on it sometimes it's UL sometimes it's LEL for electrical company listing some have global global the global insurance company they do their own listing on certain things so is there broad language that we could adopt that would cover all those like what what is what how would you describe that as a basic if you put it in there and then there's another listing company then you have to I understand change in the ordinance maybe if you put like an example in there you put must be listed example UL because UL is one of the the biggest ones I don't think it's specific enough so we'd have to work on that there's can I ask a legal question if we pass this out of committee is this going to our regular meeting or is it going to the meeting that immediately follows this one it's going to a regular meeting right so can we okay so can we pass it out of committee tonight make that determination between now and then and amend it on the floor the council will have to have it come back here.

Yes are you aware of any other communities that have this kind of yeah there are there are some other cities in Dalbada that have that have language that you think might cover I don't know how they have them as far as listed in there.

Yeah it needs to be more specific than just listed I agree with that but we got to figure out some important enough language I I thought UL was the standard but like I guess there are other listing companies there are others yeah I didn't know that yeah global global is a listing company I mean the global global insurers all over the world all right so I'll withdraw my motion for now I'm in favor of passing the side committee get it to the full council and then between now and then we can have a conversation and we can get it just right but I mean to me that this should be listed I don't know what that means.

So that's why you're the expert so thank you so the motion was a draw councilwoman graziano so so we're looking to define listed does it have to specifically be defined or can it say like they shall be listed and approved by the Cranston Fire Department I don't want to go to the middle any further comments seeing none may entertain a motion to approve so moved.

Second any discussion clerk please take a roll council graziano yes councilman and duh yes councilwoman baziri yes councilman campfiano yes council banano yes council vice president yes council present wall yes thank you moving on let's go to number uh three there are no there are no meetings we don't need to approve any meetings uh minutes from previous meetings there are no committee business matters carried over uh moving on to public comment is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment on docketed items only please step up to the podium please say your name address hi marsha fowler 35 marsha fowler 35 Milton Avenue F as in Frank O W L E R.

Yeah um so housing is a big business from employees who work in the permit office to developers who might be watching tonight to see how all of you vote on this ordinance um it's a trillion dollar business in the US and your decision tonight might be part of that business I've been a landlord in Cranston for 25 years.

All of my houses have been on undersized grandfathered and non-conforming lots um I've regularly had issues with snow removal in Cranston it's illegal to plow or shovel snow onto the road that's difficult but manageable to abide by on a 6,000 square foot lot of three family incredibly difficult on a 5,000 square foot two family bungalow and impossible to follow that role by on a 3000 square foot multifamily because there just isn't space um another issue with um the three to five three to four thousand square foot uh multifamilies for two family is um the flooding in the area with small size lots that's common after snowfall and the slush that melts and another point i want to make is that as more people buy EVs there might um there might need to be room on these small lots for multiple charging stations I try my best to pay attention and to read agenda items and stay updated on what happens um in council so please stop me if I'm wrong about this one but if two families will automatically be allowed on 3,000 square foot lots there's nothing that I read that said there's a limit to how many two families can be on a street take for example a small side street off park Ave where I live there are currently 18 houses with driveways facing the street three of which are being used as multifamilies we have about 40 cars on the street um and again correct me if I'm wrong but this ordinance doesn't put a stop to any single family on my street becoming a two family whether it be from an addition or a knockdown or a new belt that would put a lot of strain on the drainage and the traffic on the small streets in Edgewood.

Take, for example, a small side street off Park Ave where I live.

There are currently 18 houses with driveways facing the street, three of which are being used as multifamilies.

We have about 40 cars on the street.

And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but this ordinance doesn't put a stop to any single family on my street becoming a two family, whether it be from an addition or a knockdown or a new build.

That would put a lot of strain on the drainage and the traffic on the small streets in Edgewood.

There's also nothing to state that any new builds need to be apartments.

Each new build could be two new condos, which adds housing, but doesn't add to affordable housing.

Nothing about this ordinance is affordable housing.

Another last item is about how charm is subjective.

We can somehow, if we can make it be stressed and encouraged to build porches.

Because in my opinion, an edge with charm is from the front porches.

And we are lacking housing yet, complexes like the 39 units at 1890 Broad Street were left in shambles from July 20 from July 2021 until just recently.

So why are we focused on changing zoning for new builds on tiny properties when permits are already permitted through zoning rather than helping to increase affordable housing?

Why aren't we focusing on building a senior living development for our age and Cranston population?

Um there's an like this is a really sad situation that we need to be focused on people like single moms who um I have one in particular who's losing your housing during due to health issues and the child training 18.

Those are the housing issues that I feel like need to be really focused on.

So I do appreciate the work that's gone into this ordinance.

I feel it's rushed and not balanced with any effort towards affordable housing.

Thank you.

Is anyone else in the chambers that would like to speak on docketed items only?

Please step up to the podium.

State your name and address, please.

Hello, my name is Annette Bourne.

I live at 51 Community Drive.

So I'm here in support of both of the ordinances because I am here in support of increasing the supply of homes in Cranston.

Umston are already modest homes.

These homes, the zoning for these homes pre-existed in 1966.

Um there are arguments as to why those changes were made.

I have my own thoughts on the history of those changes that happened throughout the Northeast.

I mentioned that I grew up on a 2500 square foot lot in New York.

So there are many, many neighborhoods of this size throughout the Northeast.

And I have worked in affordable housing for over 20 years here.

And I do believe I'm not what's called a supply skeptic.

I do believe that if we increase the ability for more modest homes, modest lots near transit, as the Pew Charitable Trust report just came out to say it helps build a city's finances.

It helps recruit the kind of people who will populate our cafes, our restaurants, our jobs.

And I just want to let everyone know here that in the 2025 low and moderate income housing chart, the city lost homes.

Okay.

They lost 24 federal vouchers.

They had seven units that expired, and there were two units reduced due to data corrections.

So regardless of all of the planning that is going on and the building permits that have been issued, we still are falling behind when we need to be moving forward.

So I do believe that there is not a perfect law across the United States.

So I assume that there will be fixes that are needed.

These neighborhoods have had storm water problems for 35 years, is what I've been told by some residents.

So I do believe those things need to be addressed.

They needed to be addressed for the last several decades.

And I don't think we should stop promoting well-thought out modest homes because we have a problem that we haven't addressed for over 30 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the chambers that would like to speak on docketed items only?

Anyone else?

Please say your name and address, please.

Thank you, Chair, members of the council.

My name is Christina Brown.

I live in Ward 1 at 217 Armington Street.

For those of you who don't know it, it's that better.

Okay.

Um I live north of Norwood Av.

So by the uh planning department's memos, both of these ordinances will affect the neighborhood where I live and directly around where I live.

These two ordinances amendments really represent legalizing the existing built environment that exists in wards one, two, and three.

Additionally, it gives uh homeowners, which by the planning board memo is 85% of the duplexes in these three lots are non-conforming.

Uh and it legalizes those existing buildings.

That returns property rights to those homeowners and allows them to put investments into the built the buildings that they already own that are consistent with uh mortgage and lending practices.

If they were to get a loan from a bank to do development on their property or upkeep those uh properties, these are best practices to make sure that what exists right now can be maintained.

I personally live on a small lot.

I live in a single family home.

Uh these are standard in the built environment in these neighborhoods.

Uh, I also strongly support allowing uh property owners who may have a lot that could be unmerged under the provisions of this ordinance to have the ability to do that by right and build a small home on that property.

Just for everybody's knowledge, that is not an easy thing to do, even if you enable it by right.

Uh, and by the planning board memo that only affects 200 lots that might seem like a large number, but those lots are already being used by existing residents.

And I would I would bet that way less than 200 of those lots will seek to use this provision.

Uh, it costs on average, like between 200 to 400 a square foot to build new construction.

You need to take out a substantial loan, have money to be able to do that.

Um, you have to have good credit to get the construction.

This is not something for the faint of heart that literally everybody uh on the 200 lots that are in question on the non-conforming ordinance will just instantly be able to build a home.

We know that from all of the reforms we've worked on at the state level to enable small homes to be built by right, that it is even with our accessory dwelling unit laws, it is still incredibly expensive and hard to build new homes.

What this does is allow us a chance to keep the diversity of the built environment that we have currently in these three wards and give us hopefully the option of creating small homes on these lots, which right now the median sales price is at 525,000.

An average household income to meet that cost is between 145,000 a year to 175,000.

That is not what average Cranston families earn.

They are earning around 87,000 a year.

Uh, we do not have housing available for people who already live here.

And as we create small homes, you give people the options of spreading their family out, allowing them to move family members who may be doubled up in their own property into a small home right next door, which I've listened to a lot of planning and zoning meetings in Cranston, has been done in the city for decades.

Families have done that in their own neighborhoods, and this makes it allowable.

So I want to thank counselor andahar for proposing these two ordinance amendments, and I hope the committee strongly supports them.

Thank you.

Is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on document items only?

Please come up, say your name and address.

Hi, I'm Charlotte Tulin.

I live at 30.

It's okay.

Charlotte Toolin, T O O L A M.

I live at 37 Harmon Ave in Ward 3.

I was at last week's city plan commission meeting.

At that meeting, the City Plan Commission said people should simply come before them and just petition for a zoning change or a property division.

There was even a lawyer who testified that he was commonly hired to fire these petitions.

I believe he might be here today.

Not entirely sure, but I think he might be here with us today.

But let's state that again.

These zoning and property division petition process is so complicated and rigorous that petitioners regularly hire a lawyer just to submit a petition with the hope of approval.

In my neighborhood in Ward 3, the median household income goes from 60,000 to 36,000.

It can cost thousands of dollars to hire the professionals needed to put together a strong petition.

For a family in my neighborhood, they're looking at one to two dollars out of every $10 they earn to properly file a petition with no guarantee of success.

Because as the city plan commission said, they do turn people down.

The lawyer there that night said they turned down two of his clients recently.

For a family looking at spending thousands of dollars on putting together a strong petition.

This is grocery money, health insurance money, and gas money at a time when prices have soared and paychecks have not kept up.

The city plan commission process is good for large developments, large developers, and property owners with large budgets.

It's not a big deal for these groups to have to pay for all that paperwork.

And obviously, the City Plan Commission has done a great work on large developments like Cranston Printworks.

They deserve credit for their effort in these areas.

But I'm here today speaking before the city council, and the city council is supposed to speak for the people.

It is the council's greatest strength to speak for the people of their ward and the people of the city.

The council speaks for families who need to add an apartment for grandma to move into.

Allow Cranston families to make decisions about what they do with their own property and keep taking care of their families, young and old.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on document items only?

Please come up, say your name and address.

I'm here tonight to speak in opposition to ordinances 4-2603 and 4-2604.

I want to join in support of the negative recommendation forwarded to you last week by the Princeton Planning Commission.

Uh, as I said to them last week, I do see value in giving some flexibility in defining parameters for for development.

But these two ordinances go way too far in that effort.

They come to the agenda tonight as tools to create more housing and to build more affordable housing.

While I support those goals, these ordinances will not accomplish that.

These ordinances are nothing more than bonanzas for the real estate speculators and developers.

These ordinances are not the golden answer to our housing challenges.

These ordinances are a seismic shift in Cranston land use policy, like we haven't seen in 60 years.

They present a new world order in Cranston zoning that is inconsistent with solid and deliberative planning directives that are decades old.

My opposition to importing the Providence Housing Court model is well known.

These two ordinances complete the second and third leg of converting Cranston to an urban city filled with tenement, tenements, and row housing.

Look at Providence's neighborhoods in South Providence, Smith Hill, Fox Point, narrow lots, no on-site parking, neighborhood congestion.

Is that the vision you want to embrace for Cranston?

Whether it's Providence, Paris, Pittsburgh, I don't care.

Doesn't matter.

Overdevelopment out of a character, out of character with traditional neighborhoods is a mistake.

These ordinances are blank checks.

At least now we have a check and balance system through the zoning board or the planning commission.

Traditional developed Cranston neighborhoods can accommodate some level of development.

Both ordinances affect lots in the B1 and B2 zone.

This is an attempt to create as a matter of right that previously platted lots of 3,000 square feet with 30 feet of frontage, don't need to be merged.

Think about that for a moment.

A house on a lot 30 feet wide on 3,000 square feet.

4-2603 does not just apply to residential lots based on my review.

It is inconsistent with ordinance 4-2604 that would allow by right, single and two family dwellings on lots of 4,000 square feet.

You maybe could make an argument that 4,000 square feet for a single family home is feasible in some cases.

But how can we think of a two-family home on a lot of 4,000 square feet is always appropriate?

That is a 50% reduction from today's requirements for lot size.

You could have up to a 2,000 square foot footprint for a house on a 4,000 square foot lot at 50% lot coverage.

The above the advocates for these ordinances last week called them common sense.

For me, there's somewhere between no sense and nonsense.

They are not going to be an instant antidote to a complex housing challenge.

Housing initiatives at the state level have helped but even those prompted by the former speaker are a small part of the uh answer.

Yes, the answer to housing is more housing, but macro issues like stimulating private investment, lower interest rates, reduced cost of construction material, a skilled workforce are the major drivers for the housing community.

I don't know what people expect with this downsize downsizing of lot size, but let me share this.

Last week, a newly constructed constructed house at 128 Wollaston Street, uh, in a B1 zone like this ordinance on 3200 square feet sold for 515,000, new construction.

I'm not sure that this is the price range that we are expecting in these ordinances.

So therefore, respectfully, I urge you not to pass them as presented.

And we continue to find ways to encourage housing, but tonight's ordinances are not the answer.

Thank you.

Does anyone else in the ordinance that would like to speak on document items only?

Please come up, say your name and address.

Good evening.

Kathleen Lanfier, L A N P H E A R, 95 Shaw Avenue, Cranston, Rhode Island.

Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee, I serve on the Cranston Planning Commission, and I am here this evening for two purposes.

The first of which is that President Prius was unable to come this evening.

He did submit a letter to the committee, which I hope is uh part of the record.

And I am here to answer any questions that you may have with regard to that, and also to make a couple of additional comments, not to reiterate what is in that letter.

First of all, the commission last week made an unusual unanimous decision.

That's uncommon for us.

We differ on many things, but we all agreed last week that a 3,000 square foot lot for a single family home is just too small, and that a 4,000 square foot lot for multifamily or two-family is equally too small.

There were a few reasons for that.

Um, as Mr.

Murray just said, there are some consequences of development, such as parking, room for trash cans, impervious surfaces, and a lot of other concerns that are affected by lot size.

When the planning commission discussed last week that we can do this on a case by case basis, which is what we do now when someone comes in with a lot of record that is undersized, we consider it on a case-by-case basis.

And the reason for that is that each of as each of you know, because you come from different wards in different parts of the city, your neighborhoods are different from each other.

And the reason that it is better to consider these on a case-by-case basis is because we take those differences into account.

We take those neighborhoods into account.

We look at what a lot in a particular area can sustain.

And then we make our decision based on that evidence that's before us.

If you were to pass this by right ordinance, either of them, it would allow that as a matter of right.

As it says, and I would caution the council um to what I recall in my nine years on the planning commission, and this is my only appearance before the council or the ordinance committee, um, is that we had a solar ordinances a few years back, and those solar ordinances were presented to us with the best of intentions.

One of the reasons for those solar ordinances is so that Cranston could, as a community, meet their green energy obligations, and these ordinances remind me of those solar ordinances.

No one is arguing that we don't need more housing.

We absolutely do.

So I would ask that the council consider that in making your decision so that you make a thoughtful, rational and well-developed decision on these two ordinances.

The other thing I would mention is that we inquired of our solicitor at our meeting as to whether or not changes in state law, how they would act in tandem with these two ordinances, and was there a possibility that state law overlaid over these ordinances could actually allow development on even smaller lots.

And our Mr.

Attorney Marcella advised that that was a possibility, and that there were currently bills in the legislature that may affect what was if these ordinances were approved.

So I would just ask you to keep that in mind as well.

But for the most part, and I the only area I am going to um to also go over very briefly is just the increase in density in these particular areas that these ordinances would create with regard to the two family houses, it would be an increase almost a doubling of the density, and density is important, it's part of the future land use map, which is part of our comprehensive plan.

So when we voted unanimously to send a recommend a negative recommendation on each of these ordinances, it was because these ordinances are not consistent with the comprehensive plan because they violate the density required of the future land use map, and that's a future land use map that this council and the planning commission voted on not very long ago as part of our submission to statewide planning.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience would like to speak on document items only?

Seeing none clerk, anyone on the line that would like to speak on documented items only.

Hi, please just state your name and address.

Hi, thank you.

This is Emily Zall at 102 Moreland Av.

Um I was also at the Planning Commission meeting last week, and um I very much agree with the overall goal and building more housing.

And it um however, it definitely gave me some pause that the planning commission uh voted against this.

So um, yeah, kind of where my head at is at is like we should yes, think about the consequences, um, but also not let that be a reason to not do anything.

Um I was also surprised to hear that um there's a plan for the city which involves keeping the level of density constant, and I definitely think that that is something that should be adjusted.

I think it makes sense not to have a drastic change in density, but I definitely think it's something that we would want to look at gradual gradually increasing in some way.

So I think I'm leaving leaning more in favor of of these ordinances, but I am interested to hear more about the details and how risks would be mitigated to the extent possible, while with the understanding that um no change for the positive is completely without risk.

And yes, so that's that's all for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else online that would like to speak on docketed items only?

If you could just state your name and address.

Hi, my name is Dr.

Nalkushivisao I live at Nowandy Sefton and drive here in Crescent, of course.

And I'm talking in favor of these ordinances.

At first, I actually was very skeptical of the ordinances.

I thought that it was really more of like a big bonanza for developers and that there would be environmental costs and things like that.

But then I learned a little bit more about it from the housing experts that testified today.

And I really would like to rely on them and their expertise more than say someone, I don't know.

It seems like the the other two people who spoke up mostly and firmly in an opposition of these ordinances say they care about important affordable housing, but it sounds a lot like what we call NIMBY's, not in my neighborhood with worry about density, worries about the change in our in our um neighborhood that's gonna cause tenements and things like that, which to me sound kind of classes, and also I would have to see a little racist to tell you the truth.

And I say this as someone who does, you know, a US historian who studies race relations, and that really does disturb me.

Because what we really do need is we do need an increase in affordable housing, but not the affordable housing.

Like this ordinance is not going to give the affordable housing that I would love to see, but more in terms of like middle class housing, right?

We're not looking for housing for people who are way below the um the sort of median income, but trying to have housing and probably not province, sorry, in Cranston that would be able to match the needs of families, elders, younger people, people within the median income instead, right?

And so I, you know, like I said, I was a skeptic.

I really worry about the sort of supply side economics as a historian.

I'm really suspicious of that.

But having learned from the housing experts, right?

I have changed my mind and think that this is something that we actually do need.

Um and I was I also testified last week, as y'all may uh some of y'all may remember.

And I was just kind of sort of surprised by the fact that the committee just disregarded the expertise that was in the room.

You had like three women who actually have dedicated years of their lives on housing, testifying on this and how that was dismissed in favor of the one uh man who spoke up who spoke up in terms of one hand, you know, talking about tenements and things like that.

And I found that very disturbing.

So I just wanted to think about like where are we coming from and what do we really want to see?

What is the the huge problem with density?

It's almost like there's a fear among some people that overnight it's gonna look like I don't know, like Fox Point or something like that.

And I just don't think that's gonna happen.

And so I think that I'd rather trust to expertise in the room of people who've been like working on this for a long time rather than just you know kind of cave in to fears about like oh our neighborhood's gonna change, it's gonna look, you know, a little bit more, you know.

Like I don't I it's really I have to say I'm really kind of disturbed by the sort of the the discussion in the room so far.

And I am a strong favorite now after being a skeptic of the ordinances.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor.

Is there anyone else online that would like to speak on bucketed items only?

Monica.

Hi, if you could just state your name and address everything.

Monica Texera de Souza, I live at 1921 Broad Street.

Please proceed.

Thank you so much.

And thanks so much for letting me provide some uh input.

I'm a longtime resident of Cranston.

I own a two-family, and I want to speak in support of these ordinances.

I spoke last week as well.

And my primary point was related to the fact that for me, owning a two-family has really enabled me to take care of my family, including my mother-in-law who lives on the first floor.

And I do believe that for families having the ability to have more flexibility about how they utilize their property can really help them.

It can help them in terms of just improving their quality of life for themselves, for their kids, for um any elderly people in their family uh that they're caring for.

But we know in the society that we live in and with our economy being structured the way that it is, for most people, if they're fortunate enough to be able to purchase a home, any wealth that they have is really tied into that home, that property that they own.

And so I think what these ordinances do is that not only will they enable families who potentially are in need of potentially accessing resources to enable um their children to go off to college or to pay for medical debts that they may have, or all of the other expenses that we know, you know, our fellow residents are always burdened with.

It's going to enable them to now have an additional lot that they can decide what to do with.

They can sell it, they can use that money to again improve their own lives, the lives of their family members, or they can now build on those lots.

And like some of the folks who have commented earlier have said, that could enable them to now have a house for their kid who's coming out of college and may not be able to afford to buy a place outright on their own in light of the prices.

One of the points that I made when I spoke last week, and I I just want to reiterate tonight the data shows that currently the median age of a first-time home buyer is 40 years of age.

And so when we think about these new generations and the way that they're struggling to be able to just get a foothold um, you know, in the American dream in their future, to be able to have their own families.

I think this ordinance will, or these the set of ordinances will go a long way in helping people um to achieve some of these goals for themselves and again to help their family members.

And finally, I I will just say that when we look at what these ordinances are doing, I really don't see them as radical departures at all from what we currently have in these zones that are impacted or would be impacted by the ordinances.

I know in my neighborhood, and you know, I live in one of these zones, I walk past many small lots, small lots that have single family homes, small lots that have two or three family homes.

And that is part of the historic character of these neighborhoods that are impacted or would be impacted by these ordinances.

And so I honestly don't think there would be much people would not really notice these minor changes that would occur because as someone else mentioned earlier, it would only impact a small number of lots, and only you know, a percentage of those individuals would actually choose to utilize um their their rights under these ordinances.

So for all those reasons, I just want to voice my strong support for these ordinances.

Um, and I appreciate you allowing me to speak tonight.

Thanks so much for all the work you do.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Anyone else online that would like to speak on Dr.

Peter's only.

Uh hey, Peter.

Uh, state your name and address.

They need to unmute themselves.

Hello.

Yes, Peter.

Just say your name and address.

Uh Peter Friedrich's 150 Virgin Street, Providence, Rhode Island.

Go ahead, sir.

All right.

Thank you for having me.

Um I'm a certified planner at the American Institute of Certified Planners, former city planner in Newport and director of planning in Central Falls.

I started a planning firm, Labor Planners uh based in Providence about three years ago, working all over the state on housing.

Doing some work right now in Barrington on zoning for more affordable housing.

And I want to applaud this ordinance and think that it could do some great things in Cranston to try and build some more housing at a low price point.

And of course, um the more housing we had the ability there is to uh for the existing housing stock to say at lower prices and remain affordable uh for neighborhood residents.

Um I was trying to follow some of the planning board's uh comments and haven't been able to find the feature land use map that they're referring to.

There's the one I see online, it just duplicates the uh urban services boundary.

Um so I'd love to try and get uh the ability to look at that.

Um and then I was also noticing the planning board uh chair's comments about um fiscal impact and protecting neighborhoods and uh you know some of the work we're doing in other places.

This is uh building what your neighbors have is exactly it's low-hanging fruit, um and an easy thing to do um that doesn't really have substantial change in neighborhoods of the existing fabric and house sizes and setbacks, um, but can have meaningful impact and housing production and uh neighborhood quality and also improving the city's uh tax base.

Thank you.

Thank you, Peter.

Um anyone else online that would like to speak on documented items only.

I'm saying no other public on but online.

This time I'd like to close public comment.

Uh moving on to ordinance four, two, six-03 ordinance amendment of chapter 17 of the code of the code of the city of Cranston as entitled zoning.

This is a this is the unmerged one.

So uh before we begin discussing that, I would like to enter, make may entertain a motion to enter for the record a letter from uh chairman or I should say president Stephen Freyas and also the director Ken Millet um letter for Ken Millette into the record.

So move, Ms.

Chair.

Any discussion?

Clerk, please take a room.

Councilwoman Graziano, yes, Councilman Anduar.

Yes, Councilwoman Vazieri, yes, councilman Capapiano, yes, Councilman Banana, yes, Council Vice President Horrien, Council President Wall.

Yes.

Okay, so now I'm gonna begin.

So um two years ago, my councilman next to me, Councilman Bernano, uh said that you know, we'll we'll knock on a door and never have to talk about choice.

And uh today that's what we're trying to establish.

I feel that this unmerged law is something that should be given by choice.

The owner should have the choice to unmerge their lot if they can.

This is not rocket science.

This is just talking about revenue that could come in.

So um, clerk, if you could please post the first multifamily plans.

So this is something I wear a bunch of hats, and I'm a developer.

That's a multifamily house.

Go to the next page on that one, which if you scroll down, three beds.

So you got you know, mom, dad, Jane, John, the uh, you know, the second floor or the first floor might have mom, dad, Jose, and Jessica.

So that's a three-bed one-family house.

Keep on scrolling down.

Um, normal house, new construction.

Um, keep on going down.

Keep on going.

Everybody sees that that's a multifamily house, correct?

Council people.

I see okay.

Now move on to the uh survey slide, please.

Survey slide.

This there we go.

Okay, so if I don't know if you could zoom in on that bottom one that's in color.

Yep.

See that right there?

This is a project I'm working on.

I tried to redact it as much as I can.

But that multifamily house is gonna go on a 2500 square foot lot, and it's gonna have parking and it's gonna be unmerged.

So now if you could zoom out, clerk right there.

So as you see in yellow, that's where the house is gonna go.

The driveway is gonna go right there to the left of the bottom of it, and the single family house with the garage in the low yard is gonna stay to the right.

So I just wanted to show this because a lot of people are saying that you can't do nothing on a 3,000 square foot lot.

There's evidence that you could do it on a 2500 square foot lot, and I just put a single family house, but a multifamily house on that.

So I just wanted to debunk that.

So now let's go into the assessment.

The assessment, um, I thank Mr.

Millet for giving it to us, but I feel it's an error because what he's telling me is that the single family home is average 412,000, while a two-family home is only average 387.

So I think there's an error there.

I don't know if he's calling the whole city or if he's just doing awards one, two, three.

So I just wanted to make that um I just wanted to note that.

So I would also like to call um our planning director if she could come up to answer.

I have a few questions for her in regards to um another slide that I'm going to show, which combines both um both ordinances.

So we'll just try to stay on track with one director.

Thank you for coming, by the way.

Uh, if we could go to the slide, uh that's not on page one.

So, director.

As the council has these slides, and you could just, I guess, scroll down to the next one.

Yep.

Can you tell me more or less what it affects each ward?

Like how many are you expecting will have the right in wards one, two, and three to unmerge.

We're talking about unmerging.

Right.

So they're the way if you could just state your name, director.

Sure.

My name is Beth Ashman, A S H M A N, and I'm the city planning director.

Um, yeah, so the way these ordinances are written, they don't allow the creation of new lots.

And so the where you could potentially unmerge lots to create lots, does vary throughout the city.

So there are uh less than a dozen potential lots that could be impacted in ward one.

Um I know I shared one other map with you that showed the locations of where lots could be where the 200 lots that could be the black and white one clerk are this map.

There you go.

Yeah, so this map shows in um the different colors for the different sizes of lots, but these are the lots that could be potentially affected by this ordinance.

So these are 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 lot square foot lots that are lots of record in the city.

Um very few in ward one, and the the lightest color there is those lots that are 3,000 to 4,000, and that's the the smallest category.

Um you could see those are disproportionately in ward three.

So that it's not that someone could create a three, these ordinances wouldn't allow someone to create a 3,000 square foot lot when one isn't already platted in our city land records.

So I just wanted to share that analysis in terms of you know where additional homes could be added.

Um director, can you compare the density of the new homes allowed under these proposals to existing homes in the zones?

So the the density of the new homes that'd be allowed to be created would be very similar to the homes around them.

So they um, you know, there's a range of densities and the home the lots that would become developable uh are on the smaller side, they're on below average, but they're there um someone mentioned that they would be twice the density of the current zoning, but they won't be twice the density of the current neighborhood, they'll be similar to the density of the current current neighborhood.

No, director, with this first ordinance of the unmerged, this will be by right.

So if the lot is single family on an 8,000 square foot lot, and they could show that pre-1966, there were two lots there, and let's say one was 35 and the other one was four, they will be able to unmerge, correct?

Right, but they might not be able to, they might would be unable to unmerge if they can meet certain conditions.

Uh, these ordinances don't you know don't exempt you from other provisions of the subdivision ordinance.

You would have to show that you can create parking of one space per housing units.

You'd have to show that there's that all that space is developable.

So say you had a small lot and there was a drainage culvert, that that drainage culvert land would not count towards the lot size, or if there was an easement over the property, that it would not count.

So it'd have to be you'd have to have that 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 square feet unencumbered by other easements or or wetlands, and you'd have to show that you could park it.

And we need to tighten up our stormwater regulations, but we've done a lot of research into that right now.

We we can under our current state law, we can make them show us that they can handle the stormwater on the site.

Thank you, Councilman Banano.

Setbacks, they'd have to be able to meet the setbacks because if they can't build the new house, if the with an unmerger, there's a lot, one side that has an existing house usually, and one side that's undeveloped.

If you create non-conformities setbacks for that existing house, you still have to go for a variance for those new non-conformities you were creating.

Thank you, Director.

Councilman Bonano.

Thank you.

Um I had a couple of quick questions and a statement.

I was on zoning board for I want to say seven years before um elected to the council.

So I'm familiar with lots and variances and things of that nature.

What I never really learned, and still haven't, is to how lots could be separate, and then all of a sudden they're merged.

So that is that is one of the least fun parts of my job is to explain to a landowner that yes, you own two lots, you get two tax bills, but your lots are merged for zoning.

And if you would like to find out if you could unmerge them, that's gonna cost you're gonna have to hire a land survey.

It's gonna cost you thousands of dollars to get a yes or no to that question.

So um right.

Um, and and that we we got a lot of those uh unmerges, you know, that went through planning and came to us uh when I was on zoning, and um yeah, and I after going through all that, I understood what we were doing.

I never really understood why or how those lots got merged in the first place.

Um if you get two tax bills at some point there were two separate lots, but were they just I don't know how you could get two tax bills, and you really only have one lot.

So for zoning purposes, yes, for zoning purposes.

We like to use they're considered merged for zoning.

So yes, you have you have two lots, each four thousand square feet, but they're considered merged for zoning because the zoning now requires that you have six thousand square feet for a single family or eight thousand for a two-family.

No, very, very few, very small percentage of our two families are on eight thousand square feet or more.

That's very uncommon to be conforming.

It's very much more common.

Most of the two families in our that exist in our neighborhoods are non-conforming because the zoning requires 8,000 square feet, and and they just generally don't have that.

I can give you date on that.

Don't have that size.

My statement, I just want to, I guess it's a question.

You said at the very beginning that there would be no new lots.

So in other words, my lot that I where I live, um is about 14,000 square feet.

I couldn't carve out, and it's always been one lot.

I couldn't carve out 3,000 square feet and build a house on there and sell it or put one of my daughters in it when they get old enough.

Not this ordinance doesn't let you create new lots.

Okay.

I think I think that's based on the feedback that I've gotten from some of the public.

Um that's a big big piece of the puzzle.

Um people don't understand that that's not a possibility.

They just think that people are gonna start making 3,000 square foot lots of plopping houses down.

Slice up.

So I just the reason I asked question is I wanted to make sure it was very clear that that's not possible.

The only time that this could sort of be utilized is if for zoning purposes a lot was merged and it was once two, and now it's considered one, and somebody wants to make it two again.

That's sort of the situation where we find this ordinance to be.

Right.

That's correct.

But councilman, you would have to show proof in the archives that there was two lots pre-1966.

So in 1866, 1850, there could have been two lots, and by using that map, you can separate unmerge the two lots, correct, Director?

Yes, that's what's that's what's in the text of the ordinance, Mr.

President.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Could you go back to that second slide where it it's it's after your initial slide?

It's uh slide number two, and you started talking about the B1 and B2 zones that were in wards one, two, three, and five.

And you started saying that if I'm reading correctly, the type of lots there were 12 or under 12, I believe you said in ward one.

Yeah, do you have the figures for the other uh three wards?

You know, handy or because the because that's not very many.

You know, I came prepared with a with a little chart of okay of lots by lot size distribution.

I didn't bring it by ward.

Um but you did outline just ward one, so I was curious because how many of you look at that that black map that sort of scans out better than I mine's very small, I'm on this side, so I I guess yeah, it's so I'd have to count them up, is what you're saying.

Yes, so the the distribution of lots.

All right, let me try this.

What was the total figure?

And I'm looking for that.

Total figure.

Um so we we think there could be up to 400 new housing units built if that could be potentially buildable.

That's including duplexes.

Okay.

So we could 12 and one.

So about my new math would tell me what.

Yeah, so there's 200.

288 in the other three.

Okay.

That's so I I'll have to look at that density.

And then I'm gonna stop there.

That's so that that was a question.

I was wondering how they they would disperse.

And Councilman Benano, he did give me the a little bit.

If it wasn't if it was merged prior to 1966, which why is 1966?

Because that's when the requirement for 6,000 square feet.

So that came into place in 1966.

Okay.

All right.

I'm gonna yield my time for now.

Councilwoman Graziano.

Um be clear which maps were showing for which ordinance.

So President Wall, the one that we're talking about, where there I'll just say ward one, and I think Beth and I know it so well because we've talked about it, but there were 10 lots in ward one.

This is just for the merging and unmerging of the merged lots unmerging.

Yeah, do not look back at that other yellow and black map.

That's the next ordinance.

But there's a total of approximately 400 for the merged for the merged and then unmerged.

I got that figure.

200 for the unmerged, 200 for the multi.

So let's just stay on track.

Yeah, there's only 200 potential lots in the whole.

Well, in wards one, two, three that could possibly be unmerged by right.

I um the two the two ordinances overlap on which lots they make developable.

So I'd say it's 300 on the unmerger.

Oh no, that no, I have it backwards.

200 on the unmerger, 300 potential units, so 150 lots that are become developable uh at 4,000 for two families.

Uh yeah, so we need to go over that at the next one because I'm uh because these are not the numbers that I have.

I have different numbers here.

Yeah, I don't want to interrupt, but you just quoted three different numbers.

We stuck when I asked the question initially, I got 400.

400 is a total for both ordinances.

Then you said 150.

So that's kind of a little confusion for me.

No, those are those are just 400 is our estimate of the number of new units that could be created if both ordinances were passed together.

Okay.

So I think the question is just for clarification.

I know you said there's under 12 lots that would be affected in ward number one.

What is the total number of lots that could be affected in my seeing this correctly?

Is it one, two, and three, or one, two, three, and five?

And five.

One, two, three, and five.

So the total number is what for the unmerger, 300.

300.

So subtract that right at 12.

So I'm at now, I'm at 288 in the other words.

Okay, that's all I want.

Just a total number because I can't really see that that it's smaller.

Councilman Graziano.

You let me not our stuff.

Close yours.

Um one at a time.

We're only speaking of sorry, councilwoman.

We're only speaking on the unmerged ordinance right now.

Thank you.

Um, thank you.

Um I want to thank Councilman Andah for um seeking my expertise on um, you know, wetland resources and um floodplain because we did go ahead and in this ordinance.

Um have some additional amendments that I'd like to make to it.

Um, but um my issue here, and and I've listened to all of the testimony, and I appreciate the testimony.

Um, my issue here is gonna be on stormwater and parking.

So I know it seems like a small amount of lots.

Um, but I I do I work in construction, I permit construction, I'm on construction sites all day, and storm water is a huge part of my everyday job.

Some have catch basins, some don't.

Um, you know, Beth was kind enough to touch upon the stormwater issue, which for me is uh is a starter on that.

And I think that I am not going to be that person that's going to jump into an ordinance before we have support from other ordinances.

And while I appreciate you saying the state backs that up, I need the city to be backing us up.

So like I I need to be responsible for my constituents and I need to be responsible when we have flooding in our streets and we don't have catch basins.

We're not managing our stormwater with green infrastructure.

We are not asking any of our commercial industrial or residential permits to include stormwater.

Um it's such a big deal.

That first two inch flush that you see in a storm is the most important flush.

And if we're not handling that, and that is going down our to our streets, then we are not going to be able to, as a city of Cranston, accommodate for stormwater.

And in fact, I I strongly believe that the Rhode Island um discharge elimination system permit, probably specifically states that you cannot have a licen discharge into the roadways and illicit discharge include stormwater runoff.

And I do those permits every day.

And DPW should be regulating those permits for on site stormwater.

Um, I do not believe that the state standards handle the level of stormwater that we require.

Um we go off 1961 precipitation rates.

I know this council has heard me say this over and over again.

Um we are talking about uh 100 year storm, which is um 24 hours and you know, six inches of rain.

Well, it's not six inches of rain anymore, it's 11 inches of rain, it's eight inches of rain.

These storms are huge.

And I I do not I know you're gonna say it's 280 lots, but this is just a start.

I think I'm not saying it's a bad idea, and I absolutely support housing, but I I have to be adamant about stormwater.

And if we had overlay districts that allowed multi-housing or like higher yield development, those would all be reviewed under the standards for the state where we would manage stormwater.

These little individual houses everywhere are going to contribute to a larger stormwater.

When whether or not everyone wants to believe it in these small lots, it's not just the house and the driveway.

It's and they put in a patio and they want to have a deck and they want to have an in-ground pool.

And I I'm just very gonna say that I'm very concerned about stormwater.

The other item I'm gonna say is parking.

I'll reference a time where um three of our council people hosted a budget meeting over at the senior center, and the first 45 minutes we talked about parking um and how there's not enough parking and people are parking the streets.

I actually did not give it tonight, but I have pictures on um Bayview with people parking on the sidewalks.

I I understand the zoning from 1966.

I I am not, I cannot correlate it with today's family.

In 1966, families had one car, one working person, you know, two to five kids.

And the way that life was was people walked or took public transit.

They didn't have five different cars for every person in their house.

They didn't have kids commuting to and from college.

I just think that 60 years later, we're living a different life.

And I'm really concerned that I have residents calling me about parking and asking me about parking.

How can I move forward on this if I have residents today that can't find parking?

I have residents today that call me about catch basins.

In fact, I met with two residents to talk about this ordinance, and we walked around and we found two full catch basins on Patuxet Avenue.

You know what a full catch basin is?

A deep sump is a four-foot catch basin.

You know how long it takes to fill that catch basin?

10 years.

That means that basin has been missed for 10 years.

So my concerns are definitely stormwater and parking.

I'm not trying to restrict development.

I am in one of these areas.

I am not a B1 or B2 lot.

I will also say that, you know, without the wetland resource restriction, you in my ward, you are gonna get a lot of development that's associated with high yield numbers.

You're talking about million dollar houses.

If you look at this without my restrictions, those are big time houses that are not gonna yield any type of affordable housing for families.

If I was a developer, I would come in and buy it.

Um, but I'll yield a little bit of time and just say a couple, two last things.

Um the people that are buying these houses that I'm seeing are developers.

They're not somebody asking their elderly family member to come live with them, or their handicapped family member to come live with them.

Those are ADUs.

I'm seeing that in ADUs.

So and I I'm working on them.

I'm doing it every day.

Um, and that's what people are building to accommodate for their family members because my ADUs, I will tell you right now, range now.

This is construction costs, depending on the size, they range 300 to 700,000.

I had a 700,000 ADU.

Um, and I really feel like this case by case basis that zoning and planning go through with the unmerging of the lots may not be ideal.

And I'm not saying it's the answer, but I sat at a zoning board, and some of the concerns were stormwater.

I've sat at those meetings, I've listened to the zoning boards, and I've seen the concern that their neighbors have for impacts to their lot from stormwater.

And you don't always know that someone can put in a subsurface infiltration system or a dry well, and they can meet the estimated seasonal high groundwater for that lot.

And I I just overall have concerns about those items.

I'm trying to go fast, so I'm not annoying everyone.

Um, but I think there needs to be additional studies done.

And I'm again, I'm not a no with additional work.

Um, stormwater drainage capacity, um, potential increases of runoff and how localized uh flooding affects our city and our areas, parking demand on street parking impacts, traffic generation and circulation.

And the other item that I that is outstanding to me that still I don't feel like I have a full handle on is infrastructure impacts.

Um, what are our capacities that we hold?

And I think Director Craya will have to answer this question.

What are the capacities that we hold on our permits with Providence water for how many gallons per household and how many houses we have in in Cranston?

And then also back to sewer, what's our sewer capacity and what is our permit rate and how are we escalating towards that ceiling on that permit?

What rate do we have to apply for a higher permit rate?

When was the last time we did an INI study?

Infiltration and inflow.

So I there's a few things I need to understand.

And I would be feel better if I had a stormwater ordinance.

And I know that planning board, excuse me, the planning department has heard me on that.

I have sent them my comments.

Um, and so it's just something that I would like to say that if we had other items, maybe I could support this, but um, right now without evaluation of those items.

I would I would have to be a no.

But if you I do want to assign them in the language of y'all are gonna be a yes.

Thank you, councilwoman.

Anyone else would like to say anything?

Uh Councilman Campo Biano.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um first uh I want to thank uh Commissioner Linfier for uh attending tonight.

And um, we all know that uh that position is a volunteer position, and and she came on her own because uh she must feel pretty strongly about it.

Um also that's it's rare to have a commission show up like that.

It's also weird to have a unanimous vote.

Um I sit on on a lot of uh planning meetings because uh it's important to our constituents.

And um I said it on this one because I was asked on it for a different issue to be there, and I happened to be there that day.

Um as far as the unmerged it can be done now.

It can be done now if someone wants to um to put a house for whatever reason, whether it's for grandma or whether it's for profit, they can they can do it now.

They just have to go before planning.

And um, there's a reason for that.

It's because of the checks and balances.

Just like uh councilwoman Graziano just said now, she's concerned about several different items in the they would be addressed at the planning stage, and that's why those checks and balances are put in there.

Um I hear it thrown around about um increasing tax revenue.

Um, I think it was Councilman Bonano that said to uh the uh economic development uh director at the uh budget hearings that uh he was quite frustrated that he had suggested that housing would uh help with the tax base and um and it it won't with the services that are gonna be required.

It's probably be more of a decrement than it's gonna be uh a help because uh we just went through a bad budget season and we know how that goes.

Um, as far as housing and shortage, there are um it was mentioned at that meeting.

There are quite a few um I'm gonna pull my notes up here.

There are um quite a few uh housing things that are going through now that are gonna really help uh rezoning an Elmwood uh Champlain project.

It could be 250 houses there, 250 units there.

Legion bowls looking at 70 units of one lane 44 print works.

I think it's 200.

Um, then there's a the nights full, the nights full uh condos they're gonna be putting in there.

So that's that's more housing.

Um, we also have the uh the situation where um some of the baby boomers are not gonna be with us anymore.

And uh there's gonna be uh the speculation there's gonna be less population, and um we won't it don't be as much of a need as there are is right now.

So um uh for the reason of we already have checks and balances in place right now where we can address these issues, and we can address the uh the parking, the snow removal.

Uh I mean, I get people all the time that are asking me about parking and uh can we do our street parking.

I addressed it with the fire department.

Um, I addressed it with the police, and it's at this time it's a no-go.

Uh we all know there's at least two cars in every household.

Sometimes there's three, there's four.

I mean, they're parking on lawns, they just can't do it.

So um it's just too small of an area to get that done.

So if we judge it at a case by case basis, I think we'd be okay.

Um for that reason I will not be in support of it.

Mr.

President.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um as I listen to this, and it's it's kind of strange because I look at it and I realize that the wood that I represent, it doesn't immediately affect us.

Um so I'm kind of looking to hear from the people who it is going to be affected by.

Um, from the outside, I I see this, and yeah, listen, I certainly read about and I hear about the how housing shortage.

Um, and coupled with the affordability issue that was brought up, that these more modest lots are gonna bring in not necessarily big developments, but perhaps more perhaps more affordable housing.

So I see that.

Um, but I also yeah, I would be blind if I didn't listen to some of the concerns.

Snow removal certainly listen, I've got a pretty big lot, and sometimes I can't find a place to put my snow.

Um, parking, yeah, I I see that as it definitely an issue.

Um density, I've got the density thing.

I'm getting kind of a mixed.

It was nice to hear I get both sides of the density issue.

Is it going to change the density or is it not?

What I'm trying to say in a roundabout way is this.

I think what I was hearing from the councilman, we probably could do a little bit more study on this.

And it might help, because I think there is something positive.

Maybe there's a compromise in here.

Um, maybe 3,000 is too small.

Maybe we could rework it.

So I would I would urge the you know, the councilman certainly, because I think there's something good in here in both these ordinances.

Perhaps we could look at it, continue it, maybe do a little more study and see if we can find, you know.

I'm I'm usually not the guy who says put the brakes on, Councilman Campa Piano will know that, but this this might be my moment to say it.

Uh, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Councilman Bono.

Yes, thank you.

Um I want to say a couple things.

Um, you may have you misstated my statements earlier about what I said to the economic development chair.

What I said at that point was as the economic development director shouldn't be looking at residential, should be looking at um uh commercial, because that's where the most money is made.

And sometimes if there's a focus on residential, that can be a problem as well when there's you know, hundreds of houses being put in a small area like Alpine Estates, for example, or uh uh other areas like that.

So let me talk for myself next time with all due respect.

Number two, um I agree wholeheartedly with councilwoman Graziano and the stormwater situation.

I think um the amount of technical stuff you just said, I'm gonna have to study a lot of what you said to understand it.

However, I do remember from zoning that when when we granted a variance on zoning, it was then up to the building office to make sure that the building was gonna be in compliance with all the other building codes and all the other building ordinances that um are in place.

And I think included in that was a stormwater runoff, the amount of impervious services um to mitigate that.

So while I do understand there's a dual component to it, there's also a part where the people that were granting the variances, planning and zoning would sort of hand off the building code stuff and go, all right, you can build this house now.

Go talk to the building inspecting department to make sure that you know it's done properly and the fire department, PS.

So I think there should be a mechanism to ensure that um those concerns are addressed.

I don't know if it has to be uh necessarily written in the ordinance.

I think maybe perhaps in the building code, that's that's where that should belong, because it's uh it's gonna be um it's gonna be up to very technical people to make those determinations, not just a homeowner, for instance.

Um while testimony was going on, I grew up in ward three.

I still own property in ward three.

My father owns property next to the property I own a ward three.

Um, and I looked up my two best friends growing up.

My house was on a 5,000 square foot lot, my father's is a two family on a 5,000 square foot lot.

My best friend, who's still my best friend, was on a 3200 square foot lot with a single family home, and my other friend had a two-family home right next door to mine on a 4,000 square foot lot.

I think that this is actually going to be in more uh concert with the neighborhood.

One of the things that we considered on zoning was does this variance that we're gonna perhaps grant fit in with the general character of the neighborhood?

And I think that that a house on this size square for a lot will fit in better than the current zoning uh that we have.

That's number one.

Number two, I remember the comprehensive plan, and I might be a little brushing up on this, but the comprehensive plan we heard uh from many attorneys who came forward that wanted to put houses, especially on the eastern side of the city on undersized lots.

We would hear the attorney say that the comprehensive plan encouraged development on what they call quote unquote infill lots, which is exactly what we're doing here.

So um I I do uh agree um that Commissioner Lampier deserves credit for being here.

I'm sure she can attest to that.

We've heard that phraseology many many times.

Um, so I think that it depends on who's making the argument and what their purpose is in making the argument, how they use uh certain parts of the comprehensive plan, and we have to look at all of it when we make this decision.

Personally, I have no issue with this.

If it moves to a vote, I'll be in favor of it.

I'm also not necessarily against um uh taking a look at it and tweaking a little bit more and see if we can get it even more uh even more better, even better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, Tom, if you could put up the single family um slide.

I did some numbers.

I of course, you know, I have ADD and I can't wait.

So um, I did my own numbers as far as um what this potentially could generate.

And by looking at the plans, I believe that's the multi.

Well, no, that's the next one.

Single is that the single one.

Uh what's the top say?

No, that's 4,000.

That's the next one.

All right.

So basically, I just want to start off by saying condos are not the American dream, and people want to move into houses.

So that's why, you know, I I came up with this.

And as you see, I'm the sole sponsor.

I didn't ask anybody to co-sponsor it because you know, I want I want us to deliberate and come up with a good uh good solution.

Um, this is not just for affordable housing, this is for all housing.

Um, and you know, I respect uh the commissioner and I and I admire our president Fryers, he's he's great.

You know, we're lucky to have him, and you know, Mr.

Murray is the best land use attorney in Cranston.

So, you know, but they're not gonna benefit from this anymore because if you read the ordinance, the planning department now is gonna unmerge these lots.

So of course, you know, the president doesn't want to lose power, but I believe, you know, I strongly believe in our planning department, and you know, it's not rocket science to basically look at an unmerge and then you know, split you know, unmerge it and split it.

But if you go back to what I the numbers I came up with, you know, going from MLS uh permits, I believe the permit department will generate how much, Clerk.

It says right there, single.

No, nope, nope, nope, top right there.

No, down, down right about there.

Yep.

What's that's what's that number?

944,000.

The building department will generate from permits, and that's not including sewer and water connection on a 275,000 single family home build.

How much will we revenue revenue and taxes, council mr.

Mr.

Mayor?

I believe it says 971,600.

We're gonna generate a new taxes for a grand total of 1.915 800.

That's what we could potentially generate from this unmerged lot.

I mean, I think it was kind of embarrassing for us to be nitpicking at the last um budget hearings and looking for a thousand here, a thousand there.

This could potentially bring in some revenue.

So with that, um, I want to end there.

I just wanted to thank everybody.

I wanted to start talking about this, put this on the table.

So may entertain a motion to continue to the next meeting.

So we'll see.

Any discussion.

Clerk, please take a roll call on continuing this to the next um ordinance meeting.

Councilman Graziano.

Yes.

Councilman Anduhar?

Yes.

Councilman Vizier.

Councilman Campbiano.

Yes.

Councilman Banana.

Yes.

Vice President Horyan.

Yes.

Council President Wall.

Yes.

Okay.

Continue.

Moving on to ordinance four twenty six oh four.

Ornance in amendment of chapter seventeen of the code of the city of Crenson as entitled and as amended entitled zoning.

Sponsored by myself.

This is the four thousand one.

We already talked about basically how many lots are available.

So we have about two hundred lots.

For a grand total, if both these ordinance were to be passed, four million five hundred and ninety six thousand two hundred.

So I'm thinking revenue.

So with that, I would like to entertain a motion to continue this to the next ordinance.

So any discussion.

Yes.

Councilman Vizieri.

Yes.

Councilman Campa Piano.

Yes.

Councilman Banano.

Yes.

Council Vice President Horrian.

Yes.

Council President Wall.

Yes.

Thank you.

At this time, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

I have it.

We are adjourned.

Next meeting in three minutes.

This time uh welcome everybody back to this special city council meeting.

At this time, I'd like to call the meeting to order, and I asked the clerk to please call a roll.

Councilman Graziano, present Councilman Andor.

Present.

Councilman Ritz.

Present.

Councilman Traficante.

Councilman Vazeri still present.

Councilman Capabiano.

Present.

Councilman Bernano.

Present.

Council Vice President Royan.

Present.

Council President Wall.

Here.

Thank you.

Okay.

We're gonna move right on to public comment.

If there's anyone in the chambers this evening who would like to speak on docketed matters, please step up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and you'll have four minutes to speak.

I see no one.

Tom, is anyone online who'd like to make public comment?

There is no public comment online.

Thank you so much.

At this time, I'm going to close public comment.

Next item of business will be committee reports.

First, we'll be hearing from the chairman of the ordinance committee, uh Councilman Anderhar.

Councilman Anderho, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

The ordinance committee did meet on uh June 9th, which is today.

Um we spoke about uh we voted on the resolution of the city of Cranston in support of House Bill twenty twenty-six.

I urge passage.

Any discussion.

I see none.

Councilman Graziano.

Yes.

Councilman Andor?

Yes.

Councilman Retz.

Yes.

Council Trap Cante.

Yes.

Councilman Bazeri.

Council Gavino.

Yes.

Councilman Bernana?

Yes.

Council Vice President Horrier?

Council President Wall.

Yes, thank you.

Moving right along.

Uh, we're going to go to the report from the chairman of the finance committee.

Once again, it is Councilman Andehar.

Um, we probably could take all the resolutions regarding the bonding um as a group if there's no objections.

Um, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

The finance committee did meet today, uh, June 9th, and uh, we spoke about various bonds, and I would like to entertain a motion without objection to take it as a block.

So if there are no objections, we'll take all I see a hand, so there's an objection.

Mr.

Chairman, uh recall, I asked the finance director to give me the bond balance for the uh let me you know what?

Let me let's do that.

We'll get your bond down balance, and then we'll see if we can do that.

Um go right ahead.

Yeah, yes, Director Strong, please.

We had uh the school bond originally had an authority for a period of 10 years, authority of 180 some odd million dollars.

Right now, there is 21 million dollars left in authority of that 20 this uh 21, 20 almost 20.9 is going to be bonded, I believe, sometime this year.

Um that's because it's been approved to um in August or September.

Uh the rest of it, the 25 that we're asking for, will just be part of authority.

It won't be bonded until it's uh requested and approved by the city council.

Um when it comes to police of fire, there's 34 million originally, they're down to 17, but of that 17 of uh remaining authority, eight of it is for a new police station, which I don't think we're in the position to be doing right now, and also uh some fire station uh upgrades too.

So that's the bulk of the 17 that remains the public building uh bond.

There was nine million.

Um it's down to three million right now.

The recreation bond was uh 9.5 million, it's down to 3.9 right now.

The highway maintenance bond was 14 million.

There's no money available right now in authority.

Uh the uh storm drain bond was uh eight uh excuse me, six million, it's down to two million.

And so the total if you add up everything, the open space, various things.

It's about 275 million in authority, and now we're down to a uh uh between the school of 21 and everything else, 41.

It's a total of 63.

So that's why my recommendation is it's imperative that we should bond to increase authority, and as it's been stated before, uh the council has the right to approve any uh projects or any uh additional bonding, but right now uh our bonding authority is uh very small.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Okay, so if there are no objections, we'll take the uh the six resolutions regarding uh bonding, um sending that off to the general assembly without objection.

We'll take those as a block.

I see no objective.

Okay.

Um so is there a motion?

So moved.

Okay, clerk, please call roll.

We uh believe there's some discussion, Mr.

President.

I just had a question of Mr.

Strom.

Um did he say there was eight million set aside for this vote first?

Yeah, you want to vote for us, take the vote and then you okay, Mr.

Strom.

You'll stay here for an is after I take the vote.

Because then I'm gonna forget it and do it again.

Take the vote, please.

Councilman Graziano.

Yes, Councilman Andrew.

Yes, Councilman Rets.

Yes, Councilman Trap Canteen?

Yes, Councilwoman Vizieri?

Yes, Councilman Capapiano, Councilman Bunana.

Yes, Council Vice President Horrien?

Yes, Council President Wall.

Yes.

Uh now the floor is the floor is yours, um, Councilman Bernard.

I'm sorry, Mr.

President.

I just um Mr.

Strom, would you say there was eight million set aside for a new police station or for the existing police station to be improved?

Because the police station is kind of new.

What was uh passed by the voters and what's uh part of the authority right now.

There is authority for 8.4 million for it says description, new police station.

Now I don't know if it's a substation.

I'm not quite sure.

That's something we'd have to speak to the police department and specifically the colonel, but that's what's in dollars.

That's what it remains.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, councilman.

Um, next we're gonna go on to the next item.

It says executive session, it says the council may go into executive session.

We're not gonna need to because we did this earlier.

Um, we're gonna consider um collective bargain and review and a vote on the amendment to the current collective bargain and agreement with the IAFF local number one three six three, Cranston Firefighters as negotiated by the administration and assessed with financial impacts.

Um, I would ask Director Strom just to give me his uh just general assessment.

We heard all of this during the executive session, and we'll answer any questions before we take a vote as was stated.

Um we met with the fire department.

We had some discussions going over the next year's contract.

They have a three-year contract in place.

This would be year two, which is 7126 to 630 27, and we had uh, you know, how how can we uh save some money for this fiscal year of 27?

Well, all in all, when we look at it, it came out to between salaries, clothing allowance, holiday deferrals, longevity, payroll taxes, and pension.

It came out to a savings for fiscal year 27, which is the one that uh has just been passed budgetarily, 664,400.

That would be the second year of the contract, the third year, which would be there last year, when we looked at everything, and based on what was discussed, it would be an increase of 372, uh 372,000.

So the difference is approximately if you netted the two years together, approximately uh close to 300,000 uh as a total benefit.

Then there was discussion about increasing or going forward to a fourth year, and that uh would be 7128 to 630 29, and that was going to be at 3.75 percent.

Um, which I have the salary figures.

I have nothing to compare to because there wasn't a current contract in place naturally, because as this is an extension of what we had for the three-year period.

So in my opinion, uh I think overall it's something that the city can manage depending on what may occur during the course of fiscal years, because this is just an estimate, but I think it would be to uh advantageous for the city to consider uh this contract with this uh extension.

Thank you, Director Purr.

Um, and as as we crunch the numbers, if I recall, it came out uh this deferral kind of came out as a wash in the four years.

We we we didn't really get any get savings, but we did get a little time.

But when we take when you take the fourth year, we come out almost uh, I think what we we discussed almost a wash in that yes, that's yep, it's pressed.

It's deferral down the road.

Yes, thank you, thank you, Director.

Um, I'll open the floor to any comments.

I want to miss any hands because I seem to be doing that tonight.

I see no hands.

So if there are no further comments, at this time I'll entertain a motion to approve.

So moved, Mr.

President.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, there's no comments, clerk please call councilman Graziano, yes, councilman Anduhar.

Yes, Councilman Rett.

Yes, Council Trappicante.

Yes, Councilwoman Vazieri, yes, councilman Piano, yes, councilman Banana, yes, council vice president oryan, yes, council president Wall.

Yes, that motion carries, and I'm pleased to say there's no further business before the city council this evening.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Sure motion moved the second.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed, signify by saying nay.

The ayes have motion carries.

Good night.