Good evening, everyone.

Let the record indicate it is now 5.06 p.m.

The Warwick City Council Finance Committee is called to order.

First item is the acceptance of the minutes and a committee meeting held on July 7th.

Move favorable action.

I have a motion.

I have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

I am going to go to abatements first.

And I would like to hear from the director on that.

And before we um clear this item, we just want everyone in the audience that is here for PCR 8625 resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into a tax stabilization agreement with Renaissance Development Corporation for residential purposes, including affordable housing at 1880 post-road assessors plot three two two lot 336 will be held to the full council meeting as a public hearing.

So I just want everyone here to know that.

Good evening.

Neil Dupuy, director of assessing.

This month we have abatements for you in the amount of 33,001 and 78 cents.

Sorry about that.

Always difficult here in this chamber.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Muddon.

Hi, Director.

Mostly clarification questions for for you.

When it comes to trust in estates, could you clarify for me?

I for some reason I was under the impression that trusted state and estates, because of the categorization, do not qualify for abatements.

How how do we manage that with the way things transfer through those two?

So there's a state law that requires us to keep the exemption, even when they place the property in a trust.

It is very difficult then for us to confirm who actually lives there.

Um, but unless we know for sure that um they've moved out, um, we do have to maintain the exemption.

We will typically, if somebody's in a nursing home, um, even if it's likely that they're not coming back, um, we'll we'll keep that exemption in place because that's their one hope is that they're coming home.

We know the reality in some cases, but um we are starting something new this year where we're gonna ask the people that are holding the property in trust to recertify who actually lives there.

Uh there's no legal requirement that they comply, but we're gonna ask that they do, and we have the power of the pen.

If we choose to, we could take it away and then make them come back in and apply.

Okay.

No, that that helped.

That's helpful.

Uh there is one item uh on the bottom that on item 173083, a tax freeze.

Can you uh explain that waiting for my eyes to adjust here, but um last item on the first page.

Um well, my first page for 1246 38, I believe.

Yes.

Um, so a tax freeze applies for two situations.

Either they are 100% disabled, head of household with uh a dependent, um, or they could be over 70 and qualify for the tax freeze program.

In this case, that property was on uh with the tax freeze, uh, and because of a deed issue that was recorded, it fell off, and and we put it back on after they came in when the bills went out.

Okay.

And one last question.

Um I noticed through here uh reason code 71A clerical error.

Would you give me some examples of what clerical errors are?

So those are errors that I've identified as things that my staff, if we're paying attention, if we have enough um edits that we run, we should be able to catch that going forward.

One of the problems that we've had is the MUNIS program itself.

Any change to the address or the name uh will cause a new account number to be generated.

So annually we have probably two or three hundred properties that fall in that category.

Out of 10,000 exemptions, uh, we have to then um they're like often exemptions at that point, they don't fall on any property.

So the staff goes through and they put them on a property that um they belong to, or they decide that there are no properties that that person owns, and they take it away.

Sometimes those trusts do come into play and they make the wrong decision.

Um, but it seems like every year, just before we bill, we have an upgrade to MUNIS.

We're trying to get away from that.

And if we can avoid that, we can do more logical edits and hopefully catch all those kind of future.

Thank you.

That's all the questions I have.

Any other members of the director, uh, there is one item here.

Uh, it says C B1000 new app.

What is that?

That's a circuit breaker where they qualify for a thousand dollars off of their tax bill based on their income.

Okay.

Are these exemptions that the city offers are they um periodically, if ever, sent out to the taxpayers in the city?

We have a whole sheet of different um tax release.

Yes, it's on our website number one, but on the back of the tax bill, when they go out annually, we update that information uh so it stays current.

Point sir.

Aren't they also in the calendar that we send out?

I got a claim ignorance on that.

I haven't looked at the calendar to that level to I I don't live in Wallwick, so I don't necessarily it may be in there.

So if they are that's a good point, councilman.

If they're not, then perhaps that's something could be added next year.

Certainly.

Any other questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Having none.

Actually, one follow-up.

I'm I'm sorry.

You said that circuit breaker was a thousand dollar tax, but when I compare it to a line item, it it's not a thousand dollars on the credit on the abatement.

The one that here is what I'm talking about.

Okay, oh okay, so that number.

All right, thank you.

And just to clarify, it's up to a thousand.

There are some times where there's a mobile home or uh a low-valued property where the whole tax would be abated, but if it's less than a thousand, then it doesn't get the thousand for the exemption.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Okay, I need a motion on the um abatements.

Move favorable action.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Public hearing will be to follow.

Oh, yes, please.

Um, we may have a vote from the committee to move the public hearing to the floor.

So move second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Next item um in the bid package.

I need a motion for the um acceptance of the minutes on July 2nd, please.

Second we have a motion.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Moving on to PCR 8825, the bid package.

The first item we have is item number 2026 121 fire apparatus.

And that is found on page one.

Good afternoon, Chief Peter McMichael.

Good afternoon, Chief.

Good afternoon.

The fire department has reviewed bid 2026 121 fire apparatus for 1500 gallon per minute pumper.

And after carefully reviewing the bid submitted, the World Fire Department recommends awarding the bid to Greenwood Emergency Vehicles of North Battleboro, Massachusetts.

Greenwood emergency vehicles met all the specifications as outlined in the bid.

The requested bid award is for one 2028 E1 typhoon pumper with a 1500 gallon per minute pump and 750 gallon water tank.

Greenwood emergency vehicles is the lowest bidder and did not take exception to any of the specifications.

The vehicle will be completed in no more than 36 months after the signed contract and payment is not due until delivery.

Funding for the vehicle will be from the city's lease purchase account 4990450.

Chief, I was uh happy to hear the other day when we had met that the fire department has gone out for bid on not just this vehicle, another vehicle.

And um it's um quite apparent that that has been productive to the to the taxpayers, and I certainly encourage that to continue.

Um you know that I've not always been a fan of just sitting back and assuming that the MPA is the best deal.

Chief, um this $897,000, does that include uh the lettering and the lights and sirens and everything else that we need on this truck?

It does.

It's the uh total package delivered.

Uh so all of those items you just referenced will be included in that pricing.

Okay.

In here is referenced and speaks to the various warranties.

And some of these warranties go 18,000 miles.

I I think on the next item coming up, the rescue, there's uh some reference to 12,000 miles on these certain warranties, and I think that's very important, obviously.

If we exceed the miles before the term, then we kind of own it.

So do you have uh any idea how many non-emergency miles are logged on any of these vehicles in a year, a week, a month?

So we don't classify the miles under emergency or non-emergency use.

Um the only time we would do that would be when we would document the mileage in one of the rescues when taking a patient um from the address of a call to the hospital.

That mileage will be documented for billing purposes.

Um other than that, we don't document the mileage for specific use of the vehicle.

But I have to comment that I couldn't agree with you more when it comes to the warranty.

And in this truck, um in all of these uh purchases that have come before you for as far as the pumpers uh in the past few years, one of the things that we stipulate is a galvanized frame rails.

And that's so important because as I've come to uh before this body in the past with a different manufacturer uh piece of fire apparatus, we have had issues with framing um rotted frame rails uh in trucks that were as young as 11 years old, and that to me is something that's totally unacceptable considering the the money that we're spending on these vehicles.

So, with uh not skimping on, if you will, for lack of better term, the the frame rail, we galvanized, which is the um the best material you can purchase for the frame rails because it's it's not going to rot and will last the life of the truck.

I asked that question because it is a concern uh to me with um miles that are added on to these vehicles when it's what I consider to be a non-emergency run of the vehicle.

Um, these vehicles they have GPSs in them, right?

Correct.

So mileage could be tracked from the time they leave the bond till they get to point A or point B and back to the bond, right?

It could be the um the GPS component for our vehicles is location only and not um it's not tabulating the mileage being incurred for that trip.

It's GPS only, so our dispatchers can see where the vehicle is.

Mainly for when they need to so that when they need to dispatch, they can identify who's the closest vehicle to uh a location.

And that's how the GPS works.

So in other words, if let's say a call came in from City Hall that we have an emergency and we need this new pumper, is that what you call it?

Um yeah, new pumper to come here, the GPS would produce a route, and it doesn't it show the mileage to that spot as well.

So if you're referring to like an emergency call to this address, that would come up in our CAD system automatically dispatching um who would be assigned here, which would be of course from station one across the street.

So my point is um I would ask you to uh keep an eye on non-emergency use, because it does impact the taxpayers, and it impacts them when you exceed the mileage on the warranty, and now the taxpayers have to start footing the bill for these items when um you know it wasn't going to a rescue or an accident or a fire or drowning or whatever those other cases may be.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Foley.

First chief, a follow-up to Councilman Laddership.

I I I don't I looked at it, I don't have it memorized.

The warranty on this truck, let's just talk this truck, is how many months?

So the warranty for this truck is the general warranty is one year 24,000 miles.

All right.

And then there are it's 25 years for the frame rail, uh, one year 18,000 miles on the electrical warranty.

I I have the sheet in front of me, thank you, Chief.

Oh, you have so my question again, a follow-up question.

Um, let's say the last truck we purchased had similar warranty year miles.

It's saying if I'm reading this right, one year or 24,000 miles.

So the not this truck, because we haven't had we don't have it yet.

The last truck we received, yeah.

Do we come anywhere close to 24,000 miles on a pumper in any one year?

Thank you, sir.

Um it would really vary between it'd be a big discrepancy between our busiest pumper versus one of our slower pumpers.

So um it is possible 24,000 miles on a vehicle if you're doing 4,000 runs a year.

Um if it's a slower truck that might be doing half that, it's highly unlikely that we would.

My other question, my first question actually, is um when will we get delivery of this truck?

I know in the past we've ordered trucks and it's taken two, three years to get the truck.

And and we're still at that timetable.

So that's a very big problem uh across the fire service in the country, and it's one of the biggest complaints that you hear from uh fire departments, even um Congress has started raising these questions because of the push from the International Association of Firefighters as well as the International Association of Fire Chiefs that um we're still waiting three years for a lot of these vehicles.

Um that's become the norm in the speculation as to why that's out there, but we're forced to deal with the reality.

And so we're having to plan not for what we needed this year or for next year.

We need we have to plan for three years on the road.

And we've asked this question before that price is locked in.

That price is locked in.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Chief, um you had also uh talked about the mileage on and the age of the pumper that we're replacing.

You had talked about what happens with the pumper that we're replacing.

Um could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Certainly.

So when we ideally, when we take a uh a new vehicle and put it in service, ideally would be to replace a vehicle that is um between 15 and 20 years old.

What we like to do is take that older vehicle and put it in our reserve fleet so that when one of the frontline trucks is down for either preventative maintenance work or uh just general repair work, we have another truck that's ready to go so that that firehouse will not be without a truck to protect that that district.

So that um that's in fact that's the reason why I've become I've come before this body in the past purchasing some used fire apparatus because we really didn't have a reserve fleet, and several of our um, I should say two of our last trucks that we replaced, um, those trucks were not able to use as a reserve status because they were decommissioned while they were in front line because of rot or other issues.

Um so ideally uh we replace these trucks in a um we'd like to get to the 15 year time frame, and that way we will still get uh several years possibly out of the older truck that's replaced that it's replacing by putting that into reserve status.

Okay.

Um there was one other question I had on this truck.

Um I blank out on it.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

We have any sir.

Hi, Chief.

Hello.

I do want to congratulate you on the conversation you had with uh Chairman Lattizer.

He was actually very pleased with the answers, and I usually don't get that the day after he meets with you guys.

So it's very good.

Uh couple of questions right now.

Sorry, sad.

It is what it is.

So uh can you talk about, and you've you've mentioned a little bit.

Uh I I'm hopping on this capital replacement operational replacement and usage schedule.

Sounds like the fire department has a good handle on their equipment, their capital planning in.

I'm gonna probably uh give you an uh an uh oh in a second, but an operational usage.

Can you just share with me how you plan for the future?

Certainly.

Well, uh uh as I alluded to earlier, when we're seeing three year delays in delivery of a vehicle, it puts a department like ours, you know, several years ago, we were in a tough spot where we were borrowing um out-of-town vehicles on a daily basis, and not just in one station, but in in several.

So um we went out, we knew we didn't want to come forward and say to the city council, hey, we need five trucks right now, right?

That is a very big financial burden.

So we put a slow gradual program in place where each year we incrementally added to our fleet, but at the same time, we upgraded our reserve fleet.

And so we went out and we purchased uh used fire apparatus off other fire departments.

Some came off other fire departments, some came off the federal government surplus program, and some came from dealers.

Um, but we built up a reserve fleet to get us through the time period um to the point to where we are now where we have a reserve fleet of five pumpers, right?

And that augments our normal staffed trucks of uh, which is nine pumpers.

We staff nine pumpers normally throughout the city.

So uh by um a two-pronged approach, if you will, both new, which is going to be a lot more expensive.

Um it'll be worth it in the long run.

But we were also it was kind of the perfect storm where we had the pandemic here as well that caused a slowdown.

Well, the pandemic's over with, but we're still seeing three-year delays on delivery, which is incredibly frustrating.

Uh, the days of being able to call up your one of your local vendors and he would he might have two or three trucks ready to go are unheard of now.

So it put us uh in a tough spot because we were trying to uh upgrade the fleet, but at the same time, we knew that we wouldn't be able to take delivery of a vehicle for three years out, which is why we did what we did with the reserve trucks.

And the perfect scenario, I shouldn't have to come before you any longer and ask for authority to purchase reserve trucks, because ideally what we like to do is through proper maintenance, proper preventative maintenance, get the maximum life out of a truck, and then put it into reserve status to be used as a backup vehicle, uh, provided that we keep up with and and and maintain our uh our purchasing of new apparatus.

And so I've come before this body every year requesting a pumper and a rescue, a pumper and a rescue.

And I think that we'll we'll get to the point where I'll come before this body only for a rescue, because we'll get to a point where we can slow you know back off on our purchasing of uh pumper trucks.

Uh, as far as the rescues go, well, that'll be up next, but we can get into that uh with that the next item.

Uh that's a different animal.

But so it sounds like you you're getting ahead of it, and uh the problems we had before COVID, which was a lack of an infrastructure, uh capital plan, where we ended up with shortages, the plan you're putting in place, the being proactively uh monitoring this.

You you feel good about the long-term planes.

I think we're in a very healthy uh position right now.

Awesome.

Uh the second question, follow-up question.

Uh oh, good.

I have seven minutes of kills.

That's good.

Um, the um the usage.

So, one of the questions that uh uh that came up was you have a heavy usage fire fire department, which may be 20,000 miles and then some less usage of 10.

Do you rotate a role among the uh among the stations to average out the life of of your of the vehicles?

We typically do not do that.

Um a truck is assigned to a station, uh the station, the crew of that station, really form a bond, if you will, with that truck.

And they take a lot of pride in their truck, and you can see it when you see it at different events where they have their company, their own personal company logo uh fixed to the truck.

Uh oftentimes you'll see them have you know Lakewood across the windshield that they go out on their own and purchase a lot of this um to uh to show that they have some spread of core, if you will, in their truck, right?

This is who we are.

They take great pride in it.

I think it's good for morale, and it's good for the fire department because when they take great pride in it, then they're taking care of it, and we're getting the maximum benefit out of that because of the pride they take in the apparatus.

So if I were to do that, um, and I and I'm I'm not familiar with any department that does do that.

It would kind of be a shot in the stomach to them, if you will, if I started doing that.

No, no, valid answer.

Last but not least, and you'll hear me talk about this on several bids going forward, standardization of some of the technology and things that we use for the city.

We mentioned GPS, which is the location-based GPS, but in our garbage trucks, we actually have a route GPS system.

Is there a reason why the technology is different from city vehicle to city vehicle?

So I believe it's different technology that we're utilizing.

Um I would imagine that the more information it's going to give you, the more of a cost is going to be for that technology.

And it's I'm not, and I'm not adverse to that.

Um, it's just something we haven't uh we we haven't moved on yet, but I'm certainly not averse to it.

Okay.

Um we we have a lot of software, as you know, we come before you for a lot of different types of software.

Well, that's what that's what I'm reacting to when you start adding up all this piecemeal software, and every department has their own thing.

There's definitely some operational efficiencies across uh you know uh departments.

Yeah, that would definitely be something that we'd be interested in in researching more.

All right.

Well, I have case studies, I'll be more than happy to thank you.

All right, that's all the questions I have.

Thank you.

Uh Chief, I want to point out also that this truck is about $10,000 below the capital budget you had got approved at the city council, right?

Yes, that's correct.

$10,000 less, and it's also 136,000 less than the next bidder was.

Um the next bidder was at 1,033,000, which is all reflective of going off a bid.

Yes, so let's keep doing it.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number two, found on page six fire apparatus uh ambulance.

Chief the uh the next the Warwick Fire Department review bid 2026, 122, type one ambulance, and after carefully reviewing the bid submitted, we recommend awarding the bid to Northeast Rescue Vehicles of Syracuse, New York.

Uh although Northeast Rescue Vehicles took complete exception to the bid specifications, we did have an opportunity to perform a detailed inspection of an identical ambulance to the one proposed in the bid response.

But department feels strong that this vehicle, while not meeting our exact specifications, will adequately meet the needs of the department without compromise.

Additionally, while costing nearly 47,000 less than the next lowest bidder, the delivery time is also nearly two years sooner.

The requested bid is for one 2025 medics, 170 inch MSV 2 Ford F 550 4x4 type one ambulance.

The price includes the striker power load and stretcher, lettering to match department fleet and delivery, and payment is not due until delivery.

The fire departments requesting spending authority for a one-time purchase in the amount of 386,545 dollars funding for the vehicle to become coming from the city's lease purchase account 4990450.

And Chief, this was another item that as a result of your due diligence going off for bid.

This vehicle comes in close to 70,000 dollars less than you had in the capital budget, right?

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

Capital budget was 450.

So once again, um I'm happy to hear that.

Any questions, any other questions from members of the committee?

Yes, Councilman Napa.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Um just looking at the warranty for this.

So you said that this purchase price includes the striker stretcher and the the power load apparatus that lifts it into the truck.

Are those two pieces of apparatus warranted under the systems or does that are those covered at all?

Under striker separate from the vendor who's bidding on the truck.

That's a separate warranty for the from striker themselves.

Okay.

So even though that that striker lift system is installed in the floor of the box, it's warrantied separately from striker.

That's correct.

Purchase prices included here.

That's correct.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And Chief, the same as the um previous item, the pumper, we do not pay for this vehicle until it's actually received, until delivery.

That's right.

And this price, it also includes um all the bells and whistles, lights and um, you know, signs and whatever the screen.

The uh so funny with you guys.

The total package, it completes everything delivered.

Thank you, Chief, for that professional answer to a very professional question.

I have a question, yeah.

I don't know if I want to talk to you now.

Councilman Foley, go ahead.

And the delivery date on this short.

So this particular truck, um 279 days, Chief.

279 days, which is uh a lot a lot quicker than anything else that we've seen.

So um, this is a stock truck coming off the assembly line, which is why they took so many um uh uh I'm having a moment here.

Thank you.

Exceptions to the specifications because of the uh because this is a stock truck coming off, not built to order.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Uh I want to comment on another quick part of the conversation that we had.

When you were discussing uh this with me with your colleagues, one of the points you had mentioned, you alluded to it a few minutes ago, was that it didn't have all of the specifications that we had asked for.

I'm glad that that direction has started moving where it is, because as I said that day, uh for me, it's not about a want, it's about a need.

And in my experience on this city council of 13 years, I've seen often times when you know the wish list was um much higher, the want was much higher than the need.

So I'm not speaking for my colleagues, but I am speaking for myself as finance chair going forward.

I will always continue to monitor um what is the need versus the want.

And once again, I think that um you know you guys um followed through with that.

So thank you.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudo.

Just uh quick, I just I just want to emphasize uh the work that you guys did.

You know, again, the want versus need and going outside of the box to come up and answer what your department needs, what our city needs, and really tried to stretch the dollar.

So definitely appreciate that.

And uh, you know, I will uh second what uh Chairman Ladder said.

It's thank you.

It's very much appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Especially in these times.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Having on we'll move on to item number three found on page 11, Kilbert Street Drainage Project.

Good evening.

Good evening, Christy.

Welcome.

Uh Public Works is requesting to award the bid for the Kilbert Street drainage project to De Amber construction in the amount of 198,000.

It's a one-time um purchase, so there's no contract period necessary.

This is to install uh drainage pipe and catch basin in uh Kilbert Street uh to alleviate some of the flooding that happens over there to alleviate the flooding, is that what you said?

Yes, and that's that's been a huge problem over there, right?

Yes, and short of doing this is doing nothing, then the flooding is just gonna continue to occur.

Correct.

Okay.

Councilman Mudo, start your clock, please.

I'm sorry, Councilman Foley.

Give me a second.

Did you start your clock?

I did.

I saw it.

And good afternoon, good evening.

What will be repaved once this is done from where to where on Kilvert Street?

Do we know?

Um, I I believe that Eric can answer that question for you.

Um, we are aware that it does require some bathing.

And just for the public record, the reason I'm asking uh in my five years when I was on public safety and we had claims, we got a rash of claims from that street because of the potholes and and the damage that had been done because of the flooding.

Director, uh Eric Earl's Public Works.

So when we're done with that, we'll pave um uh Jefferson Boulevard down around the corner.

And I'm not sure if we'll go down the hill, but certainly to um the turn that takes you to proclamation.

Um, we're gonna assess whether or not we need to go down the hill.

But right now that that's we're not anticipating having to do that.

We completion date.

Do we have an idea?

No, um, you know, once once it's awarded, if it's awarded this evening, we'll work with De Amber on the schedule.

Um, but unlike uh unlike a lot of subsurface work, we probably won't need to let this settle the typical six 90 days.

So we'll be able to we anticipate paving it this paving season, which usually pushes us into November at the latest, but that's kind of the schedule working.

That's the window.

Thank you.

Is there any um utility work that could be done there at the same time?

Uh no, all the utility out there is is relatively new, so plastic gas vein.

Um there the utilities out on the road are a problem.

Uh that's why that's one of the reasons this is kind of a complicated drainage, which is why we couldn't do it in-house.

Um, there's gas lines on both sides of the road.

Um, the there's the um electric substation, which has a duct that comes up from the substation and actually crosses the street, so this drainage will have to maneuver that.

Um, again, that's why we would need it to go out to bid a typical drainage job like this.

We could do in-house, but because of all the utilities, um, it it our guy it we could have done it, but it would have taken longer, and we would have this is all we would have been doing for a month, so that's why we needed to go out to bid for it.

But yeah, a lot of utilities.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the committee?

Uh councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Not intending to jump ahead of anyone on the committee, of course.

Uh, a few questions.

What's the criteria to decide whether to uh to take on a particular drainage project or not?

You mean to go out to bid or do an in-house?

Uh yes, we can start with that.

It's it's just it's it's relatively subjective.

You know, you look at the different criteria and whether or not we can do it in-house.

And this one we we felt like we couldn't.

And uh it's phrased here as a new drainage line and catch basin.

Is there any existing drainage line catch basin in that general area?

Um the I'm trying to think of opposite the new development, there's a dry well.

That's the only drainage on the entire street.

So that works during smaller storm events, but eventually it gets inundated and then it puddles on that side.

There's no drainage on at all on the other side, so you always have a puddle on on that side of the street.

And I imagine with the new development, that's an increase in the amount of impermeable surface.

So that tends to cause flooding to be worse, street flooding ever since the new development went in.

Actually, no, it's actually the opposite.

They've done an excellent job with their stormwater management on that site.

Um, we're actually dumping water from the street into their facility.

So this will help mitigate that as well.

Uh how severe are the problems as to the uh the homeowners uh taking in that additional flood water.

Well, most of the area right now, those it it happens in an in a section of that development that hasn't been occupied yet.

Okay, so have there been any complaints from actual residents, or is it more just the developer expressing concerns about the flood water?

Yeah, I mean, we've been in regular contact with the developer about the condition of the road and the situation out there.

So yeah, I mean it's mostly working with the developer.

And uh along those lines, what's the criteria here?

I'm not talking the criteria of deciding whether to do it in-house or go out to bid, but the criteria to decide whether it's a severe enough issue to bother addressing with new uh new drainage line and time labor, materials, etc., versus uh just shrugging one's shoulders and saying, you know, we see that there's a potential issue there, but it's not worth the cost.

Well, as councilman Foley referenced, we're inundated, not inundated, but there are a lot of claims that come from that section of Kilvert.

Um, so we've acknowledged that we need to pave the road.

We can't pay, we shouldn't pave the road until we fix the drainage, or the road's just gonna fall apart, right?

Because there's always going to be standing water at this location.

And so without doing fixing the drainage, you shouldn't pave the road.

And if you don't pave the road, we're gonna continue to get pothole claims and other types of claims out there.

So that's that was the rationale.

So how many feet of road have to fall apart in order for I'm not talking necessarily linear feet, but basically if you have a road that's X feet curbed curb, and then that look road loses, say is it like 10% or more or less than 10% of the road has to fall apart before stormwater drainage is addressed?

No, that's it.

That's a subjective, you know, you can't put a number on it like that because again, you gotta take in things like traffic volume, um, you know, the the accessibility through that location, claims that you get utility work, there's there's no hard number.

So if it's a low traffic street, we might allow 25% of the road to just fall by the wayside, completely waste away and not bother with it, or well, I mean, that's not uh that's not really a fair way to assess it.

We never just let it waste away, but it will be a lower priority.

Uh when we're talking priorities, uh, about how long would it take if hypothetically we were talking about a situation where one or more homeowners were experiencing regular flooding into their residences as a result of stormwater coming from city streets?

I uh again, I don't know how to answer that.

I understand that you're having drainage issues in Norway and you're frustrated that we haven't gotten to them, but we are gonna get to them.

So if that's the direction we're going, we'll get to it.

But we don't have hard and fast numbers about what percentage of road needs to be this or needs to be that.

It's a very subjective decision with a lot of different variables.

Um if there are issues of concern, we try and get to them.

Charlotte Drive is one, Panta, we have drainage issues.

There are drainage issues all over the city, and we try and prioritize them to you know kind of chip away, similar to Rhode Island Energy.

You know, they knock out the one, they they address the ones that are gonna get more people online first.

We try and address the ones that you know are affecting more people first.

So, you know, that's one of the things we look at.

Also, you know, a lot of other variables like cost too.

Director, excuse me, one minute, please.

So I think on some of these items, and I put myself in the same framework, we're kind of deviating.

Um, not kind of, we are deviating from the substance of the bid.

So I would just ask everyone, let's just kind of reel it in and stay um within the context of the item.

Uh so um, as as I as I said, thank you.

So, to be clear for OMA purposes, I don't want to ask about any projects other than this particular one that's in front of us.

So I am curious though, how long was this issue known about uh how long were there complaints about flooding onto private properties before it reached the level of being made a priority in order for it to come before us?

Uh we've been looking at this project for about two years.

You know, we we had to come up with a design, and then once we did that, um, you know, we had to we looked at whether or not we could do it in-house.

But yeah, it's been about two years.

How complicated is the design process on something like this?

Actually, like I said, because of all the existing utilities, it was considerably more complicated than a drainage project that um incorporates installing one catch base and tying in an existing catch base and and then you know, running, I forget what it was, uh a couple hundred feet of pipe.

Um, but because of all the utilities, the design became a lot more complicated.

Uh once again, let's let's keep on the topic.

Do we want to spend a hundred and hundred and ninety-eight thousand dollars for this drainage project?

The questions pertaining to the project itself are welcome.

Other than that, let's not continue to drift off course.

Thank you, Chair.

I think that there is a clear need for this work to be done.

I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh Councilman Mutal, did you have a question?

Yeah, I'll get okay.

All right.

Um, that priority list that you mentioned.

If you could send that off to us, a copy of that priority list.

I think that would be helpful and maybe you know, keeping it.

I can certainly send you a list of the drainage jobs that we're looking at.

Okay, thank you.

All right, moving on.

Item number four, purchase three.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um, any other questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to item four, 2026 135, and that is found on page 20.

Welcome back, Commander.

Good evening, Deputy Sullivan for the police department.

The police department is seeking a 566 exception to bid to purchase various police vehicles from the government municipal HQ under the Greater Bullstone Police Council master price agreement.

The vehicles include two 2024 Ford Police Interceptors and one 2024 Dodge Durango police model SUV.

The total cost for the three vehicles is 180,000.

Uh 186120, and that would be a lease purchase agreement.

So Chief, um commander, sorry.

Why didn't you guys go out for bid for these three vehicles?

Well, for these three vehicles in particular, it's just we had a 2024 model year, so we're close to being two model years moved on from that figure.

Every year there's approximately about a five percent increase in the cost of the vehicles to begin with, coupled with we're getting discounts on these three vehicles, each of them.

So one of the discounts for one of the vehicles is 4500, another is 3500, and the third vehicle is 1500.

It's uh 9500 total for the three vehicles.

And why can't you use three utility vehicles at 49,600 versus uh one of those and the Dodge Durango and a police interceptor?

So these three vehicles are available on the lot and happen to be what's available with discount pricing right now.

Uh our fleet manager does an excellent job trying to seek out these vehicles with is a uh price advantage to be gained.

So does that dealership have three Ford Interceptor Police utility vehicles?

Not at this not this pricing.

They may have the 2025 model year uh police interceptor utilities, but not the uh not at this pricing at this discount.

So these three vehicles essentially are leftovers.

That's why you're getting them for the numbers you getting them.

Yes.

Okay.

That's what uh that's what a bid cannot do for you.

Like if we went out to bid right now, we're gonna be looking at 2026 model year vehicles.

It's not even a VIN number assigned to the vehicle yet.

It's not in production, and we may wait six to eight or even longer uh for that vehicle to be manufactured.

And I believe I don't know if it's GPW or who it was a year or two ago, they were on a list, or their bidder was on a list to have their vehicle manufactured, and the manufacturer just shut down production for that model year and sent the bid back to us.

So that's a real possibility.

We're at the mercy of the manufacturer.

So uh that's another issue with the bidding.

So these three vehicles are available right now for immediate delivery.

Okay.

At discounted pricing.

And what's in you have this covered in your capital budget?

Yes.

Okay.

And does this price include lights and sirens and lettering and everything of the kind?

Yes, they're all upfitted with lighting.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions or further questions from members of the committee?

Do we have any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number five.

2025087 found on page 35.

It is cellular phone service for the city.

Good evening, Phil Carlucci, IT director.

This is a request under City Ordinance 612 to increase the amount and extend the end date for cellular services, bid 2025.

I'd like to increase the amount by 120,000, bringing the two-year total to 230,000 dollars.

I would also like to extend the through date to 1231 2026.

Um, this would be for Verizon wireless services, who the city uses for its cell services.

And this is nothing that we can uh pick or choose on, right?

This is something that is necessary to do.

The service is necessary.

Um, I would like if time were to permit effort were to permit, cellular services is a little different than desk phone services.

Desk phone services, they own the phone numbers, and you can try to keep them the same, but it it's quite the effort.

Cellular, you can port numbers to another carrier.

Um, Verizon does give the state and the city very favorable rates.

Um, the effort to switch this to a different carrier would be significant.

Uh at some point in time, I think it'd probably be necessary to at least test out what that significance uh would be willing, as you know, with your personal cell phones.

Cell phone carriers are always willing to give the new customer some phenomenal deal uh to get them to switch over because they know what an effort it is to switch once you've done that.

So, in the absence of doing that because of time, um this is pretty much the cause that we're dealt with.

This is and a lot of it, just to make sure we understand it's not just cell phones, this also includes data plans we carry for the police uh in their cars.

Uh some spot plans we have on uh Wi-Fi services as well.

And this pretty much covers um every department in the city, right?

It does cover every department in the city.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

We have any questions from members of the public.

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number six found on page 41.

It is paramedic training program.

Good evening.

Uh Alan Govea, assistant chief from the fire department.

Uh the fire department is seeking a 566 exception to bid to send 22 of our firefighters to paramedic training.

We're seeking the award to purchase uh to award the purchase to educational resource group in East Providence in the amount of 102,740.

In July of 2025, the department was awarded a $1 million federal assistance grant, AFG grant.

In this grant was funding to send 22 of our current uh firefighters holding an EMT cardiac license to a paramedic pathway or bridge program.

The program has a shortened and less costly version of the full paramedic certification course.

This is because they already are advanced life support providers.

This just brings them up to the next level.

Um seeking pricing and availability within Rhode Island, only educational resources group uh offers a certified uh and credentialed program.

Um students are required to complete a CAA HERP accredited program to test for the national registry certification and to obtain state of Rhode Island licensure.

The cost of the program is $4,670 per student, a total cost of 102740 for 22 students.

Uh due to the sole source nature of the specialized training in Rhode Island.

Uh this is the best, it's the best interest uh to the city and the department to select this vendor for the award.

If approved, the funds for the program will be expended from budget code 3680455 FEMA AFG grant fiscal year 23 and an amount not to exceed 102,740 as a one-time purchase.

And these expenses are reimbursed through the FEMA AFG grant.

And at this time, Chief, do you have 22 firefighters identified that qualify for this AMT um cardiac, etc., etc.?

We have more that expressed interest.

We have to cut it off at 22.

Okay.

Do we have any questions from members of the committee?

Yes, Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Chief.

Is this when we send our firefighters here for the training?

Um, given how your shifts rotate, is the rotating schedule gonna pose any issue with them being available for this training classes?

No, so this grant was a million dollars.

Uh we used 720,000 of it to purchase uh Scott PACs that left us around 380,000 dollars left in the grant to fund this program.

What we're asking for tonight, this 102,000 is just to pay for the program.

The balance of that 380,000 in federal funds will pay for coverage or salary to send the firefighters to class.

So when they have to go to their classes, um, if they're on duty, they'll just go on duty and we'll backfill them using funding from the grant to pay for their uh overtime.

So um they will be able to go to all of the classes uh and their clinicals uh through this grant.

So this the program will generate overtime, but it's going to be covered through the grant, so there'll be no cost directly to the city.

Correct.

Or a reimbursable cost, rather.

Correct.

It will be reimbursed through the AFG grant.

Okay.

And relative to upgrading our personnel to paramedic are the trucks fitted for to provide medic services.

They are our uh five rescues, frontline rescues.

Uh we're licensed and certified on November 1st to the paramedic level.

So we currently have 18, I think it's 18 paramedics now.

Um, we are licensed as a paramedic service, and they are operating as paramedics in the trucks.

Great.

And I went through the contract, but now with a fine-tooth comb by upgrading our personnel from AEMTCs to paramedics, that does not come at any financial cost to the city from what I saw.

Nope.

Every firefighter on the job is an AEMTC or cardiac.

Um, and we do not pay stipends for additional training, so there will be no change in cost personnel costs.

Okay.

That's all.

Thanks, Chief.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman.

Chief, you had um discussed with me the um the time constraints for these 22 firefighters to attend this training.

Could you just review that?

So that the period of performance is coming uh coming up in July for this grant.

It's a three-year period uh two-year period of performance.

Um, so what we're going to have to do in order to fit the end of this program in is we're going to have to ask for an extension from the federal government from FEMA.

Um, usually that's just a routine matter.

Uh little bit of paperwork and uh an explanation why we need the extension, and uh they'll extend us usually 30, 60 or 90 days to complete the grant.

And also the hours that the firefighters will be attending this days, evenings, weekends, overtime, whatever.

Yeah, so there are a few hundred hours of training.

Um what the grant covers and what we'll be paying is when they're in class, uh, when they're in clinical uh clinicals, we will not be covering that time.

That'll be on their own time.

And there's also uh a weekly online uh training that they have to do four to six hours a week online training.

We will not be compensating them for that uh when they're doing that time.

So in all the number of hours that they do for this training, they're gonna be getting paid or covered for for a small percentage of of the total hours that they'll be doing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any councilman Napa?

Councilman.

Chief, I'd imagine that the program has clinical partners for these firefighters.

Yeah, uh, we're most of our clinical time will be done uh done through Kent.

Um that's where our medical director is, and they were very uh very amenable to helping us get all our clinical time done.

And then just one last question.

Uh I know that our firefighters are very dedicated if they choose to withdraw from the program for whatever reason, personal medical.

Can you substitute someone else in?

Or is there a thought behind any of that?

There will be a point of no return where we're too deep into the program to substitute somebody else in.

Um, but that's up to the director of the program.

Um they run the program once they start the program, it's out of our hands.

Uh the director of the program has full authority to decide uh whether somebody's progressing or not, and whether we can substitute somebody in or not.

Um, but we did sit down with every firefighter that was interested.

Uh, we were very clear on the requirements for this program and what's expected of them and what we'll be providing them.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Muto.

Thanks.

Uh, you mentioned this program is part of the FEMA grant.

Uh at the end of all this, is it going to be any uh revenue or or money left from that grant to be used?

For the grant, no, we'll spend every dollar of this grant.

Damn.

That's a great idea for it.

Yeah, we'll we'll we'll spend every uh the full million dollars uh of this grant between the Scott Packs and this paramedic program.

All right, thank you.

Sorry.

Hold that thought, councilman for budget time.

Any questions from members of the committee our council?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to item.

Thank you, Chief.

We'll move on to item number seven, 2026 043, found on page 45.

I'm back.

The bid for the traffic lights, street and pole pull lights, maintenance and repairs for in the amount of 100,000 for a one-year period from October 25-25 to October 24-26.

Thank you, Christy.

Uh when it says traffic lights, street and pole maintenance and repairs.

What poll maintenance does DPW uh have control of?

So this bid encompasses the street lights that the city maintains.

It is the decorative lighting that the city maintains, the field lights, the um uh schools, school hazard lights, um, any traffic lights that we own, um, such as like Buttonwoods and Maine or the one at Weathersfield.

So it it covers all of that.

And I know I speaking for myself, I received recently um a couple of calls from constituents where the traffic lights are just out.

Um that's something that is handled through DPW.

Yes.

If if we own them, um uh there are there are traffic lights that we don't own.

Um we actually own less traffic lights than people like the red, yellow, green, those traffic lights.

Yeah.

Um it depends on the location.

Okay.

So like the ornamental lights aren't necessarily the city's responsibility.

What do you mean by ornamental?

So there's neighborhoods that have underground lighting and they don't have like the telephone poll, so they have their own decorative pole with a light on it.

That's not maintained by the community, right?

No, we do the decorative lights that are owned by the city, like the ones outside um on the on the sidewalks, but um no, nothing like that.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudo.

Hi.

Uh couple of questions on the uh traffic lights and maintenance.

So this is this is a maintenance contract.

And are we committed to spending the whole hundred thousand, or is it a pay as you go, and we're tracking it and we're evaluating the success of the work that they do?

It it is um we we don't anticipate spending the entire 100,000.

The majority of this um this bid goes to the the street light repairs that the city maintains now.

Um that portion is $65,000.

The balance of it would be anything that is related to the traffic lights, the decorative pole lights, the the uh hazard beacons at the schools and things like that, and then um any field lights that we have to fix.

So um that's where the bulk of it is.

Um, but we we don't encumber everything.

We as we get you know, complaints or you know, you know, we get notified that something's out.

That's when you know, obviously we fix it.

Um, and so I mean, I think this year we've probably spent about actually I can tell you how much we spent um lights.

So no, we don't anticipate spending it, but in the event that we should need it, and um it is available.

So let's just do round numbers.

So you didn't spend 60,000 last year.

When you're looking and assessing what needs to get done on the on the street lights, uh, such as pedestrian uh safety crossing things of that nature.

Is when you're maintaining uh is it can do you consider upgrades or do you just maintain the technology?

I'm sorry, do we consider what?

Uh upgrades to the technology that's there, for example.

No, no, we wouldn't upgrade anything unless it was completely unfixable.

Um, for example, the the box at Maine and Maine and Buttonwoods uh a few years ago, the whole thing had to be replaced, um, lights and all.

So no, we maintain what we have unless you know it gets it gets hit or you know, something like that, and then we would obviously replace it.

And if we replace it, it would be newer technology.

So Maine and Buttonwoods is is a light that is owned by the city and not a split.

Yes.

I thought Maine was a state road.

Okay, maybe not.

We we tried to get rid of it, but they said no.

Okay.

So that that actually uh so I did put a request in just FYI uh identifying uh I was asking for a list of city-owned intersection lights, the ones that are state-owned in a mix, and uh I was wondering if you've seen that request.

If not, okay.

But that doesn't mean I mean it could have gone to somebody else.

I okay.

I personally have not seen it.

All right.

Thank you.

Christy, I uh I think you said you spent 60,000 in this item last year.

No, we spent we spent I just heard the number 60,000, so I'm not sure where that's 65,000 is the line item in engineering for the the street light maintenance.

Okay, maybe that's what you heard.

Maybe, and you're looking for a hundred thousand now.

Correct.

Why?

So a lot of the street lights that we own now um were under warranty when they were replaced and they're coming out of warranty.

So we anticipate that being uh an increased cost to us this year.

And you know, the any of the lights, any if we have to have anything fixed at Ben Street at Mickey Stevens at Clegg Field, um, I know some of them are new, but those will also come out of warranty at some point.

So we're just trying to um plan ahead in the event something should happen.

Um, then we have the resources to have them fix.

And this replacement of lights that are out for whatever reason, that is being done by our own in-house people.

Which you mean the street lights?

That was all done um by K Electric.

Um, I think that was done through the planning department.

As far to my knowledge, we didn't have any involvement in as far as public works.

Now we maintain them.

So that yes, so if there's lights out or anything like that, we maintain them now.

It goes through public works.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number eight, found on page 51 public safety equipment.

Good evening, Alan Guevaya, assistant chief from the fire department.

Good evening, Chief.

Good evening again.

The fire department is requesting a 612 alteration of contract for bid 2025 023 public safety equipment, fire equipment supplies and services.

This is the MPA mass PSE01 to add the following vendor, Green Mountain Communications out of Pembroke, New Hampshire, and increase the spending authority by an additional $85,000 with no change in the effective dates.

This request, if approved, will increase the total award to $279,905 and 20 cents.

As part of the ongoing relocation of the fire EMS Emergency Dispatch Center from Sandy Lane to Pottawam at Station 10.

We have to do work on the towers and relocate antennas at Station 10 and do some upgrades to the tower at Sandy Lane.

So that's the reason why we're adding Green Mountain Communications.

Additionally, the fire department currently has a favorable favorable relationship with each of the existing fire equipment vendors.

We're confident they can continue to fill the needs of the department.

Each vendor offers a significant discount on firefighting equipment from a variety of manufacturers.

And we will continue to be diligent and receiving pricing from each of the vendors on the MPA to get the lowest possible price of the equipment we purchase.

The effective dates of this bid are for 2024 to 1231 2026.

The additional funds for this request will be expended from the following budget codes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Do we have any questions from members of the council?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number nine, 2026 11.

And that is found on page 56.

Public works is requesting to uh purchase the carts, lids, and wheels for the uh household rubbish and recycling that we pick up.

So one time purchasing the amount of 64,940 and 45 cents.

Christy, um what did we pay for these cars um when they were last purchased per per unit?

I don't have that information with me, um, but I'm I'm pretty sure that it was right around the same price.

I want to say it might have been like 59 and change.

Um so it might have gone up, you know, by a very small increment.

This is for a full trailer load um of the carts.

Okay.

And how many cots do you have in inventory right now?

To my knowledge, I don't think we have any that are um like we we have some of the smaller ones, uh like the 35 gallon ones.

Um, but then we end up having like we have to give homes like two of those, and then we have to go out and swap them when the new ones come in.

Um, plus with all the new homes that are being built and occupied, we've had to distribute carts to them as well.

So our inventory, if we have anything at all, is extremely low.

And then we also need the repair parts.

Um, you know, the wheels and the pins and um the rods and this amount that you're looking for today.

How does that compare to the amount you asked for last year?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of that question.

So this year you're looking for roughly 65,000 uh for purchasing carts and uh wheels, etc.

What was the budget for that last year?

Last year um we had in in that particular line item we had a budgeted 50,000 dollars in October of 24.

We um purchased 49, 994 dollars um of materials, and then in April of 25, we had a smaller order of 14,361 dollars and seventy-five cents, which came out of the to being fees line item.

Okay, okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to item number 10 that is found on page 59, and this will be the last item over 50,000.

Um that is 2026 045 e permitting.

Phil Carlucci, IT director.

This is a request under City Ordinance 566, exception to bid to award the annual service and support contract for the open gov cloud services to open gov Inc.

in the amount of 53,539 dollars and twenty cents.

This is an approximately 25 percent uh increase from last year.

However, it's included including two new departments, uh two areas that we'll be using in each area is charged separate, uh, minus the two additions.

Um it's a modest couple percent increase.

Uh the pricing is based on state continued negotiations with this.

It's also a state mandated for building impartial planning.

We anticipate this year that we will be reimbursed for the building departments portion of this from the state, as we have been in the past, and we're also trying to get a portion of the planning department's uh mandated piece to be reimbursed by the state.

Uh this is coming, it runs from July 1st to June 30th.

It's coming late as it has every year because they negotiate with the state.

And for whatever reason they it takes them into July to negotiate for it.

Uh so we wrote it up as soon as we got the the pricing on it for this year.

So you're certain of a um reimbursement of roughly 11,600 for the building department for building, yes.

And it's right now it's a question mark about ninety-six hundred on the planning, whether or not you're gonna get part of it or none of it.

Correct.

Okay.

When do you expect to know on that?

Usually about January of next year.

We've when we finally get the between December and January of the reimbursement.

We're just have to discuss and break out what it is the planning department's using it for.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, thank you, Director.

We'll move on and ask.

I will first ask the committee if there are any items that anyone would like to have.

Start with councilman Foley.

Uh just one number 28.

It's item 2026, 126.

I believe so.

That's item number 284.

Found on page 168.

Yes, any others from any members of the count committee.

Yes, councilman Mutal.

Uh Chairman, thank you.

I'd like to uh pull out item 2026-116 annual maintenance time clock system.

Okay, hold on.

That'll be item number 19 found on page 114, correct?

Yep.

Okay.

And uh 2026-11 office tracker calendaring system.

That's item number 29 found on page 171.

Yes.

What item number it was item number 2026 11 found on page 171.

It's item 29 in our uh packet.

You're welcome.

Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Chairman.

Just uh item number 12, 2026 090, and that is found on pages 66 through 69.

Just uh item number twelve, twenty twenty six zero nine zero, and that is found on pages sixty six through sixty-nine no, I'm not I'm going to be looking for item number fourteen, item number twenty twenty six zero four two found on page seventy-eight until I'm also going to be looking at item twenty twenty six, it's item number fifteen found on page ninety.

And that's that's all the committee has.

Um held out.

Doesn't look that way.

Any members of the public, are there any items members of the public would like to have held aside that's under fifty thousand?

Hearing none.

Okay.

Um the council president has asked for us to do a pause on the finance committee.

Uh I need a motion for a pause.

So move.

We have a motion, we have a second.

All in favor.

I thank you.

Um we will turn the meeting over to the council president.

So just so everyone's aware, I'm I'm waiting till six thirty to convene the full council, then we'll go do the usual formalities, general communications, executive communications.

Then we have public comment, then we have a public hearing, and then we'll have executive session, and then after that, we're back to committees.

All right, so public all right.

City council convene at six thirty PM.

If clerk could please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Mr.

DeLouise, Mr.

Bowley.

Testing.

Yes, please.

Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

Here.

Mr.

Laza.

Here.

Here.

Councilman D.

Louise can lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Oh, can you see?

Or the men please.

And the wrong game.

Oh, stay down the side.

First, we have general communications, which includes announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Does anyone have anything for general communications?

Councilman Latticer?

Oh, thank you, Mr.

President.

I would like to ask for a moment of silence for one of our very loyal and dedicated employees, Mr.

Joe Blake, who has recently passed away.

Does anyone else have anything for general communications?

Seeing none, we go to executive communications, for which there are none.

Next, acceptance of minutes from the council meeting held on July seventh, twenty twenty-five.

Does anyone have any objection to the minutes as presented?

Councilman Ricks.

I'll abstain on that.

All right, can someone move those for approval?

Motion for approval by Councilman Lattisser, seconded by Councilman Mudo.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

And one abstention from Councilman Ricks.

Next, we have public comment under Rule 41.

After general communications and prior to the consent calendar at the last regularly scheduled meeting of the city council each month, there shall be a period of time not to exceed 30 minutes during which citizens may comment about Warwick City government issues to the subject to the following stipulations.

Comments need to be brief in order to allow as many citizens as possible to participate.

Each citizen signed up and present shall have not to exceed five minutes to speak, provided, however, that if there are more than six citizens are signed up and present, thirty minutes will be split evenly amongst speakers.

Time shall not be transferable amongst speakers.

The topics for comments shall be issues directly affecting city government.

The public comment session will terminate at the expiration of the earlier of all speakers concluding their allotted time or thirty minutes.

So we got roughly a little less than four minutes.

We'll round up four minutes for each speaker.

First up is, and I apologize if I butcher pronunciation.

Danelle Dubai.

Oh, I should ask.

Does anyone have any objection to rounding up the time to four minutes as opposed to three minutes and change?

All right, see none be at least four minutes for each.

Sorry, go ahead.

Just state your name and then have at it.

My name's Danelle Debye, and I live at 99 Midgley in Warwick.

And uh good evening, Council President and members of the council.

Um, thank you for your time.

My name's Danelle DeBye, I live at 99 Midgley, and this is the last remaining home on one what was once a neighborhood street, serving several houses and the public beach in front.

Midgley Ave is not a paper road.

For over a century, it has been the path that's connected families, neighbors, and visitors to the shoreline.

Today, my home is the last one on the road, a two-family residence, once the summer home of Olympic medalist John Herbert Higgins, memorialized at Scarborough Beach.

But the path is no less vital today.

It continues to serve as the most direct and reliable route for both residents and the public, and more importantly, for emergency access to both 99 Midgley and the public beach in front.

When Warwick Fire responded, they were obstructed because the path was blocked with boat stands, pallets, and other marina equipment.

The ambulance truck even scraped its side against a boat anchor as they tried to get through.

Thankfully, my son was okay, but I cannot stop to think about what might have happened if the emergency had been worse, or even at the public beach in front.

A delay could cost, or any delay could cost lives.

It is narrow, congested with parked cars, and not dependable in an emergency.

Midgley Ave by contrast is flat, direct, and proven by decades of use.

When seconds matter, this is the access point that ensures a timely response.

Preserving this path also benefits the entire neighborhood in other ways too.

Keeping Midgley Ave open reduces congestion on Arnold's neck, particularly in the summer months when cars already line the streets.

It supports resident parking and utility deliveries for 99 Midgley while still honoring the historic shoreline path that generations of Warwick families have walked to the beach.

And before I present what we're asking for, I'd like to ask any present, current or former residents of Arnold's neck to please stand if you're in support.

Because what we're asking for tonight is simple.

We'd like to memorialize Midgley Ave as a public or neighborhood right of way to guarantee that it remains open and unobstructed.

To designate it as a fire lane and left, please.

Emergency vehicles always get through and maintain resident parking and utility access, preventing added congestion on Arnold's neck.

It's not about creating something new, it's about protecting what's always existed, a path that served families, emerging respondents, and shoreline for over a century.

In the binders before you, you will see photographs and records that document this story.

They show the cottages that once lined the shore, the vehicles that traveled Midgley Ave before the marina was built, and the continued access that neighbors have relied on ever since.

With that, I'd like to introduce Paul and Richard Schaffner.

They were the previous um family who lived at my house at 99 Midgley.

Their family was there from the 1930s to the 1990s, and they remember Midgley Ave, how it's how it's always been, how it still is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Paul Shaffner.

Hi, I'm Paul Schaffner.

Um, this house at 99 Midgley Avenue was in our family for 60 years.

Um was bought by my grandfather in 1937 as a summer home, and it remained a summer home for three generations.

I have a great uh memory of childhood there, uh, you know, boating and swimming and just playing on the beach.

In 1968, when my father died, my mother had a heating system installed and it became her permanent residence.

When my mother died in 96, we sold the house to John Dickerson.

Um we were always able to park on Midgley Avenue, and we needed that access for delivery, such as heating fuel on large items.

Neighbors used the access on their neighborhood walk and to uh drive down there to park to go swimming.

Epenogarbon Marina even had a stairway installed so people could easily enjoy access to the beach.

That's when they had the uh the big stone uh breakwater installed so people didn't have to crawl over rocks to get down there.

Uh there's a picture in the Appenach Harbor Marina website showing a roadway to uh through 99 Midgley.

So shows sailboat mast in a rack on the right and boats and cradles left uh on the left of the roadway.

Uh it was a nice roadway, nice wide roadway, and it shows the courtesy and respect that Apenarch Harbor Marina had for its neighbors.

They cared about Arnold Snake and the people that lived there because they were part of it.

I see no reason that this access has to be closed off.

It's important to keep this open for EMS and access the beach and to the property at 99 Midgley.

Let's be good neighbors and keep this access open.

Thank you.

Next is Laurie Messier.

All right, well, circle back at the end.

Uh next is Richard Langseth.

Richard Langseth, Budlong Farm.

I asked that the time be expended because somebody was missing.

Okay, I'm gonna start.

Um the um Buttonwood Beach Association petitioned the Warwick Town Council for street lights in 1902.

It a deal was worked out with the electric company and lights were provided.

Then on November 22nd, 1909, the Columbia Land Company, the developer of the Seaview Platte, now called Highland Beach, requested street lightings for that plat.

It borders the Rocky Point Park to the south.

The Providence Journal reported a request from the Columbia Land Company and resident owners of the Seaview Platte near Rocky Point Station asked for five lights to be installed.

The request was received and placed in the file.

There is no money available for such purpose.

Another item dealt with by the town council on that day was an additional petition from the Buttonwood Beach Association.

The Providence Journal reports that Councilman Holden explained about the street lights.

The petitioners, that is the Buttonwood Beach Association, had agreed to pay any expense for the street lights in Buttonwoods.

I was very excited to have made that find that the Buttonwood Beach Association made promises to pay the city for street lighting 120 years ago.

The problem is that the city of Warwick has been paying over $30,000 per year for these street lights to the Narragansett Electric Company for many years.

The Buttonwood Beach Association has skunked us.

It does not pay its street lighting bills.

Unless the Buttonwood Beach Association takes down its ridiculous illegal, no trespassing signs.

The city should pull the plug on the provision for free street lighting, free trash pickup, free waterline improvements, and free emergency management grants to the residents of in quotes private Buttonwoods.

Watch out.

In addition, the Water Department is planning on a $2 million expense to fix the water line between Buttonwoods Beach and Oakland Beach.

$2 million that the city is going to pay to fix the water line, yet the no trespassing signs stay up at Buttonwoods Beach.

This is going before the CRMC in a couple of weeks.

As far as I can tell, he's pocketed that request.

The Harbor Management Commission is going to meet in September, and they're going to ask where's our opinion.

What are we doing here?

We're spending thousands and thousands of dollars to support an organization that calls itself private when clearly it's been public since colonial days.

I come back every month.

I come back and ask.

And you know what happens?

Nothing.

Mr.

Mudo has been uh offered some help.

That's good.

But the administration must step in.

It's not just the city council, it's the administration.

We have almost 80,000 people in Warwick, many new people come from the Boston area.

They expect to go to the beach.

One more minute.

I can't hear you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Langsteth.

Next, we have Rob Cody.

So as promised, I'm here to give you some data on the fire department sick time obtained from public records.

These sick days and numbers per APRA do not include timeout due to on the uh on the job injury or long-term illness.

The numbers are from the period of 2022 to 2024.

This should give you an idea on what's driving overtime.

Sick days per person are as follows.

George Lusinian, 96 sick days.

Kyle Boulet, 88.5357 sick days.

That's an interesting number.

How we break down the sick day to the tenth of a minute when the department doesn't use electronic computerized method, badging their employees in and out.

But let that go.

We'll talk about that later.

John Perry, 86 sick days.

Jason Warneman, 82.8928 sick days.

Tracy Titus, 82 sick days.

Kyle Sullivan, 79.6 sick days.

Stephen Sambrone, 77.4 sick days.

Has anyone on the council been sick for 75 days and three years?

I mean, that this may be cause to go check these buildings because there may be something in the buildings that are causing such illness for people that are supposed to be the pinnacle of health and fitness.

Notwithstanding, if they're this sick, I don't think they should be exposed to sensitive people being transported to hospitals or nursing homes.

David Danella, 76.8 sick days.

Aaron Russo, 73.3 sick days.

Steven Guchera, 73 sick days.

Brian Martufi, 71.2 sick days.

Brad Janite, 65.35 sick days.

Kevin Rivett, 63.8572 sick days.

Mike Ryder, 63.4786 sick days in three years.

Michael Collentonio, 62.8571.

Steve Smith, 61.

Anthony Petraka, 61.

Carl Wagner, 60.4 sick days.

I mean, this is unbelievable.

No one is this sick.

All right.

There's communities in Africa that suffer from Ebola, and the people aren't this sick.

David Hankins, 57 sick days.

Richard Derrick, 56.

Now you remember Richard Derrick, he's the guy that got busted taking the dog to the dog groomer in the ladder truck last year.

I heard because of that, he's now suffering from separation anxiety and because he can't take the dog, so he's out sick 42 days last year.

Matt Kavanaugh, 55.6 sick days.

James McDermott, 55.5714 sick days.

Matt Del Bonus, 54.3.

Jonathan Sir, 51.2001, another interesting number.

Anthony Del Pozo, 50.5 sick days.

I thought these guys were healthy.

Daniel Vale, 50 sick days.

Jacob Gabrielson, 49 sick days.

Thomas Pachico, 48.

One minute, Mr.

Cody.

Robert Columbo, 47.8571 sick days.

Peter Walsh, 47.7143.

Nicholas Myrtle, 47.7143.

Those guys got a lot in common.

David King, 47.5357.

I hesitated tonight because of the time because so you all know I did background checks on all these people, and I have their businesses, right?

From what Jason Waterman, who has his website where he teaches CPR and first aid and states, very flexible classes, last-minute classes, and George Lucinian, who's a contract, and I have his information from the state of Rhode Island.

And then Kyle Boulay, who's a wedding photographer with 88 sick days.

God, I hope he doesn't get any of the brides sick.

That would be terrible.

But you wonder what's driving sick days, and you think this is realistic.

You don't think there's a scam going on?

Wait until the new bill goes through where there's no tax on overtime.

Wait till you see what happens then.

Thank you.

Next is Cindy Wilson.

Good evening, Cindy Wilson.

Um, so I didn't really understand a lot about overtime.

I've always been self-employed, so I did a little research and found out that in the United States we are allowed six eight, um sorry, eight full-time full-time days off for sickness.

Um companies are minimally required to give people five sick days.

The average American takes between two and three sick days.

The Warwick Fire Department has 17 paid holidays in addition to all the other things that they get.

And it just seems excessive from somebody that has been self-employed her whole life and actually has never had a paid sick day.

If I don't work, I don't get paid.

So to continue with the firemen and their amount of time out.

Christopher Sullivan, 42 days, Kenneth Marriott, 41 days, Adam Brule, 41 days, Thomas Gibbon, 41 days, Nicholas Ulrich, 40, Zachary Rice, 40, Timothy Prada, 39, Thomas Maiman, 39, Richard Cooney, 39, Nicholas De Giulio, 38, Michael Molo, 38, David Angeli, 38.

And it just is amazing that these people are all sick with the same amount of days.

Um I ran businesses and had people work for me, and I wouldn't have been able to stay open if I had to uh have these people out this much.

We must have an overabundance of fire department personnel.

Uh David David Angeli, 38 days, Christian Hall, 38, Alex Torres, 37, Dana Weathers, 37, Andrew Sisson, 37, Norman LeMay, Andrew Sutton, Randall Hoxie, all 36.

Stephen Cahun, 36, Timothy Bedard, 36, Nicholas Veris, Joseph Duchemet, 36, respectively.

Michael Cookson, 34.

Todd Bertham.

I'm not even going to try that one.

Cottie, Cody Bella Vance, Daniel DeRobio, and Matthew Wood, all 34.

Robert Johnson.

One minute, Mrs.

Wilson.

So I'm I'm not even going to finish the list.

I think we know where we're going with this.

I think we really need to do something.

I'm on a fixed income.

I just got my tax bill and my um insurance bill, and I'm in for a grand a month before I even open my door.

That's hard to sustain on a fixed income, which is why I rent out a room in my house.

I don't like it.

I kind of clean toilets for a living.

I don't like it.

So I wish that we could try to rein in the fire department and not have such excessive um sick days and sick leave.

Thank you.

Next is Richard Shaffner.

All right, and then next is Heather Buckley.

Hi, Heather Buckley 511 Greenbush.

Good evening.

I'm here to address a matter that has been causing significant distress on Greenbush Road.

Um, one that directly affects our quality of life and the well-being of those who live and work in our neighborhood.

Across the street from my house, the builder has been operated operating in a manner that violates work's noise ordinance.

Under works noise ordinances, section 40-13.

The maximum allowable sound level for construction activities in residential areas is 60 decibels.

This threshold is not arbitrary.

It is designed to protect the residents from the noise that can lead to health issues, disrupt daily activities, and cause stress and discomfort.

However, the construction company in question has been willfully and knowingly generating noise levels that far exceed this limit up to seven hours daily.

The sounds from their hydraulic breaker have been persistent, loud, and disruptive.

This is not a minor inconvenience.

This is an ongoing violation of our rights.

The constant noise has made it difficult for people to sleep, work, and enjoy their homes and property.

It is affecting the mental and physical health of our neighborhood, and it is simply unacceptable.

Even though the decibel meter recorded levels that exceeded this legal limit, I was surprised that the police did not have any immediate authority to shut down this operation.

Initially, I was blaming them for failing to enforce the ordinance, but after speaking to several officers, I realized that the problem lies with the ordinance enforcement provisions.

The ordinance has no teeth, and the construction company knows this.

They seem to operate without consequence.

Why is this noise ordinance on the books if law enforcement cannot immediately enforce it?

The process is too slow and ineffective.

We cannot ignore that this company continues to operate unlawfully.

Does anyone really think a $50 fine for the first and second violation to the landowner mailed to the landowner is effectively solving this issue?

That simply is a joke.

He will just accrue the fines, pay them or not, and continue breaking the law day after day while we continue to suffer.

The failure of Warwick to address this issue or the inability of the police to enforce the law not only undermines the effectiveness of our local ordinances, but it also sends a message that businesses can simply disregard the well-being of residents.

I did walk over to them as soon as the breaker started, it's assault about three weeks ago, and I told them they were violating the ordinance.

They laughed at me and they said, go ahead, call the police.

They're not gonna do a thing.

I asked them how long they were going to be using this machine, and they said we're gonna be here every day, all day for years.

So what can we do about this?

First, the police must be able to take meaningful action to ensure that the builder complies with the law.

Yes, they have a permit to clear, but the permit does not give them the right to break the noise ordinance.

I want I went to the permit office and I pulled it and I had an employee just check to make sure that was true.

We are not asking for an unreasonable demands.

We are simply asking for a peaceful and quiet environment, something that we are all entitled to.

And let me just end this.

It's annoying.

I know, I know.

Trust me.

Seven hours, seven hours of that.

Sorry, I didn't have some.

Yeah, well.

And then last shot, Richard Shaffner.

All right.

That concludes public comment.

So we'll move on to the public hearing.

PCR 86-25, a resolution all right.

Uh yeah.

Unfortunately, no, ma'am.

You had to have signed up on our list.

I apologize.

Next up, we have public hearing for PCR 86-25, a resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into a tax stabilization agreement with Renaissance Development Court for residential purposes, including affordable housing at 1880 post-road assessors plat 322 lot 336.

So sponsored by Councilman Napra on behalf of Mayor Bacosi, its finance committee, Councilman Lattice.

For a recommendation for a public hearing.

All right.

So we have a motion open for public hearing.

Motion open the public hearing.

Made by Councilman Latiser.

Seconded by Council Meadow.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

Seeing none, we can open the public hearing.

So we'll start with petitioner and then we'll hear from the city.

And then we'll have lined up those in support.

Those against will.

And we'll make sure to hear from the council as well.

So first, petitioner.

Good evening, Mr.

President.

Honorable members of the World City Council for the record, attorney Kate Joseph Shakachi representing the petition of this evening.

I have uh with me tonight uh some uh renderings I'd like to give to the council.

Uh and I'll be happy to go through a presentation, answer any questions.

I have the owner of Renaissance Development, and I have the engineer.

Mr.

President, honorable members of council.

What I'm presenting you is an elevation of site plans of what the proposed apartment building would look like.

This is a request to for the city to enter into a tax treaty, uh very short track strategy of five years, uh, where the developer will uh use private financing and construct um 179 apartments on post-road, as we do quite often in Rhode Island.

Uh identify by what it used to be the old Valley Steakhouse, a parcel of land.

It's been vacant for some 30 some odd years.

Uh my client would like to develop it.

Uh we have had numerous discussions with the city.

Uh this was um negotiated in good faith, subject to this honorable council's approval of a five-year tax treaty.

As you know, this area is surrounded by uh airport land station district land, and that falls within the zone that automatically allows a 10-year tax treaty.

We are not asking for a tax 10-year tax treaty.

We're asking for a five-year tax treaty.

The reason for this in exchange for this, we have agreed to make a certain component of this property um affordable, uh, regarding median income.

It is all spelled out in the ordinance that is before you.

I'm excited, the resolution that is before you.

Um we think this is a good use of the property.

The property has been undeveloped, as I said, for 30 years.

The moment that this parcel was uh petition was filed and became public.

There was an article in the work beacon, and my client received an uh after numerous years of on and off negotiation, a formal notice to purchase the property and offer the purchase from the airport corporation.

So my client has rejected that offer.

My client would like to develop the parcel privately, meet the needs of the city for uh market rate housing, as well as affordable housing.

Uh it would be a 15-year restriction for affordable housing components part of this property.

It'll be a mixed use so that some of the property would would look exactly the affordable, exactly like the market rate housing.

This would abut the old Sheridan Hotel, which is also um residential use apartments, and the airport corporation itself.

The uh Pertucci's pizza, which is closed, the airport garage, the airport corporation.

That pretty much sums it up.

Uh uh, I know that uh the solicitor has reviewed this.

Um we we sent a draft over.

I know the mayor's office of review and the tax assessor's office has reviewed it.

I'll be happy to the best of my ability to answer any questions.

I point out as a matter of information the project, but I want to be very clear to this council that this project that is being proposed tonight meets or exceeds every single zoning ordinance.

I apologize for the interruption.

For those wishing to converse, please leave the council chambers.

Again, for those wishing to converse elsewhere, please leave the council chambers.

The acoustics in this room are awful.

So we can fortunately can hear everything while at the same time, somehow unable to hear anything as far as the presenter.

It's not your fault.

Again, bad acoustics.

Sorry, continue.

Thank you.

So what I want to just to reiterate that last point.

The project you see being proposed today does not request nor need any zoning relief or approval.

Is properly zoned for this, it meets all the setback requirements, it meets the height requirements, it meets the landscaping requirements.

We're not asking for any zoning relief.

This is a multi-million dollar project.

To be quite frank with you, that is a very um economically challenged project, and that's the hence the request of the tax treaty, the short-term tax treaty for five years.

Uh the cost of building new construction has gone through the roof.

We are looking at alternative materials, even more expensive.

Some of them uh built or constructed or raw materials are coming from foreign countries.

The tariffs have had a direct impact on the cost of this.

It is skyrocketed.

Every week my client goes to the market to try to price it so that we can hopefully get to a point where we're break-even construction can stop.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

I have Janice Matthews from Renaissance Development uh here as well.

And I have a representative from DePrete Engineer.

If you have if you have any questions regarding the building, the structure, but it meets all of the parking requirements.

We're not asking for any relief.

That concludes my presentation.

I will defer to any questions you have, Mr.

President.

Does the city have anything to add prior to the next round of people?

We'll get there.

She can't hear.

For those speaking, make sure you're speaking to the mic for the sake of the sonographer, please.

Frank Picoszi, Mayor of Warwick.

Uh Mr.

President, I just I had noticed the councilman Rix had a question for Mr.

Shikarchi.

Did you want to allow him to ask his question first?

We just want to make sure we get the presenters out of the way, including your own.

Then that way, if people have more questions, they can tee them up.

Okay, so you want to get rid of me quickly.

I get it.

Only if you want.

Um a little bit of history on this.

Uh over four and a half years ago, um, this is the former Valley Steakhouse.

It's been vacant after it was a parking lot for years.

I went to see Janet uh Matthews from uh Janco four and a half years ago with Bruce Kaiser, the economic development um director.

Uh at the time we were trying to get um the former hotel there.

We they didn't have enough parking for what they wanted to build, so we were going to ask um Janco if they would consider selling part of all of the land to them.

And uh she rejected that out of hand.

She said she doesn't um uh sell real estate and she had no desire to develop.

So I tried to keep in touch with her, and a couple of years ago she called me up and she wanted another meeting.

One thing she had told me that was very disturbing was that the airport corporation was trying to purchase the land.

Um that scares me because that'd be another parcel of property real estate in Warwick.

We'd have no control over, we come off the tax rules forever.

So she told me she was interested in developing it, the family was, and she'd asked my input into what they should put there, and I immediately said housing.

We didn't need any more retail.

Um they went to DePrete Engineering, they came up with a concept, and she came to me initially.

They asked me if we would extend the intermodal zone to that area, but I wasn't in favor of that because it would involve too many things.

I'd I'd prefer to keep it in the boundary.

So work with Mr.

Shikarchi and Jenna Matthews.

We came up with this tax treaty.

Um we've been over it.

It's very fair, it's good for both them and the city.

Uh it's very short term, it's not like what's in the intermodal zone.

So I think this is win-win for Warwick, and that's why we've presented it tonight.

Um, Neil Dupree is here.

If you uh have any questions after I too.

All right, Councilman Nappa.

Thank you, Council President.

And thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and Mr.

Mayor for your presentations.

Um, just want to voice my support for this project.

Uh, as both of the presenters mentioned this area, this parking lot to really no fault of the owner has just been a bite on the city for quite some time.

Uh, this project represents um a good community partner coming forward to develop the city in a way that I think is beneficial for uh all parties involved.

One, we get to keep the sleeping giant that sits in the middle of our city at bay.

Uh, we certainly don't want them to be able to encroach any further on the land we have and uh make the income from that property a possible zero.

I think a five-year uh deferment to be able to allow the developer to appropriately and adequately develop that project is a fair trade-off uh for the 10x return in a short five years, which will presumably or should become should come close to paying for a substantial portion of what our responsibility is towards those school bonds.

Um, you know, I think that in itself bringing that size of a revenue in is beneficial to the city.

Um, you know, a project like this does have a lot to consider.

The uh developers have uh made a strong commitment to be involved in the community and uh have made themselves available for any community development uh in the future opportunities that they can get involved.

They've made it very clear to me through their council um that they're happy, able and willing to get involved in infrastructure improvements around the city as those opportunities may present themselves if if they're able at that time.

The uh my understanding, I do have one question for the speaker, just as a point of clarity.

My understanding that the um agreement term will be defined by completion of the project, and that definition, as we spoke about earlier, is when the first building, because there are two structures when the first building is ready to accept residence.

Is that is that my understanding?

Yes, when the CO, the certificate of occupancy is issued.

Is that that is when the five-year tax treaty will commence, not at the beginning, not at the building permit.

And if my client is unable to secure the materials that we will cause, there may be a delay before they start.

So it doesn't start when the mayor signs it, it starts when the first certificate of occupancy is issued.

I want to you bring a good point up, Councilman App.

I want to make two points.

The five-year tax treaty is not five years at the current value of the land.

It's five years and it escalates 20% per year.

In addition to that, 20% of the units will be affordable.

That's 38 units.

And the other 10% of those units would be between 80 and 100%, 20% of AMI.

Uh that's adjusted income.

Um it's a fair trade.

It really is for the city of Warwick, me and for the developer.

The alternative to not doing this is two choices, and they're both not good for the city.

The first choice is it gets sold to the airport.

There is a $5.2 million offer today that exists for them to sell this parcel to the airport corporation, takes it off the tax rolls, and it will not the city will not receive a dime.

The other alternative is it stays the way it is for another period of time.

And if it stays the way for another period of time, you'll be getting taxes based on vacant land only.

And you'll have, I don't want to use the word blight, but you'll have a old and in need of upgrade parking lot with cones around it to prevent trespassing around it.

Next to other development that is improving around the area, to the mayor's credit to the city council's credit, in the last five years, more development, and I use the word in a very positive way, more good development on post-road.

And it really hasn't been development, it has been redevelopment.

Annon Hope site is being redeveloped.

You can go down there.

The old Sheridan Hotel is being redeveloped.

This is what we envisioned from a state perspective when we passed affordable housing laws.

We want it, not necessarily development, but redevelopment.

We are doing that.

The old New England tech property down the road was redeveloped into five reasonably priced townhouses.

This is what we envision for the city.

This is a private investment.

Yes, we're asking for a five-year phase in on taxes, but there is no public subsidy here.

Not asking for any grants or loans from the state or the city.

This is a good project.

The only one knowing the difference is going to be the tenant paying the lower rent in exchange for the uh the tax treaty.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

And just to follow up on what you said uh relative to the RIAC offer, I can confirm that uh I've had conversations with members at RIAC myself that they're actively looking for adjacent properties to not have to park across the airport road and use that for additional parking.

So the motivation on the airport corporation side is certainly there, and we definitely don't want them to acquire any more city property that we could use to bring in residents that bring in tax revenue that support local business that create a need for further uh employment opportunities because we have increased population in the city and to bring uh put a spotlight on the city per se, just because we have a beautiful you know apartment complex and development coming in that beautifies that area that is in much need.

So I look forward to uh the support, hopefully from my colleagues to get this project off the ground, and thank you for your presentation.

Well said, Thank you.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

A few items, and I apologize.

This is probably gonna take over 10 minutes as fast as I and brief as I can be with something of this scale.

First, I want to thank Speaker Shikarchi, in that I don't think that any General Assembly in Rhode Island's history has done as much to promote affordable housing and address the housing crisis as you in your official capacity as speaker.

So I want to thank you for that first and foremost.

I do think that affordable housing and the improving the housing stock in general is a very important priority for the state, and likewise a very important priority for the city of Warwick.

However, uh here putting on the city council hat as I must.

And this is certainly not any slight at you, any slight for the developer, but I have not been particularly pleased with some of the process here in that the city sent me a couple of documents, along with to the best of my knowledge, eight out of nine of us on the city council only really received documents, uh hard numbers and the like uh regarding this as of last Tuesday.

And so that leaves me with a lot of questions.

It is not often at all that this city council sees a request for a tax treaty.

Granted, it's a five-year period, not a 10-year period.

One housekeeping note here that's critically important.

A difference of if my back of the envelope math is correct, a difference between an amount in excess of slightly over $1 million versus a bit over $2 million is the phasing in of the tax rate.

I believe that the uh table in the resolution itself, as well as the table in the uh five-page tax stabilization agreement, specifically the exhibit A annual tax payments shows that the tax liability for years one through five would be in the fixed amount of sixty-eight thousand and twenty-two dollars, as opposed to that phase in where uh if my math is correct, the I believe that year five would be in the neighborhood of closer to five hundred thousand dollars, uh, more or less.

I'm not pretending to give exact numbers here, but added up over the course of that five-year difference is the difference of perhaps close to a million dollars.

I want to make sure that we have the precise numbers in this resolution before we have any vote on it.

And similarly, when it comes to the process and information we've received uh from the city on this, I have no doubt that the city as well as the applicant have negotiated this in good faith, trying to get to an outcome that makes sense for everyone here.

But since I was not part of those negotiations, and I'm not sure to what extent members of the council, my colleagues were part of any negotiations here.

It is unclear to me exactly how these various numbers were reached as to a total of 20% of the units of the total 170 units being at these reduced rates.

That is 17 apartments that would be uh priced at certain rates that are more affordable, and then another 17 at uh slightly higher rates that are likewise uh deemed to be affordable housing.

But it's unclear to me how the numbers add up, so that uh this provides the some compensation really to the residents, future residents of the city of Warwick and helping Warwick meet affordable housing goals while uh enabling the applicant to achieve its goal of uh proceeding with construction uh that would be aided by the uh tax stabilization agreement.

Bottom line, what I'm can I have some concerns here in that based on simply the information that's presented to me at this time, I don't know if this tax stabilization agreement is really necessary for the developer to build these units.

And likewise, while every property is unique, all circumstances regarding major developments are unique, and this is certainly a worthy development.

However, I'm always going to be skeptical when it comes to tax stabilization agreements, because if this city council were to approach the topic lightly and not have a very thorough inquiry, then we would be effectively encouraging future developers to come to us hat in hand when they would have perhaps gone ahead with the same construction without seeking any incentive from the city.

So further information along those points would be helpful, as well as perhaps information from the uh the tax assessor or other city representatives on precisely how these uh numbers were reached.

Thank you.

Can I answer at least the second part of that first, and I'll defer to the mayor and the tax assessor around the other stuff.

Answer your question, this tax treaty is absolutely necessary because you have 40 years of precedent to say that if it wasn't necessary, this developer, this owner, or some other developer would have built this project.

It hasn't been built for a lot for a lot of the reasons.

The 20% of affordable housing was negotiated.

My client didn't want any, city wanted more.

We met in the middle.

My client wanted a 10-year tax treaty, the mayor didn't want to give one.

We met at five.

It was a negotiation.

So as I pointed out, subject to this approval by this honorable council.

What I will tell you respectfully is someone as old as I am has been around city government and state government, developers, clients, advocacy groups, nonprofits will always come to the city or the state hat in hand.

There's they're always gonna ask.

You can give them a million dollars next year, they're gonna come back for a million dollars again.

And what I will tell this honorable council, and I know there's some good attorneys who sit on this council that, and you have a very good legal council, by the way, that and the city does as well, that precedent is not set by the city council.

When I talk about precedent, I'm talking about legal precedent.

You can vote the same way 10 times, and you cannot vote on the 11th time, and you cannot be held uh uh liable for that or negligent for that, because this is a legislative body, and you take a legislative act.

So you don't by taking a vote tonight to approve this project, you're not setting any precedent.

If a developer wants money or tax incentives from this city city council, state of island or any city council, they're gonna come and ask no matter what.

That's what they do.

That's what they're doing.

Every advocacy group that comes before the city council asks for money for funding.

That you can't say, well, we voted for this one.

We have to do that.

You don't.

Each case is decided on its merits.

Now there's political precedent, and I I will give you that that because you say, Well, now Warwick didn't do it, and we we did it for the Renaissance and JANCO.

This is a very unique parcel of land, a very unique situation.

It's not like this project's gonna get built.

If it was, it would have been built 40 years ago.

We went through three and four and five booms in the last 45 years of real estate.

This project was never developed.

This project is a butting the TF Green state largest airport, which wants to expand, which has an offer of 5.2 million 250,000 to be exact on the table.

The city could actually get nothing.

This type of housing, market rate housing mixed in with affordable housing, is exactly the kind of housing you want.

This has minimal children, if any in the school system.

This is what I would call you want the walkability factor.

You want TOD, transportation oriented development.

You want to be near the train station, you want to be near the airport.

You want to be able to walk next door to the airport plaza and do shopping and eating and groceries and stores and items.

You want to go to all the restaurants in the area.

This is a perfect location for this type of project.

Not because it's this project, but look at the other private developments around them.

Look at the wood apartment complex, which was the old um park and ride at the airport, uh, with the next to the Johnson and Wales, the Jay Wales, which is uh now called um the rest Italian restaurant.

I forgot the names change fast, but next next to the old uh sorry, Tablo.

Taro, thank you.

They they've made a substantial million dollar investment, they have a 10-year tax treaty.

Look at the Sheridan Hotel, which is now apartments.

They do not have a tax treaty, but they have subsidies from the state in the form of a low interest loan from the Department of Housing.

These types of developments belong in this type of area.

These types of developments cannot be built with today's market cost of materials without some short-term assistance.

This project is asking for the least amount of money in the shortest amount of time to get this done.

And once this project gets built, while you can never say never impossible, is highly unlikely that the airport would want to buy it or take it by eminent domain with the approvals for or granted for this apartment.

And as I said earlier, this apartment is allowed by right.

We're not here asking for approval to build these.

We're asking for approval to have the city enter into a short-term tax treaty to make building this economically feasible in today's market with tariffs, labor shortage, and a whole host of supply chain issues.

I'll defer to the mayor and the city solicitor to go over the the math and the numbers with you.

Thank you.

Everything that's been developed over my tenure as mayor, every single developer has come and asked for some kind of track tax treaty.

Uh the city for the bill for infrastructures, everything.

I was called in one project to the governor's office when they tried to talk it into me.

Our work and my instincts always told me those projects were going to go forward, whether we did it or not.

It was independent of whether they own the land, whether they had bought the land.

This one, we followed our instincts.

This is not happening if we don't do this tax treaty.

And the risks are uh the risk are great.

As Cap is Councilman Napa said, we're gonna have maybe three or four hundred new residents, consumers, um, you know, shopping at our uh stores, going to our restaurants.

Uh, it's a great use.

We don't want the airport to get a hold of it because again, no money.

I you know, in the five years, I mean, um it's we could just keep getting the the taxes we're getting on the land, the barren land there.

It's an eyesore.

As the speaker said, we marched right down the Ann and Hope developments, the new NEO there, uh the apartments being built near the airport connector in the transit oriented district.

They're putting two new hotels with the um the grade houses.

This would be a blemish if it was left like it is.

And I'm you know, I'm not all that sure the airport corporation wants to put parking there.

They may want an exit, the exit they wanted to put in in other places if we stopped.

So the risks are great, and that's the only reason I went for this.

It's the first one I brought here, and I truly believe we need to do this one.

Councilman Foley.

Uh first I want to commend uh speaker Sakacchi, Joe Sakacchi.

Bill Joe's fine.

Joe and I go back 25 years, Washington Trust, Washington Trust, and here we are again.

Uh and I say that for the record, but for edification for people.

When Joe presented 25 years ago in front of this council for Washington Trust, I was the swing vote.

And I went with that development for the same reason I'm supporting this.

When a project comes in with Mr.

Sakacchi's blessing on it, name on it, I trust it because for 25 years, these developments in Warwick have been beneficial to the city.

Yes, it helps the developer.

They're going to make money, but it makes the city better.

That lot has been an eyesore forever, and everybody who lands at that airport sees it, and it gives you an impression of our city.

That that's going to be there instead.

A is one of the reasons I'm supporting.

Second, that the airport corporation does not get it, is even bigger.

They have done been no friend to the city of Warwick.

The third reason I'm supporting it is because of our mayor.

For the five years we've been together, we came into city government.

Well, me for a second time five years ago.

Again, every project that has been presented to us in whatever form it is that the administration has asked for something from the city council.

I firmly believe it has been with the benefit of the city of Warwick and the residents of Warwick in mind.

And for that reason, I will support it.

My only question to you, and it's an aesthetic one.

The front of that looks very similar to the other project you've referenced, which is where the parking ride was.

Is that on purpose?

Is it just the rendering or is it some type of blend?

It's just a rendering.

Uh it could change.

We want conformity, but uh the color scheme could all change.

Okay.

Uh it's a rendering, but the actual facade of what you see, the height, the window structure, the curvature will pretty much remain the same.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh I want to echo uh my colleagues, you know, Councilman Brian Knapper and Bill Foley.

I holy hot support this uh this development uh for a lot of the same reasons uh that councilman Foley mentioned.

One, it's good for the city.

Uh two, it has been an eyesore.

I want to bet it's more than 35 years because I missed Valley Steakhouse, which was in the late 70s, early 80s.

Uh, and uh three, we do not want the airport corporation to get their hands on this.

You're right, they have not been a friend of our city, and we need to start putting some brakes on them.

But more importantly, is you know, this will bring in you know good tax revenue uh in in the long term, and it'll be good for our city in the long term.

And uh, you know, I I I wish you and uh the developers good luck.

And uh my only question is how quickly will we start once we uh get the approvals if if so thank you.

Is that rhetorical?

Oh I'm sorry.

How often is this uh no?

Um as I said earlier, uh my clients in the every week does the pricing on it.

Once we get this leg behind us, we will continue to review uh the market, the labor market and the price market.

But my client is eager.

Well, we actually had filed this back in May, and then you guys went into your budget cycle in the may month of May and June.

And we didn't, you know, we you had meetings regularly, we didn't want to interfere with that process.

So uh we're here tonight.

We applied for it in July.

We'd like to get in the ground by the end of the year, but it honestly, uh councilman, it depends on the cost of lumber.

And and I can I'm not trying to be vague, but these tariffs are on one day and they're off the next.

They're 30% one day and they're five percent the other day.

So that's why we we go into the materials market and we price it.

So when we when we feel that the all the stars aligned and we're very close, uh, then we'll strike right away.

My client and uh the company that she works with has and owns this property, wants this development because of all the same reasons.

We we don't want the airport to get it.

We don't like owning a property that is a basically an older parking lot with a fence around it and cones.

It's it's it's unslightly for the city, it's unsightly for them.

This would be a great development, and most importantly, it meets the needs of affordable housing.

It meets the needs of market rate housing, it's construction.

I'm looking at Mr.

Lattice, but I know he knows, but you build a project like this, you're employing plumbers, you're employing pictures, you're employing contractors, uh construction, materials, surveyors, engineers, lawyers.

I I can go on and on HVAC uh uh uh people, but trades the youth the you some of its union labor, most of it's non-union labor, it's what whatever it is, it's it's employing Rhode Islanders and creating housing.

So uh we want to be in the ground, we want to break ground as quickly as we can.

Councilman Gebhart.

Good evening.

I'll echo all of the pleasantries extended by my colleagues.

Um I just had a couple of questions.

One being Are there any material differences between the units uh being developed as affordable units and the the rest of the unit?

Uh I'll confirm, but my understanding is no, they're exactly the same.

Let me just confirm that.

Yep, they are exactly the same.

There is no difference in materials or size or whatever.

The one bedroom market rate will be the same, one bedroom for affordable, and vice versa for two bedrooms or studios or whatever.

And and and um the stipulations around those affordable units will extend throughout the duration of the 15-year time.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um second question is is this a would this agreement be transferable?

Were there to be a uh a sale or a transfer of ownership?

This agreement will run with the land.

And I will tell you that my client uh owns a lot of property.

They're they've been in in business Rhode Island for over a half a century, if not longer.

They tend generally don't sell land, so that you have a history of owning a vacant park a lot with a vibrant income-producing brand new building, they're gonna hold on to it for a long time.

Okay.

Uh let me just check my notes quickly.

But the reason the those covenants and those agreements run with the land is if it were to be sold, the next developer would have to honor the same tax fees, the same affordability components.

That does not change, and that's typical of any time you uh have a restriction on property with an income restriction or a tax restriction, they run with the land.

And um just not being familiar with with these, as we don't often uh do taxable stabilization agreements here in Warwick.

Um, is there any potential that somewhere down the line in the project uh there's a need or a desire to come back to the city and say, hey, we're almost viable, but we need two more years or five more years or whatever the case is, or is this kind of fixed once we authorize it?

So uh as I said earlier about precedent, anybody can come back at any time and ask.

It would certainly be up to the council to say yes or no.

I'm not so sure that the mayor and his administration would agree to that.

But what I will tell you is that is one of the reasons why the tax stabilization starts at the end of the project and not at the beginning, because the project doesn't happen for another six months or nine months.

We're not wasting those five years.

So it would start when actually occupancy starts.

So it's I can't guarantee what will happen in the future a year from now or two, but we've at least tried to accommodate that and try to avoid the need for coming back.

Um many of you have been on the council for a long time.

You've never seen my client here that one of the largest uh landowners in Rhode Island.

They own a big portfolio of real estate in Rhode Island.

They don't come here, they're not they're not frequent flyers.

I like I like to say well, uh, we're glad uh for their interests in uh this development project, and and thank you very much for answering my questions.

Thank you.

Councilman DeLuis.

Uh yes, I just like to reiterate a lot of the well, people that are supporting this project.

Um serving on the Warwick Zoning Board for almost six years.

Uh Speaker Shikarci has been before us with so many um great projects.

Ann and Hope was one, the ne uh uh various neons.

Um the one uh next to the showcase cinema, the showcase cinema.

I mean, we could go on and on and on, and it's what we approved during uh my time is just made the city more money and uh more vibrant with with the development and um like uh councilman foley said, if it's it's an integrity thing, integrity, and if it's a project that um is brought to us by this gentleman, it's you can count on it.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Councilman Latticer Thank you, Mr.

President.

Good evening, Mr.

Speaker.

So when I first heard about this project uh several weeks ago, my initial reaction was this makes sense to me because of all the things that we've heard so far this evening.

The fact that it's been sitting there for decades empty.

Um to age myself, I remember going to Value Steakhouse for a senior prom was kind of like a big to do, right?

Um that has been just a despicable looking piece of property for at least some 35, 40 years.

I also was considering the fact that I know Mayor Picosy has um deterred from any of these tax agreements since he's been in office.

I also knew that the initial ask was 10 years and it got cut down to five years, and these things um were making more and more sense.

I absolutely do not want the airport corporation to get anything else.

I'm particularly disturbed, and one may not be exactly in relation to the other, that they've offered six million dollars for under six acres of land when we only got paid 400,000 for 3.4 acres or 3.

So that just aggravates me.

Anyhow, since then, and only over the last several days, there's been questions that have been presented to me by uh various members of our community, some my own constituents and my ward.

And some things that I just I need to um get confirmation from you, Mr.

Sakacci, is on the issuance of the CO.

I know that there's some differences sometimes between building codes and requirements between condos and uh single family and apartments.

Way back in in the day, I was involved with um the condo or the C final CO of the project being signed off by the building official, and that did not occur until all of the units were either occupied or sold.

And that final sign off was very important because of holding the developer to the uh holding his feet to the fire to get all our punch list items taken care of.

So, as I understand it this evening, once that first unit is sold, the CO is given.

Because they're not gonna be there be a positive.

I'm sorry, occupied.

The CO is given.

Is it given for that unit or for the entire project?

My understanding would be the first unit because there's two buildings, and you can't like build half a building.

You the all the building has to be uh completed and the CO is issued.

I would defer to the city's building department and the building inspector.

They ultimately, uh Mr.

DeCort, whoever's here at the time when this project would make that decision.

That's not something that we would control if they were going to issue individual COs, but generally speaking, my experience not only in Warwick but others that they issue a CO per building, per building.

Okay, so it's this is a two-building project.

So when that first building gets constructed and is ready for occupancy, is that's when the tax treaty would start.

When it's ready for occupancy.

Yeah, well, what when it's occupied.

No, no, when the CO, when you can't move into a you know, in theory, you're not supposed to move in until the CO is issued.

That's when all the insurances kick in.

Until the certificate of occupancy is issued, they cannot the tax treaty would not start to run.

And that was done to really to protect my client and the city both as well.

So that we make sure the project gets built.

Because it becomes very desirable to have this and without a project, and you don't get the benefits of a beautiful building.

You don't get the all the other benefits that we talked about.

So it was a mutually beneficial to both the city and the developer.

So not that long ago, um, this actually it was the previous city council approved a um a deal with the purchaser of the old Caravel ice cream.

And it was for certain things, and the things that we agreed to um approve from the zoning department, we're all part of it.

Well, now that property is still sitting there in the weeds, uh, nothing has happened, and all of a sudden the property is up for lease.

So, with that in my mind, I'm saying I asked the question I asked now is what happens with this tax concession tax treaty, if it's approved by this council, and this particular developer decides in a month from now or six months from now, that um uh we don't think that you know these apartments are a good fit.

Um, we're gonna do something else, or we're gonna do nothing, or uh it's gonna be sold off to whomever.

Does this tax treaty if this is approved, is that with the um agreement that only this can be built, yes, can be built, nothing else.

That's correct.

Well, let me just be very clear.

As this property sits today without a tax treaty, and as it has sat for the last 40 years, it can be bought or sold or developed any way that they want with under the confines of the laws and rules regulations, tax treaty or no tax treaty.

What we're asking today is if we build this project of 170 housing units, 20% affordable, we are asking for this project only that this tax treaty be maintained.

Now, if Amazon comes tomorrow and wants to build a fulfillment center there and offers my client $300 million for the property, they probably are likely to take it and they'll say, Thank you very much, city, but we don't need a tax treaty.

Amazon's gonna pay $300 million for it.

So the reality is by offering a tax treaty, the city uh for this property pretty much gets this property, but you can't predict the future, and this doesn't bind the city because if if Amazon were to come or somebody else were to come at this property, this tax treaty would not be in effect.

Okay, by the way, Amazon could have come last year and five years ago and 10 years ago.

I don't think they're coming, and I don't think they're coming for this location, this property, it's too valuable.

A more likely scenario, and my client uh has resisted for 30 years to sell this to the airport.

A more likely scenario is the airport will move fast to acquire this property by eminent domain before this tax tree is in place and before they can apply for a building permit.

Because once you do that, you have vested rights and the value of the land goes up.

And that's why the moment that the Ward Beacon article was published, within the same week that we had filed for this, and 5.25, you know, five million two hundred and fifty thousand dollar offer came in from the airport for this property.

And my client said no, thank you.

As they have the last 30 years of offers, not five million dollars, not 10 years ago, but it was a different numbers.

Okay, I'm I'm clear on the the tax agreement is with them renaissance for that building and that use.

So the other thing that has caught my attention is as you know, the taxpayers are required to make quarterly payments on their taxes.

If I understand this agreement correctly, the tax is only gonna be paid on July 1st and in January 1st.

Why isn't this question would be to the I will defer to the tax uh uh assessor and collector, and we'll pay the taxes whatever way the city wants it.

If they want them yearly, we'll pay yearly.

If they want them yearly, we'll pay yearly if they want to buy annually or if they want it quarterly, whatever the the city and the mayor agree to in the final draft, we'll we'll comply with we know that we have to pay a certain amount and we'll pay it like if everyone else does.

Well, I guess I'm looking for clarification from the um the administration to make sure I interpreted this correctly that the payments would only be made on July 1st and January 1st.

Neil Dupuy, director of assessing.

This actually came up with the agreement with Wood Partners as well, uh, similar to what we heard here tonight.

They're more than willing to make the quarterly payments.

This is just a typical uh way it's worded, where they would pay twice a year, but it's more difficult on the city and the property owner to do it that way.

So um we would ask for a quarterly tax payments, and I think that would be acceptable if I understood.

So I look at it from a different perspective with all due respect.

When you only get paid twice a year, I think that you're actually you're not getting the same amount of revenue as if you were getting it quarterly.

You might get a bigger lump six months down the road, but um it's pretty difficult for me to wrap my arms around an agreement that's going to allow uh a developer, anybody to pay taxes twice a year when our residents have to pay quarterly.

So that's something that well, it would be the same dollar amount, that's not really the issue, but it would be a problem amount, but you're collecting it you know further down the road.

It would be a problem for the tax collector because our system is set up a certain way, so we'd have to truly do this as a pilot and worked with the finance director's office if we did the uh biannual payments instead of the quarterly payments.

And um that uh um Joe Joe I'll call you Joe because I prefer Joe.

Is that something that your your client would be amenable to?

Sure.

Okay.

They pay quarterly now.

Okay.

So what is the rent for the um affordable units versus the other units?

The rent the rent, the AMI, the um which is the calculation is a federal calculation, Rhode Island Housing actually does it.

It would be 80 percent of the AMI in the area, and and the AMI changes.

That's the average median income of the neighborhood, the area, and that's how the formula is set.

So it would be depending, yeah.

It's hard to predict what it would be because these units won't be ready for another year and a half, two years, but I think you're looking at market rate, 80% of whatever the market rate is for going one bedroom or two bedroom in Warwick right now.

Keep in mind these may get you know the non-affordable would be a little bit higher because these are going to be brand new in a nice location, but they they're adjusted, they're set by Rhode Island Housing and they're set that way, and then it'll be 120% of AMI.

It's a formula that we don't control, it's controlled by uh the census, the federal government, and then it's set locally by Rhode Island Housing in the local HUD office.

So assuming AMI is pick a number 60 grand, um the the rent for the affordable will be 80 percent in that particular instance of the 60,000.

Yeah, there's a I I don't I don't know the exact formula the way it's calculated, but I do know it's consistent, it's applied the same formula, but the AMI is different in Warwick than it is on the east side than it is in South Providence or Winsocket or Patucket.

It's the average median income of the area, not the state.

There's a formula of the area, so it'll it'll be very consistent to what I would say is Warwick rents.

And if you want to know what walk rents are, I would tell you to go across the street and there's a development going on what they're getting or trying to get for those units were pretty much gonna be the same.

Uh the development with the old Sheridan hotel is going to be workforce housing.

So it's a little bit of a different formula, but it's still going to be affordable and not as high market rate housing in the Sheridan.

Is there anything in this agreement that would um I think you may have answered that already, but I'm gonna ask it again.

Um, to prevent the developer with building what we see right now and turning it into a hotel instead of apartments.

I would say that it'd be very difficult to do it, and I would think that you uh I know you could easily do it to condominiums without that.

I think a hotel would be different, and I think it would require us to come back to the city for an approval, either the zoning board, planning board, the city council, or maybe all three.

I maybe Mr.

Kravitz is here, maybe he can answer that question.

If uh I don't know the exact code, I mean the City of Walk's been in a very positive way, been changing the code.

So I don't know if a hotel would be any different from apartments or vice versa, but I do know it could be converted easily without any city approval to condominiums because that's a form of ownership.

And the tax treaty would still follow that.

I don't know, to be honest with you.

That's a good question because then now that those will be individually taxed.

Right.

Um, if if you know this council wanted to put a stipulation for the next five years, they wouldn't be uh condominiums.

I could ask my client.

We have absolutely no plans, and if you wanted to put a stipulation that we will not convert them to condos for uh for the next five years, we have no problem with that.

And using the five years as based on the tax treaty exactly.

Um yeah, I would like to see that.

Okay.

Um the other concern is the three percent increase in assessment.

That's assumed.

I'm sorry, uh assumed rate, assumed rate versus what we all know is the increases in um the retail value or the full selling price of these units or the apartments.

It doesn't seem to be in line.

Three percent doesn't seem to be in line with what we've seen in in the last couple of years.

Well, I will tell you the I remember there's been years that that even in this administration there have been years there's been a zero percent increase in a set in an assessed value or taxes.

So it it really depends, but I will tell you that in the agreement as it's written now, there is no floor and there is no ceiling.

So the only ceiling I know that exists is by state law, you cannot go over six percent uh higher.

But I will tell you that um uh it could it works both ways.

It works in favor of the development, it works in favor of the city.

If we have a really good real estate year or two, the market goes up.

We've also had you know bad real estate years in 2008.

Uh we had interest rates go up, the banks had liquidity problems or uh Lehman brothers went bankrupt, or set off of almost a near financial collapse, and real estate dramatically reduced in value.

So these are assumed rate to give you a uh a look what it would look like with a projection, but though that assumed rates one year could be two percent, another year could be four percent, it could go up or down, depending on that.

And by the way, so do the rents in reality.

So it's it's a fair trade for both people.

I don't expect, I mean, uh, that the real estate market in Rhode Island will go down in the in the short term significantly.

I think we're not there.

I wish we were.

I wish we had more housing stock.

I wish we had stabilized market like we have in Austin, Texas or Minneapolis, where they have less restrictive zones and they encourage more and more housing development and has stabilized the market.

And when you stabilize the market, not only do rents go down, but so does homelessness dramatically.

It's just it's this a statistic, a proven statistic.

Would you like to hear Deal's thoughts on these?

I'm over here.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Because we've had discussions about this, and he had some thoughts you may want to.

Yeah, I'd like to hear those thoughts, Mayor, and I'd also like to hear um from uh Mr.

Dupree the rationale for um agreeing, I guess would be my term to a three percent assessment increase as opposed to uh a hundred percent increase on the assessed value at that time in reflection of the um tax treaty.

All right, I'll probably ask for clarification on that part, but um, to address the first concern.

So we've had incredible growth on the apartment market over the last couple of revals, right?

But to anticipate that that type of growth would continue is unrealistic.

Um it's already at the point where most Rhode Islanders can't afford those rents.

Um so we do have a lot of people moving in from out of state.

We see that both on the sales end of things and on the rental end of things, and it's it's bringing up uh the value of those properties, but to anticipate it would continue to grow.

So it's really a nine percent increase every reval.

Okay, and that would be incredible growth to have over the whole 15-year period.

Um but if I could ask for clarification of your second part, because I didn't quite get what you were asking there.

I want to move on to a different question.

Okay, um what would you guesstimate if you haven't already got a close number?

Um, that this tax treaty will amount to over the five years.

Um I guess the the better word is um what is the amount that would be given up if this tax treaty would be to would be to approve on this property for five years?

Well, it depends how you look at it.

So a couple of things that have been mentioned, you're bringing in a whole bunch of new people that are going to patronize the the stores, the restaurants, um the gas stations, uh, and bring revenue into the city that we're not getting now.

If if they do nothing, we get what we're getting now.

Um, so how much is that you're losing?

I'm not sure that's the right question, but it's probably somewhere in the range of two and a half to three million dollars if you calculate over the five-year period, assuming there was no other benefit.

But like we saw with the Wood Partners apartment complex across the street, development spurs on other development.

Now they're interested in building an apartment building.

We've got the renovations going on in Sheridan.

This will introduce more development in that area, which is what the city's really looking to do.

So it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

And you had me at RIAC.

Well, there in lies um you know my concern.

You have one minute left, Councilman Laddison.

Thank you.

Um I'm happy to hear the um concessions that Mr.

Sakacchi has indicated they would be willing to agree with.

Um I also continue to have that concern if we don't do this.

Um with that said, uh, I'll yield the floor, Mr.

President.

I am interested in hearing what members of the public uh have to say on this.

But I would note um, I'm assuming a solicitor has made note of those two um concessions.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Foley.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So one thing I'd like to address briefly is that while I have absolutely no reason to not trust any of the presentation of this evening, whether from attorney Shikarchi or from the administration, this city council is an independent branch of government.

We have to do our due diligence.

I do not want anyone, any member of the public walking away with any false impression that we are here to rubber stamp anything.

We are here to do our due diligence wearing our city council hats, so to speak.

So even if this is a situation where in our private capacities, we'd be comfortable with handshake deals and complete trust.

We're not negotiating, we're not here in our private capacities.

We're here each representing about 9,000 of our constituents and entrusting entrusted with the authority they've given us, not for ourselves.

So I'd like to add that uh, like many of my colleagues, I have known attorney Shikarchi as well as Speaker Shikarchi for many years.

But because of my capacity here, it's incumbent upon me to verify everything to protect the taxpayers, protect the residents.

And so I don't give anyone special treatment here.

I'm not asking for it, and I fully expect you to uh trust but verify.

So ask away, councilman.

Thank you.

So uh a couple of uh housekeeping items first.

I would uh piggyback on councilman Latticer's idea of a uh restriction as to a condominium conversion, but given that one of the great benefits uh to the city, councilman.

Thank you, is the affordable housing component.

I would suggest that the uh restriction on a condominium conversion go for the length of the uh of the effect of the affordable housing component, which I believe it would currently be 15 years, or in the alternative, that there be some sort of enforcement uh mechanism here with a partial payback in the event of a condominium conversion.

I don't know precisely what would work there.

What I would say is uh if you want five years with no conversion, that's fine.

What I would say is I think in in reality you're cheating the city, and I'm being honest here because a condominium is taxed at a much higher rate, and you get the same occupant that you do it as an apartment, but you get more tax revenue.

The same number of kids will be there, whether they're condominiums or apartments, the same police fire services, and which in this case is minimal, will be needed, and that's fine.

But what I'll say is that once the affordability restriction goes on, if those were to become condominiumized and they were to be sold, which is unlikely, but if they were, then they would have to be sold for affordable.

And you're now taking that affordability ownership away from someone who might like it there, and and they could afford a reduced rate, they're not going to be able to continue to rent.

And I understand what people rent, but studies have shown, housing studies have shown when people actually take ownership of a home and they plant roots in the community, they're more invested in the community, they're less transient, they're more uh will raise families here, and they will stay in the community.

So the reality is I can appreciate what you want to do.

I will uh tell you that my client will agree to the five-year requirement, and that the re the affordability restriction would stay on that property for 15 years, whether it was condominiumized or stayed as an apartment.

Uh and if it does in year 10, the tax free is gone, my clients paying the full rate, but that affordability restriction is still it passes along to the buyer.

It can only be sold to somebody who is um restrictive.

So I don't understand why you would uh want to like what are you trying to accomplish is my question, I guess.

Why you would want to prevent somebody from owning a home.

Instead of saying you, I'm sorry, you can't buy that at affordable, you have to continue to rent it.

Like what what's the goal?

Councilman Ricks, we have 20 seconds left.

I would request a little bit more time, if I may but to respond briefly, I am actually a proponent of condominium conversions as an attorney.

I have performed condominium conversions on behalf of clients, and I do tend to agree with the points regarding condominiums as opposed to apartments.

However, so if it's gonna be able to continue speaking, someone needs to motion to add some time.

Councilman Lannister has a motion to add three minutes.

Is there a second?

Second by Councilman Vito.

All in favor?

Aye, all opposed.

All right, he's got enough to proceed.

Thank you all except for one.

Anyways, I am a fan of condominium conversions.

However, when it comes to the affordable housing component of that, considering that condominiums are often owner-occupied, I just don't know how that would be workable in this context.

Uh what's gonna happen with that 20%?

Is it going to be a matter of uh a unit becomes owner-occupied?

Well, once it's a condominium, we can't provide prevent owner occupancy.

So then is that particular one of the 34 units is that affordable housing restriction effectively transferred to another unit?

That wouldn't exactly be fair to that kind of owner.

No, it would it would uh um you know what in the hypothetical to hypothetical to hypothetical, but I'll do my best.

The unit would have to be sold to a affordable person who would met the affordable housing requirements, whether it was the owner occupied or another resident of Warwick or proper another resident, another person, regardless of where they're from, as long as they met the affordability requirement.

The affordability requirement does not go away, whether it's an uh a condominium or an apartment.

As councilman Lattice has said, it runs with the land.

So the affordability component will run with the land, whether it's an apartment complex or an condominium complex.

Thank you for the clarification.

It would be effectively for the owner to sell that condo.

They would still have to go by the same affordability guidelines and effectively.

You have to sell the con that 20% of the condos at the lower rate in in compliance with those particular.

Never mind, it's a split rate.

It's a split rate.

One's 80%, one's 120%.

Correct.

I was using a little shorthand there.

Okay, this makes sense to me.

So the remaining item here that I brought up earlier is making sure that exhibit A, the table of annual tax payments, making sure that that is completely accurate, because as of right now, I'm not seeing the 20% annual increases over the years one through five.

I'm seeing a fixed amount of 68,000 and 22 dollars.

I will defer to the to either the council legal advisor or the uh tax assessor.

I'll yield for the moment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman DeLuis.

I have a question for the tax assessor.

Maybe we can speed things along.

The land has been vacant for how many years?

35, 40 years.

I haven't been here that long, but that's my understanding.

Right.

I remember I was a kid.

I used to go to Valley Steakhouse.

Um my question is do you have figures as to how much uh tax revenue you collected you collect in one year from that vacant piece of property?

It's it's roughly the 68,000.

This year went down a little bit.

Uh so 68,000.

Okay.

All right, 68,000.

Okay.

So over five years, that's uh 30 uh 30, it's 30 340,000.

So five years, okay.

Now say this development goes through your first year, okay, of revenue on a multi-million dollar project.

Can you figure that out?

Tell us roughly how much it would be that the city would collect.

Yeah, 16 year schedule that you have.

I I yeah, I didn't see that.

I'm sorry.

623,000.

The first year.

Okay.

All right.

I'm just I because I I like to do numbers in my head.

I don't know reading that.

So the first year the city will collect 600 and whatever you just said.

Okay.

So five years, you're gonna take in about 340,000, right?

Right now as vacant land.

So I I don't see that we we need to discuss this any further.

It's so five-year moratorium on taxes, you're gonna lose 340,000 at a land just sitting there.

Well, again, I look at it as you win in the fifth year.

Well, the C that's what I'm saying.

So that's what I'm saying.

So we can end up I don't I don't think there should be any more discussion on this.

It's crazy.

Councilman, just to make it clear in the first five years, we're not losing that.

We're still getting that 350.

I I understand that.

I understand that, but your first year where you collect those taxes is going to be double of what you would have collected in five years.

All right, so it looks like we can go to the public now.

So first anyone.

Anyone in favor of the project?

Is there anyone here in favor of the project?

Is anyone here in favor of the project?

Is everyone here opposed to the project?

Is anyone here opposed to the project?

Is there anyone here opposed to the project?

And then finally, is there anyone here just wants to speak on the project?

Hi, good evening, Michelle Comar, Wark resident.

Um council, you got this Tuesday.

The public got this Thursday.

It's a new concept, and I didn't come here planning to speak on this topic, but it's fascinating, and I want to learn more about it.

Um so our city is updating its comprehensive plan.

So I took a look quickly of what this is zoned for and our future look at the land use.

And I I don't want to speak because I'm interpreting off my little cell phone, but uh if the director could tell us what it the present zoning is and the future land use map hi, Tom Kravitz, City Planning Director.

I'm gonna need a few minutes to fire up my computer and look onto the comprehensive plan at those um two documents.

Okay.

You were at the planning board meeting in April, right?

When the planning board approved this?

No.

No.

Okay.

Those agendas are still on the website, right?

For the city for the planning board?

Not for this project, no.

Yeah, if you go on the city's website, all the agendas and all the items are are cataloged, if you will, on the planning board uh agenda page.

Yes, thank you.

I did look it up on my cell phone, but it's teeny.

Right.

And I could pick it up pretty quickly.

So I'll just get nervous when you say you didn't know about the project.

No, no, I picked it up.

Well, I'll go with my other questions while he's um getting that.

Um so what we see is a trend away from residential near airports because of the air quality concerns, uh noise concerns, and really it's um commercial or industrial or office medical.

That's what we're kind of expecting near the airport, and that's probably what the airport wants to deal with.

Um there's a couple of things that were mentioned.

RIAC doesn't have the power of eminent domain.

People that citizens that have been following Airport News, um, we kind of know this.

It's the um Rhode Island Development Corporation, their mother agency, I guess you want to call it, they have the power of eminent domain.

And for them to put a uh project in in proper zoning, conflicting zoning area, they have to meet some legal steps criteria to qualify for that.

So I'm not that concerned about what RIEC's gonna do because they probably want parking, and parking you can have anywhere, so it doesn't have to be associated with the airport.

So they might lose that bottle.

They've lost battles at the red beam garage, because it has to be something unique to an airport to take something by eminent domain and use it for um a use different than what the zoning is.

So um I I kind of favor more a commercial medical office, something there and not and not residential.

I was gonna ask the um developer or speaker, has a phase one, phase two been conducted, or is there a need for one?

My my clients done a phase one analysis and it came back clean and there was no need to do a phase two.

Good deal.

Thank you.

Um the other side of the fence for the airfield.

How far is the fuel farm?

And we call farm because there's there's a few tanks.

I don't know.

We we didn't we didn't measure that out.

It's not not on our property.

It's is it right behind the property or further north?

Further away, it's more closer down airport road.

So it's closer north, it's north of your site.

Uh I would say it's south, isn't it?

The airport as you go south down airport road.

You can see the fuel farm from Airport Row when you look down um where the light is, and I think there's I don't know if it's a liquor store, campaign headquarters down that that street, and you can see the fuel farm.

How close is this site to that?

Um the engineer is trying to calculate it, but it's not okay, it's not adjacent to your site.

It's not a butting, it's not adjacent.

Okay, it doesn't concern my client.

So you know that they haven't done any analysis because it's not a concern for them.

Okay.

All right.

Um so if this is inside the decibel contour that RIEAC does sound insulation, what is the deal with that with this new development?

Um let the engineer speak on that.

How's that?

Okay.

Just identify yourself more.

Uh Brandon Carr with the pre-engineering.

The question was about sound insulation or on the uh well, RIAC has a sound insulation program, not soundproofing, but they will insulate homes that are inside this 68, I think it's 68 decibels, and and and um louder conditions.

And there's a part 150 study that needs to be updated once in a while to look at the new contours.

But if this project, have you looked at it?

If this project falls within the part 150, 68 decibel contour.

Uh, we haven't gotten that far with the building design.

Um, we're still at uh preliminary land permitting stages.

So um we have had discussions with the architectural team about acoustic installation.

So if there are programs available, I'm sure we'll attempt to take it um take them into the design.

Okay, it's voluntary program.

You don't have to insulate your home with RIAC windows.

Yep.

Um, but I just don't know where you fall in that decibel area.

Something we can look into at the um I think that the um delay of regular tax stream revenue from this project comes at a time when work taxpayers are gonna get a sticker shock when we get our tax pills because of the two new schools and the bonds.

We need the money now.

Um, and we are taxpayers are subsidizing this project in a way because somebody's gonna meet that number of the city budget that the council votes on every year.

Somebody has to.

So if this project doesn't come up and pay their share right from the start, work taxpayers are gonna make up the difference one way or another.

And it it's I don't want to sound blunt like that, but that's in effect, it's a subsidized public project, and it comes at a time.

We're gonna get a tax increase because of these school bonds.

It's not a good time for our taxpayers.

Um, the other suggestion I have, you can always um count this for the council's consideration, do a deed restriction.

I mean, you have like an agreement restriction, but you could do a deed restriction, so that this project, if public money is is helping it get started and making it attractive, that the rules of the game don't change so that the developer makes out more than the taxpayers receive and benefits in having this site developed.

So deed restriction is another mechanism you could consider.

It could be something like um it should be remain residential, um, it should have a percentage of affordable housing, it should whatever you want, but that is another mechanism I'd like to mention.

Um, I think that about covers it.

I just needed the present zoning and the future um comprehensive land use map.

And like I said, I have it very teeny.

Um to me, it looks if if it if a developer can look at mine small, I can blow it up for you if that helps, but I'm not quite sure where you're located.

It looks like technology light industry, maybe I'm not sure.

Hi, Tom Crabit, City Planning Director.

The current zoning is gateway and consistent with city center, the future land use map is high density residential and mixed use in this area.

Okay.

So this future land use map is going to be updated to reflect that.

Yeah.

Okay.

So present zoning again, I'm sorry, I missed that, Tom.

Thank you.

Uh gateway.

Gateway.

Gateway district, right?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um like I said, this is new to the public.

If it's new to you too, I just let you consider if you want to hold this, sleep on it, talk to some people.

We want to make sure the taxpayers get a really good benefit out of this.

And we have ISORs and undeveloped sites throughout the city.

That doesn't bother me.

I'm kind of used to it.

But it's coming at a time to give a tax break to a developer when the taxpayers are not going to get a break.

We're going to get a big increase.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here to speak on the project?

Is anyone else here to speak on the project?

Is anyone else here to speak on the project?

All right.

If someone close the public hearing first, all right.

So first go to attorney Walshon.

Uh thank you, Council President.

I just want to get a couple of things on record uh prior to closing the public hearing.

Um this is more technical based on the way we're authorizing uh if the council were to vote in favor, we're authorizing to give you the discretion to finalize these these details.

Um and so if you would both just confirm that uh should the council approve uh the treaty, um, would the following uh modifications be made to the agreement?

Uh one to convert from semi-annual to quarterly payments.

If I could just get an affirmation from both parties.

Sure.

I mean, let me just ask this question right now today.

You can pay a tax bill once a year in September.

That doesn't change.

Am I correct?

I would suggest to the council that we uh actually it's a very fair point uh that the amendment be made to treat it the same as any other property taxpayer currently does.

Um so that essentially we would just take away that semi-annual option uh and make it a standard practice of the city.

That's good with us.

Fine with us.

And regarding the uh five-year prohibition on conversions to condominiums, uh some sort of language would be inserted into that final agreement.

No objection, no objections.

Okay, uh satisfactory councilman.

I'm fine with uh Mr.

Sakaci's um comment as far as you want to pay it up front, perfect.

So um with those in mind, the uh the mayor.

If if the council were to approve uh this, we're authorizing them to finalize those details accordingly with these modifications.

So they're on record saying they will do so in that paperwork.

Uh so I'm I'll set there.

Um Mr.

President, I do have one question.

My last few seconds.

Can we close the public the public hearing first and then um I'd like to get it on the record?

I think it's gonna go on the record either one.

No.

That's what just yeah, the record continues either way.

Okay.

So do we have a motion to close the public hearing?

So move.

All right, so moved by councilman fully, councilman appear, seven seconded by councilman meadow.

Any objections?

All right, seeing none of the public hearing is closed.

Councilman Ladiser, you got 20 seconds.

I just um I need a just a confirmation.

So assuming this deal goes through in the previous years, we've been collecting 68,000, roughly 68,000 a year in taxes for the land, correct?

And that will continue.

Yes.

Um over the next five years.

So it's not like we're not getting any tax revenue.

We're getting the same tax revenue per year as we were for the previous five years.

Exactly, County.

Except for revowals agreements raised it.

Correct.

Thank you.

All right.

And it's it'll be obvious by my vote soon, but I stand with most of the council people have mentioned as far as why they support this.

I'm not gonna reiterate it, it's a waste of time, but ditto, basically.

Councilman Foley.

I move the question, favorable action.

Motion made for favorable action, second it.

Uh any comments on the motion?

Second.

Second by councilman Mino.

I get now.

So any further questions on approval of the resolution.

Seeing none is a motion in favorable action.

So clerk and call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And yes, motion pass.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, as always, speaker.

All right.

So before we go back, so well, let me spread this out.

Before we go to exec, we're we're gonna go back to uh or go to intergovernmental quick because we've had two individuals waiting for hours now as part of an appointment.

So does anyone have any objection to that?

All right, seeing none, we can convene intergovernmental.

All right.

Good evening.

Time is 8 31 and intergovernment governmental comes to order uh first order of business acceptance of the minutes from the committee meeting held on July 7th to have a motion.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Because Miss Casey is uh graciously uh waited for uh the the bulk of our business here this evening.

So first up is an appointment to the historical cemeteries commission, Valerie Casey um of ward five.

Um do any of the uh all the paperwork is uh in order.

We've got uh a bio uh for Miss Casey and uh we we love to add volunteers to this commission.

Um do any members of the committee uh have any uh questions or comments on this appointment?

Uh members of the council, Councilman Latticer.

Oh yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I would um strongly support um Valerie Casey's appointment for um this position.

I have known her for um many years.

Uh her resume, as I'm sure you've all seen, is extremely impressive and um super qualified to do this.

Her involvement into the community um has always been uh first and foremost, and it's very um it's really good when we have people that are willing to volunteer their time and their energy for the betterment of the city.

And uh Valerie uh her family for that matter have been doing this for years and years and years.

So I'm very happy to uh support you in this position and thank you for willing to serve.

Thank you, Ed.

You're welcome.

Councilman.

Ed's fine.

Just like Joe, Ed's fine.

All right, thank you.

We won't hold the councilman's kind comments against you.

Um other members of the council.

Okay, seeing none, uh Ms.

Casey, would you like to say anything uh tonight?

I'm just honored that I'm able to care for our founding fathers and our founding families and Peg has just been amazing and is teaching me so much and it's just a very positive thing going forward.

Great.

And I'll continue to care for our founders and families.

Thank you so much.

Uh it's very important.

Uh this is a very important commission for the for the city.

Um any other members of the public have anything to add?

Absolutely.

Step right up to the microphone, Peggy.

Thank you, Chairman.

I just want to tell you a little story, if I may, how I came to know Valerie several years ago.

Sorry.

Uh several years ago, we did a renovation of a cemetery on Fastmare Clark, which is in Mr.

Lattice's district.

We were doing it.

We pulled up headstones, we made a mess, he got calls telling people, you know, that the in the course of all of that, one of us headstones disappeared.

Valerie found it by listening to little kids being pains in the hiny.

Um and ransomed the headstone back for us.

So I think that's a great story.

And we're very happy to have her.

Excellent.

Thank you for that.

Uh and in reference to that HUD stone, we just put it Sarah was uh just put placed back after two years.

Uh and we just put her back and she has a beautiful stone, and uh it was a very successful back with our mom and dad.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your for your commitment.

Uh any other members of the public?

Any other members of the public?

Seeing none, uh, I'll entertain a motion on uh Valerie Casey's appointment to the historical cemeteries commission.

Motion move favorable action.

Second.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

And with that, we will recess and let the council.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We're gonna we're gonna pause here.

Yep.

Whoa.

And just to confirm, there's no one else here waiting for appointments, right?

All right, we're not gonna recess.

Uh we're gonna take care of the one additional appointment.

Um, and that is Elizabeth Colt to the land trust commission.

Um similarly, Miss Colt's uh bio is included in uh in all of your packets um to uh at least my satisfaction.

Um do any other uh members of the committee have uh questions or comments at this time.

Uh just one quick question.

I had uh I knew her as Professor Colt at um Roger Williams when I was a student there, and I can speak directly to her character.

She would be a fantastic addition to this uh commission.

So I applaud you for getting her on board.

Excellent.

Yes, I twisted that on.

You're working hard, Jane.

Thank you so much.

Yes, I I would just point out that um actual Daniel Fagan also on your list.

These are both reappointments to the land trust.

Excellent.

Both uh wonderful um continuing members.

So I'm here to support their reappointment.

They did not appear because it is a reappointment and weren't required.

Thank you so much, Champion.

Thank you.

Uh, any other members of the committee?

I just want to make I want to thank you for all the work you do in the land trust in rebuilding it and looking forward to seeing all the great things you're gonna do.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Any members of the council?

Other than to say I'm glad she's coming back for more.

Professor Colt's great.

Yes, sir.

Um, any members of the public that we have not yet heard from members of the public.

Uh seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to move favorable action.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

And uh finally, uh Daniel Fagan, also to the land trust.

This is a reappointment.

Um, as with all of our boards and commissions.

We're very uh grateful for the volunteer service here.

Um any members of the commission have any uh any members of the committee have any questions or comments on Mr.

Fagan's appointment?

Members of the council.

Uh seeing none, uh members of the public.

We thank you, Miss Austin, for your comments earlier.

Uh uh, do I have a motion?

Motion move favorable, second.

Uh all in favor?

Okay, and we will recess now at this point, uh uh 8:39 p.m.

Yep.

So I apologize for the ping-ponging, and there'll be more unfortunately.

But for now, the full council is reconvening regarding an executive session matter, and we'll bump to council uh council solicitor.

I'm gonna read a motion in to go to executive you'll move it.

Yeah, so can uh councilman uh as noticed on the agenda, we uh the city council will now uh proceed towards executive session.

Uh councilman Latticer moves uh the council convening to executive session pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 42465A2 regarding pending litigation.

Uh in particular, this is discussion and vote on approval of and participation in Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy and Sackler settlement, approximately eight billion dollars, and Alvagin Amnial, a pot techma in Divior, Mylan, some pharmaceuticals, Zydus and Sandals settlement, approximately 1.2 billion regarding in ray national prescription opiate litigation case number seven 17-md 2804, and to authorize the city solicitor's office to review, execute, and deliver any documents necessary to effectuate such approval and participation.

Seconded by Councilman Kirby seconds it.

All in favor, aye, aye.

All opposed abstentions.

All right.

Council now stands in executive session.

We now stand in executive sessions.

See you all shortly.

With the solicitor's report.

The Warwick City Council convened into executive session pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 42465A2 regarding pending litigation, discussion and vote on approval of and participation in Purdue, pharma bankruptcy and sackless settlement, approximately 8 billion.

And Alvogin, Amnial, Apotex, Hickma in Diviore, Mylan, some pharmaceuticals, Zidas, and Sandoz settlement, approximately 1.2 billion regarding in-ray national prescription opiate litigation case number 17-md-2804, and to authorize the city solicitor's office to review, execute, and deliver any documents necessary to effectuate such approval and participation.

The council uh unanimously approved uh three votes.

The the first of which was to authorize the solicitor to approve and participate in the settlement.

The second was to seal the minutes, and the third was to reconvene into open session.

That concludes the report.

All right.

So in the theme of the continued ping ponging, we're gonna go to ordinance as we have the city solicitor here.

Time is nine o'clock, and the ordinance committee is now in session.

First order of business is acceptance of the minutes from the committee meeting held on June 16th, 2025.

Do I have a motion?

Motion made by Councilman Ricks.

Do I have a second?

Second by Councilman Deloise.

All those in favor?

I forza motion passes.

Thank you.

All right, first order of business.

Uh PCO 6-25 and ordinance to prohibit through trucking on Orchard Avenue.

Councilman Senapi, I'll defer to you.

So this could please be held until we'll go with October 20th, please.

CP makes a request to hold this.

Any objection.

Okay.

Uh hearing none.

So held till October 2nd.

20th.

October 20.

And second order of business, PCO 13-25, an ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title to property.

This was docketed by Council President Sinapi on behalf of Mayor Picosi.

And I believe we have someone from administration.

Yeah, I entirely defer to the administration on this one.

It's on their behalf.

Good evening, uh Bill Facente Chief of Staff to Mayor Picosi.

Um the administration's asking to clean up chapter two 14, the assignment of tax title and treasurer's auction property by the city.

Um currently, as it's written, um the administration believes it's in violation of the state law.

And the solicitor is here to talk about it as well.

There are 1,100 plus or minus tax title properties in the city of Warwick that are in various states of tax title, whether the city has possesses the tax title or there's a private entity that has the tax title.

Um and we're looking to clean up the list to allow for the transfer of these tax title properties to become viable developable um parcels instead of sitting in perpetuity and not being able to maximize the tax revenue from those properties.

So if you have any questions specific, basically what it does is it clears cleans up the language and makes it consistent with state law.

Um general law 44-9-18.

Thank you, Chief.

Any questions from the members of the committee?

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So I have a few concerns, some of which were expressed by a member of the public who is present here this evening.

But to get to one of the more discreet ones, I'm looking at the first page.

Uh, starting at the end of line 42.

That's the portion that reads in the event that more than one person seeks assignment of the tax title for a single parcel, then the tax title shall be assigned to the person who first tenders the redemption price to the city and signs the above referenced form.

So I imagine that uh, and I had a conversation earlier uh with uh actually just very recently with the city solicitor about the potential for policies, but the ordinance as it's presently written.

I do have a concern about that language and would prefer if we were able to make an amendment to that language, so that on paper, this doesn't look like a best buy on Black Friday situation.

Thank you.

Um, Councilman Ricks.

Yeah, I I understand what the issue is.

Um, clearly the city under both um the statute 44918 as well as the U.S.

Supreme Court case, Tile versus Hannapin County cannot collect more than what it is owed.

It can collect what it is owed, interest penalties, et cetera, but it can't collect any more than that.

So it is critical that we go back to um fixing the ordinance um so that we're not in a position where we're trying to find the original owner and all their heirs and have overpayments made.

So we we just don't even want to go there.

Uh the issue that you're bringing up though um involves, I guess, um a race to the finish line.

Who gets there first?

If there's more than one person interested in the property, uh, how does the city decide?

And they're both willing to make full payment, interest late fees, et cetera.

Um, how does the city go about deciding who is it that gets that property?

Um it may very well be um so that we avoid a race to the finish line that um that we eliminate that line um and we adopt a procedure whereby if there is you know we set a deadline for individuals um to um put in their bid, so to speak for the property, um, and then it becomes a lot, you know, some kind of lottery.

Um the the city um administration will certainly have to come up with a policy to implement the ordinance if this council um deems fit to adopt the changes as we are um suggesting.

Um if um this is um an issue for the council, we can simply eliminate that last line.

Um we don't even have to reference um that contingency because we can deal with that um when we come up with the administrative policy on how to deal with a situation like that, it won't be in the ordinance, and therefore we'll have the options um whether it be a lottery or some other way of determining the point being we'll come up with something that's fair and equitable to to everyone thank you uh briefly, I suppose to uh bring up some other concerns that were raised.

I'll let the constituents speak as to some of these concerns, but I'll jump into uh one of the items, uh neighbor and conservation interests.

So I believe that in the past there had been provisions in the ordinance for uh consultation with uh certain uh departments or groups uh within the city, make sure that if before a tax title is actually uh put up to the public, uh, see if the city may have an interest there relating to conservation.

So wanted to see if there was a way to address that type of concern.

Uh this I suppose is more specific to uh vacant open space type properties.

So the city um, if it wanted to, once it took tax title to a property, and if the city saw fit to want to include it in its open space inventory, so to speak, the city could go through the process of foreclosing the right of redemption on that property and could eventually own it.

But the city would have to go through that process in Superior Court to foreclose the right of redemption.

Now, that option is open to the city right now.

It will continue to be open to the city at any time going forward.

Um, and it is my understanding that um when properties go up for tax sale, um, that they are viewed to see whether or not they are um consistent with some of the city's other goals, whether it be for open space or other preservation purposes, but that process is available today and would be after this amendment.

Mr.

Asill, just a quick question.

And I'm not a real estate attorney, so I would defer to you on this.

Is Ronaldo in a race notice state?

I'm sorry, is it?

Is Renault in a race notice state for purposes of like recording deed, recording property interest?

Do you know?

Well, uh, so um, unless a if someone signs a deed and does not record it right away, and the owner of that property signs a second deed to someone else that does get recorded, and that second owner is a bona fide purchaser who does not have any knowledge whatsoever, then yes, that that would take precedent.

The set whatever deed is recorded first would take precedence.

Okay, as long as it were a bona fide purchaser.

So I think perhaps the last sentence here that my brother's looking to uh eliminate would have some sort of tie, at least to the to the race notice provisions that the state right, which which is recognizes so and I and I understand the the issue of you know bringing it to trying to get people first let well first to the finish line, so to speak.

So if we were to contemplate an administrative proceeding after eliminating that line, perhaps we should tie in some sort of provision that you know the first to get their paperwork in has some sort of leg up on other parties so that we can stay consistent with the race notice theorem that we follow the state.

But I I would support an amendment to eliminate that last line if there's no objection by the administration.

And I there is no objection.

I would agree with the outcome that you just described, it would also address that.

And uh Chairman, if I may clarify, uh it is a little bit different of a of a problem than what the race notice would tend to uh try to satisfy here, because really this is more of an issue of uh equity, so to speak, as to the potential purchasers, and avoiding the potential for uh any insider shenanigans type uh type issues, really a matter of uh transparency to the public and the equity so that the city is not conveying uh all of the profitable opportunities of receiving a tax title to one single individual or one single entity.

Uh that's why the lottery would come in place uh as a potential solution uh to that.

So uh there's certainly parallels there, but it is a uh a different uh type of issue because here instead of the potential problem of two different purchasers, each bona fide, being uh, you know, effectively the seller selling the same piece of land twice.

This is something where the seller is selling hundreds of pieces of property, well, not pieces of property, but uh tax title interests and hundreds of pieces of property once on a regular uh regular basis on that type of uh schedule as it happens to come up on an annual or more or less annual type of basis, just a couple of lawyers lawyering.

Uh any other comments from the members of the committee?

Comments from the members of the full council, Mr.

Mudo.

Councilman Latison, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

To start off with, I always get concerned when I see an entire item being deleted and redrawn, redrafted.

That that always perks up my concerns.

Um of the concerns I have here is where um there's so much power put into the hands of the city treasurer.

I have a concern with that.

And ultimately, the mayor, pursuant to section six one of the city charter, and it comes in in consultation with any other member of the city administration.

You've heard me say this lots of times.

Um, this city council is not going to be the same city council in 10 years from now, five years from now.

The same thing holds true with the mayor, it's it's different people constantly changing, different treasurers, different um uh tax assessors.

So I have uh a concern where um this will allow the mayor, ultimately allow the mayor to sell city property without any oversight on our part.

That's the way I interpret it.

It says, and ultimately the mayor.

It also is a concern where the city wants to exempt itself, and it says acknowledging that the city bears no liability and makes no representation with regard to the parcel for which tax title is assigned and waiving any claims against the city relating to the parcel for which the tax title is assigned.

So if the city makes an error, and there's a misreputable misrepresentation or sells off a property that it shouldn't have, there's no liability there.

Uh the very last line, I had several concerns, but that apparently has been offered by solidiser Sillo to eliminate those items.

I mean, that those few lines.

The um I I guess I sit here and I say, okay, so you know who what prompted this to surface?

Um, who was involved in determining that, oh shit, all of a sudden, um, sorry, uh, shoot, all of a sudden, um, you know, this doesn't make sense anymore.

And when these properties are sold, it's very vague on the prices of the properties.

So there's no redemption prices.

What happens, you know, this property is taken over by the city um and there's a tax lien on a property of 200,000, let's say, and um city turns around sells the house for 400,000, or whoever holds possession of that tax title.

These are things that I just don't understand.

Um there's other series of questions here that I'm not going to belabor tonight.

Um, I will being that this is an ordinance and requires two passes.

I will do an affirmative on this, but certainly um will allow myself the opportunity to change my mind once I review as an example a document that we was just given today, and other questions and concerns that have been presented to me by constituents, and more than likely would be presented to this body this evening.

So for right now, that's I rest my case for the time being, and I'm anxious to hear from the uh constituents that are here this evening who have far more knowledge and understanding in this than I.

I'm gonna ask Neil to come to the microphone because he can explain the process, how it currently occurs.

Um the whole matter came to light when our office received a number of questions about how to go about doing this, given what the state law said, and given that new Supreme Court um decision that came down in 2023.

But let me have Neil address some of this.

Um, obviously, we're dealing with um tax title, the city doesn't own any of these properties.

We just have a lean on it for the taxes.

So, Neil Depuis, director of assessing.

Um, I think the impetus of this is that there's um very egregious steps you have to go through and noticing the prior years and sometimes uh the difficulty and the expense in doing that.

And in the real world, if I held the tax title, not the city, I can just transfer my tax title interest, and then the person that buys it goes through that process, or if they already have uh the right of redemption, if they got that from the person that lost the property, they now have fee simple title.

So they don't have to go through that process if they buy a tax title interest and work with the person that lost the property at tax sale to buy their right of redemption.

Now you have the full um bundle.

So a lot of properties would have sat there for decades because we had no way to really go through the process because the notice requirements would be too egregious to have to go through.

Um so this really simplifies the whole thing.

The other part of it that was difficult is we had the restriction in there in the previous ordinance that you couldn't do anything with the property.

So, unless it was an abutter that wanted it, and in most cases the abutters would just use it anyway.

Why should I buy and pay taxes for it if the city can't sell it to somebody else?

Um, so a lot of these properties just sat there.

So another concern I have as an example is um with um water sewer bills, right?

So the uh properties you can put one of these properties up for repossession or tax sale, as we've done in the past because they haven't paid a few hundred dollars in a water sewer bill.

Um my concern is with um notice or lack of notice of what's occurring right now, where um, so I happen to be the property that's going up for tax sale.

Councilman Gebhardt is the abutter, and I think this takes away his opportunity to make a first offer on this.

Do I interpret that correctly or well are you saying the tax sales shouldn't have taken place in the first place until proper notice was given, or you're saying once we already took the tax title?

Um, I suppose it's once you know the tax title, or even before it gets out there, that in this example, Councilman Gebhardt has an opportunity to buy this property or has the first right at the tax sale.

I'm not properly perhaps using the right terminology, but I think you get the gist of what I'm what I'm talking about.

I mean, it's a valid point that you might want to add to the ordinance that the any abutter would have the right of first refusal, um, something like that.

So we we would not be able to give preference, actually, under the law just because it has to be a fair and equitable process, we would not be able to say an abutter has the right of first refusal.

On the other hand, as uh Mr.

Dequis has stated, many uh the the issue we're facing here is many of these properties are just sitting there.

The abutter has no incentive to buy it from the city for the cost of the taxes because they're probably using it anyhow.

Some situations, I'm sure not all.

Um, but we we would not be able to give a preference to abutters, but it would seem to me that once it's made known that that tax title was up to be assigned to someone, the abutter would take interest.

Because I don't know, you know, a lot of these are little thin strips, and I don't know who out there would be interested.

They're not buildable for one thing, why they would want to own it, unless maybe it had a view and they wanted to put um an Adirondack share out there.

I know I'm being a little facetious, but my point is that what we're trying to do is get abutters to do exactly what you're suggesting, which is to take ownership of the property and for the city to be able to collect taxes on that property.

And would there still be um a requirement?

I I think that there is a Rhode Island General Law that requires a 10-day notice to the landowner.

We would comply with whatever Rhode Island laws require with regard to assignment of tax title on that supersedes what we do anyhow.

So we absolutely would meet all of the requirements of Rhode Island law.

Again, as Mr.

DePwee was saying, there are two different procedures that take place.

One is a tax sale.

That's when the abutter, and I'm sorry, that's when the owner of the property is told, hey, your taxes are due, you haven't paid taxes in one year, two years, whatever the time period is.

If you don't pay taxes, we're gonna put this up for a tax sale, which means some outsider can come in, purchase the tax title of your property for whatever the amount of taxes are that are due, and then from that point, um that person has one year to wait before they can foreclose the right of redemption and take the property away from you forever.

That requires lots of notice.

It requires superior court approval, court order, and every step of the way, that requires notice to the original owner.

However, there are some properties, they go up for tax sale, and no one is interested in purchasing them because it's not a buildable lot, it doesn't have a house on it, it doesn't have a view, it's just you know, in the minds of many people a worthless piece of property.

In that case, at the tax sale, no one comes and bids on it.

No one.

And that's when it becomes it sort of reverts to the city.

And now we're holding the tax title.

What we're trying to do through this ordinance is a method whereby we assign that tax title to someone else, whether it's an abutter, whether it's to some other third party.

Once that tax title is assigned to someone else, that someone else now has the responsibility for foreclosing the right of redemption and going through that whole long process of notice of finding ears of doing all the things that the law requires.

Now it may be worthwhile, as I told council, councilman Rix earlier.

It may be worthwhile if the city winds up with a tax title to one of these properties that no one else is interested in purchasing.

And if it say abuts open space, the city already owns, or there's some other good reason for the city to own that property, then the city itself can go through that process of foreclosing the right of redemption over that one year period, et cetera.

But obviously, those decisions would be made on an individual basis.

But the short answer to your good question is we would have to abide by all the notice requirements as required by law.

We'd have to, or else we'd have a massive lawsuit on our hands.

Thank you, Chairman.

I'll stand down.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh Councilman Meadow.

Thank you.

Uh so councilman uh Latticer touched on a few of them, uh, but not all.

So I agree with what Councilman Lattice has said is when you see basically everything red lines, and then you just started from from scratch.

It seems to me the the impetus of this was to um make things a little easier, but also get in line with state law.

State law and um U.S.

Supreme Court.

US Supreme Court.

Yes.

So again, I'll be honest with you, I haven't read this because we got this at a late hour.

Um so I'm actually uncomfortable even giving an affirmative at this point.

Uh is when I look at the red area, you know, my my question is line for line.

What you know, is this state law?

Is it is it the is it, you know, what are we what are we crossing out that we violated or not in compliance with state law or the Supreme Court versus we got rid of a lot.

It's almost like we're throwing the baby out with backwater.

Well, hopefully we're not throwing the baby out.

We we are certainly throwing the bathwater out because all of this procedure that is in your current ordinance does not pass muster with regard to assignment of tax titles um today or even yesterday with regard to the state law, but certainly today with regard to um the U.S.

Supreme Court opinion.

And if not this evening, counselor, I am more than happy to answer.

And you know, when you have the time to really dig into it, I understand it's first passage.

You you don't spend between two and four in the morning reading through all of this.

I am more than happy to respond to questions either through email or on a phone conversation, or certainly when it comes back here for its final hearing.

Let me just ask one question and then I'll take you up on the rest of it.

Is it looks like the onus or the um the shift in power or decision making goes from the city council to the administration?

And tonight we we vote on things that are abatements for taxes.

We we we seem to touch on everything that has to do with taxes or you know, expense or revenue, but then when we talk about this particular ordinance where we we're in several lines, uh you know, I'll give you one line 44 to 46 of what was redlined, which was under the council's uh approval, and then it got changed to line 29 to 32 to the administration.

It just seems to me that I can't see state law or supreme court saying, hey, it it goes to the mayor versus the city council.

So to me, that seemed like hey, that was that was part of the baby's left arm that you just threw out.

Yeah, so I'm I'm questioning the incentive and and the motivation for that.

That's that's fair.

The moment the incentive or the motivation is just um, we took this from what most other municipalities do.

It's usually an administrative task to deal with tax title properties.

Um, I'm not aware, uh, and correct me if I'm wrong, if in the past, before the city assigned a tax title, it came to the city council.

Um, certainly somewhere along the way, I'm sure the city council must get list of such things in terms of what's being done, but it's not at all unusual for administrations to deal with this on a day-to-day basis.

But um I I am more than happy to give you a longer response to that.

Yeah, and prior to I'll make one one more comment is that I am totally against this.

So uh I just think it's uh you know too much overreach in a short amount of time.

I would much rather have a clearer explanation uh before we even do first passage, but that's really up to the council.

Uh, but it just seems like there's an awful lot of we're gonna push this through without proper consideration.

So I and your point of just because other municipalities do this, we're the city of Warwick.

We're doing it our way, which is what the council will be voting on this evening.

And my only concern is that our way is consistent with the law.

That that's all.

But um, I I will I I've taken note of the issues that have been raised so far.

I'm sure there'll be others, and I will put together a secondary memo that will address this prior to this coming out um in October.

Okay.

And actually appreciate the first memo so I can understand what the impetus was.

So having this land on our desk in our emails, uh, literally what I think four hours before uh this council meeting is totally unacceptable.

Councilman, I'm happy to address that.

That was a miscommunication that I believed everyone had it.

So it's not to fault the administration on the the late notice of that memorandum.

But it's still it hit us, so we haven't had a chance to review it.

So I don't think it's proper for us as a council to vote on something or consider something when we literally have four hours and some of us zero hours to look at something, something as vital as tax sales in our city.

I agree that we need to clean up the mess.

You know, I have I have constituents that I'm sure are part of the drivers of this.

However, I just want to be thoughtful with it.

And I don't think uh an extra month of holding this for consideration for first passage is too much to ask of something so vital in our community.

Thank you, Councilman Me know you.

Okay, Councilman Gebart.

Um thank you.

Uh give me one sec.

Oh, uh here's my question.

Um, given that in your opinion, we've been somewhat a foul of state law and and the Supreme Court decision.

Is there is there any risk that follows us around based on past actions that we've taken as a city?

The only possible risk I see, and it may very well be that statute of limitations are ever already gone by.

Um, would be anything.

Um, and I don't think, and I'm sure we didn't because we sent a memo out as soon as the US Supreme Court decision came down.

We sent out a memo, and I know administration's aware of it, not to go to tax sale or assign tax titles for any piece of property above and beyond what the taxes and the interest and the penalty and the fees were.

So although I cannot tell you with 100% guarantee, uh I feel very strongly that we are not at risk.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Other members of the full council I can come to the 20th.

Any members of the public wish to be heard on this.

Just please introduce yourself and try to do your best to speak into the mic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, I'm George Schuster.

I live on Riverview Avenue in Riverview.

Um, frankly, this is a bit of a bizarre conversation.

The administration has proposed to rewrite an entire ordinance that takes away notices to adjacent landowners when tax titles are to be transferred, that takes away notice to the city council person in the ward when the tax title is to be sold, that takes away notices to other parts of the city, including the land trust when tax titles are to be sold, and that takes away the power of the city council to approve sales of tax title.

None of those things are prohibited by state or federal law.

And the answer that the administration has given is that they will come up with a fair process for transferring tax titles.

Well, we have an ordinance right now that has a pretty good process.

You notify the landowners who are adjacent, you notify the city councilman from the ward, you notify the land trust, and you bring it before the city council.

So I I appreciate the the need to make the adjustment for the purchase price of the tax title, but we have a pretty robust statute that covers all the rest.

And I kind of like that better than just trust the administration to do it right.

To councilman Latiser's point, I don't have any concern about anyone in this room about the current administration, but we have 1,100 lots that the city has tax title to.

I've had conversations with other mayors of the city going back 30 years about some of those tax title lots and what we should be doing with them.

We have dozens of lots that are in tax title between Palmer Avenue and Work Neck Avenue and Ward 5.

They are literally underwater.

They should not be developed.

To the administration's point, we have citizens of the city who are using tax title lots as their backyards as their side yards.

And this ordinance would allow the mayor to sell tax titles to those lots and have the new owner of that lot come by and tell the adjacent owner whose swimming pool is on the lot.

Sorry, I own it now.

Without that adjacent property owner ever having noticed that the tax title was sold.

That just seems like a recipe for a lot of uh bad feelings in the city and a process that we already have that solves that problem.

Why are we throwing it out?

So my recommendation would be that you uh hold the ordinance at this point, um, have it redrafted to address some of these concerns, basically put back all the stuff that is redlined that doesn't need to be, fix the thing that needs to be fixed, and then come back um with a better process.

And I'll end with um because I've been talking about this for a very long time.

I I a hundred percent agree that we should deal with these 1100 lots, that we should sell off some of these tax titles where we need to.

Um, but it's a fair amount of work that the administration has to come through first.

I I think they should report back to the city council with a list of the 1100 lots sorted by hey, here are the ones that we think should be sold, the tax title should be sold because they're potentially developable lots, and let's move those ahead.

Here's the ones that we don't think the tax title should be told and sold, and here are the ones that we should move forward on actually foreclosing the tax title ourselves so that we can preserve those lots and not have them built, um, even where there are the pressures to build and even where we need to build where where it's appropriate to build in this city.

So thank you.

George, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Schuster.

Uh Michelle Colmar, I couldn't have said it any better.

And I appreciate all the other council comments.

The only thing I can say is I know the land trust is going to put their swamp boots on, and they're gonna go look at these properties.

I don't think the treasure is going to do the same job.

So I want the participation of all the boards and commissions that can bring uh firsthand recommendations back to the treasurer, the mayor, the city council.

Um, I don't have a problem with the process right now.

It is transparent.

The process as proposed is not transparent, and I think we need more eyes on it, more opinions, more heads clunking together to make decisions what to do about these properties.

It takes research, and I'm glad it's just down to 1100.

That that's a manageable number.

Um, but I'm worried about the notice.

I'm worried about a signing.

The word was used, a sign a buyer.

Well, we already just heard that these are not always desirable property.

So now you're gonna assign a buyer, and they're gonna have to do all the research to close the right of redemption.

There was a time, and I've been in this city for a while, so I can squawk about it, but the land trust had a budget just so that they could close the right of redemption.

It takes an attorney, takes a surveyor sometimes to do that.

And it was a couple thousand dollars per lot in the good old days.

Maybe that money has no longer available for the city to take it and it's more expensive, but that shouldn't let us just forgo our good planning and intent to preserve open space and land that's worth preserving and not mess with people's lives if they're already using these small minuscule lots.

Yeah, they should be put on notice that maybe they you know they're enjoying something they should pay for it, but to go out and find another buyer and assign.

Um, I've totally opposed to this ordinance.

I don't see and I have a request, please that the memos be posted um so that everybody can read them on the email distribution list.

So there's two memos out there that might be helpful because this was very hard to understand until I spoke to some people.

And um, so I'm hoping that you take the time to review it again, ask your questions, get the memos circulated throughout the public so we can meet again and talk about this.

Thank you.

Chairman, if I may.

Well, I says Miss West Ms.

Austin wants to speak.

Thank you, Miss Gilmar.

Miss Austin.

Yes, Jane Austin, 26 Narragansett Bay Avenue, also chair of the Warwick Um Land Trust.

Um I have concerns and would hope that the uh in light of the things that have already been mentioned here that the uh council would hold and not take any action on this until there's an opportunity to really answer the questions, um, some of the specifics about what in particular needs to be changed to bring us into opposite uh alignment with federal and state laws because it's not immediately obvious.

Um a general point I guess I would make.

Um we've heard the number 1100 tax title properties throughout the city.

Um they range in size, in value, their impact on the character of the neighborhood.

Um right now, the redemption value tied to these can be pretty arbitrary based on the time frame in which the city has held it.

Um it can be a confusing process, but by and large, um the value of these properties uh at this point um doesn't really take into consideration their natural resource value, the hazard mitigation value potentially, are they currently a neighborhood amenity?

Is there development potential?

If this is developed, is that going to create new obligations on the city or um infrastructure um requirements?

So it would seem that before any broad change uh in terms of the city's approach to managing uh or disposing of tax title properties would start with at least a basic inventory and analysis of the values of these properties, not simply in terms of their kind of current um tax title uh you know, cumulative tax interest and penalties and things, but in terms of some of the other benefits that they are either currently conveying or providing.

Um that is something in theory on an individual basis that uh you know the land trust or the city could do, but it has not been done on in a systematic way for a long time.

And there's been some discussion in the at the planning board at its last few meetings in that context of updating the comprehensive plan about the need to do some kind of analysis of these properties because by and large this city is um is fully developed.

So we have kind of a de facto open space um that has been kind of enjoyed um for for quite some time, and before it's kind of disposed of, um, I think we would need to take a real look at what the unintended consequences.

I think in some ways um I'm less worried about the property that has an abutter on it because that's not the property that's gonna be appealing to the people who come and approach the city about properties is gonna be because they're appealing for other reasons.

Um I think this ordinance as written leaves all the initiative in whoever comes in the door to talk to the city about making a purchase, and the first person through the door at this point has a um, you know, basically with minimal notice, maybe 10 days notice, I believe, to the uh to the to the owner um is able to kind of move through a very um a very essentially kind of private process.

So I think this is something that begs for big picture look, at least a basic analysis of where these properties are, um, what their potential value is, and then thinking about if there's a systematic way that the city wants to deal with different categories of these properties, we do it, but nothing in this current revamp to takes much of a strategic approach or leaves much initiative in the hands of the city in terms of what the outcome is going to be with regard to those properties.

Thank you.

Chairman, if I may.

Of course.

So for what it's worth, it does look like most of the process that people would prefer stay in is in the crossed out subsection F until you get it roughly about a little over halfway, and then you start getting into the problematic language.

But regardless of that, I wanted to kick it to the city with your permission, because I my understanding is they they want to chime in on something that it's important for tonight.

My actually we came here to solve a legal problem and a practical problem.

These 1100 parcels have been sitting there, and we thought here would be a way to really start moving this.

I think a lot of good points have been made this evening.

Um I think it probably makes sense to um continue or defer this, if you could to October 20th, because I can be back here at that meeting.

Take into consideration all the comments that have been made.

Um go back through it.

Um again, we're trying to simplify this process to solve a problem that has been piling up literally for decades.

Um and maybe it makes sense, for instance, to turn that spreadsheet of 1100 over to the land trust so that they can take a look at it.

Um, etc.

So um no objection if you'd like to defer this to our first passage, October 20th, and we'll do some revisions.

Thank you, Mr.

Osso.

I think that suggestion is well taken.

And uh Miss Austin's done an excellent job of repopulating the land trust.

So I think she probably has the resources behind her now to evaluate a list of that size to take some time to dig in and possibly make a recommendation.

Just just before a motion, if I may, um, if uh the city council could be included on any dissemination of that list of 1100.

Oh, sure.

Oh, absolutely.

There's no reason why we can't make it available to every member of the city council also.

Okay, Councilman Rix.

Thank you.

And uh thank you to uh Councilman Gebhardt for bringing up that point.

Uh and thank you to the solicitor for accommodating us on this.

Uh a little bit of a separate point here, and I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in this administration because it's been a continuing problem.

This is my ninth year on the city council.

The first time that I realized that the city council member for the ward is to be notified is pretty recently when reading this draft amendment section of two section two-14.

Nine years on the city council.

I don't think I've ever received notice from the city of these tax title sales.

And similarly, there's references to the committee on public properties.

This is my seventh year chairing the committee on public properties, and we have not had these coming before that committee.

But I know for a fact I have received notice in a certain manner for the sale of tax titles, because every single time I see the publication in the Warwick Beacon, that's how I first see these things.

I make sure to look down the list, and just as a matter of a constituent service, I take a look down the list.

I I literally have the contact information for thousands of constituents.

So then I make a whole bunch of phone calls and emails, however, I have their contact info and say, hey, no judgment here.

Just as your city councilor, I want to give you a heads up of that hey, no judgment, but this whole being behind our taxes thing is about to get a lot more serious.

So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Chairman.

If I may, given that we're gonna hold this, so now council people have over a month to send any questions or thoughts they might have.

It may be best just to proceed with that, because we still have a long night ahead of us.

Move to hold till October 20th.

Councilman Lannister, did you have one more thing to add?

Uh yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just wanted to make a retraction on a statement earlier.

Um, and it's based mainly on Councilman Mudo's comments as well as the members of the public.

Um if you had chosen to go forward with this tonight, I would be voting no.

I would absolutely support um holding this till the October meeting.

Just want to be on the record with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Lannister.

Councilman Kimpart, I heard a motion to hold uh to the October 20th.

Yeah.

So council uh motion to hold and a second.

Any objections to hold this till October 20th.

So held.

Thank you, Miss Thank you.

Aye for the recommendation.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Time is now 9 49 and ordinance is in recess.