Good evening, everyone.

It is now 5 01 p.m.

And the finance committee has called the order.

If you have any additional conversations, please take them out in the lobby because we have quite a lengthy meeting tonight.

Let the record indicate the meeting has been called to order at 501 p.m.

On the finance committee agenda.

I need a motion to accept the minutes of August 18th.

Moved.

Second.

We have motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

I need a motion on the consent calendar, the minutes of the meeting from August 18th, please.

Move favorable action.

I have a motion.

I have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Much better.

Four eyes.

Eight, really.

I just want to make everyone aware that this evening the finance committee will be recessing at 625 to allow an item to be moved out for public hearing prior to the full committee being convened at 630.

Just so you're aware of that.

I will have numerous PCRs I'll be assigning to some of the items.

And I'm gonna start with the first one, item number one on page one 2026 212.

I need a PCR, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Also, I just want to let everyone know.

Um, at the request of the police department, item number 13 dictation software uh for the police department has been withdrawn.

That was at the request of the police department.

So if anyone is here for just that item alone, I just wanted to let you know in advance.

All right, first item up 2026 212.

Purchase eight police vehicles.

Good afternoon, Robert Hart for the police department.

Good afternoon, Captain.

Good afternoon.

Major, sorry.

I did that the other day too.

I apologize.

I knew you said you were captain.

All good, councilman.

Uh the police department is requesting a 566 exception to notice to purchase eight Ford Police Utility Vehicles from McGovern MHQ of Marvel Marlborough Mass under the Greater Boston Police Council Master Price Agreement and Cooperative Bid.

These vehicles are in stock and ready for upfitting.

These 2025 police package vehicles would be assigned to our patrol officer section of the fleet and be re would be replacing various current vehicles that will be reissued within the department, transferred to other city departments or sold at auction.

Total pricing for the vehicles is 524, 892 dollars and 56 cents.

And that includes upfitting and equipment installation.

If approved, they would be funded through the city lease purchase funds, budget code 499-0449.

Major, um, I think I just heard you say that these vehicles this includes upfitting.

I'm sorry, counselor.

I think you I just heard you say these bid includes upfitting of the vehicles.

It does on your position paper.

Um it said these vehicles are currently in stock at McGovern Municipal and are ready for upfitting.

So does that mean the upfitting is going to be an additional charge?

No.

That's included.

That's included in the price.

And don't I recall?

I think it was in July.

The council just approved three vehicles for the police department.

Was it three?

That is correct.

And that was in July.

That was.

Okay.

So throughout this entire bid package, you're going to be hearing me comment on a lot of things.

And they all go to the same point, which is my opinion.

Um this spending, this spending bleed has got to stop.

I think that the spending is out of control.

Some people may say, well, that was part of the capital budget, and the council approved the budget.

This councilman did not approve the budget.

I voted no on the budget.

And I voted no because of some of the items that were in the capital budget.

So this is this is seems to be this issue of because we can, we will mean on the spending.

Um I can support purchasing eight vehicles now, and then we have another line item a little bit further down for another five.

That's 18 vehicles in one fiscal year.

So I'm going to um here for comments from the members of the committee.

I'd like to hear what what you have to say and what your positions is on it.

Um I do have one other question first, Major.

Um from the Joshua Bassett from the auto company.

In his last line, he says, I will put them.

This is about the eight vehicles.

I will put them on fast track to get built and delivered rather than having to wait six months.

So I thought these vehicles like already ready to go.

But yeah, and here it's saying fast track to get built.

Correct.

The vehicles are in stock on the lot, but they have to be upfitted.

The equipment installed, the lights installed, siren installed, prisoner cage installed.

So he's going to move these up to the front to get those installations done ASAP as opposed to waiting six months in line with other uh departments who are waiting for cars.

I'll open up questions from members of the committee.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudo.

Hi, Major.

Sir.

Uh mostly I I want to get a handle on uh how your capital replacement plan is uh very similar to last council meeting when I asked the fire department how they looked at their fleet, measured what they they need, and how they keeping the uh the fleet up to uh you know, up to standards.

Uh would you be able to share that uh that process with the uh yes, sir?

We plan for approximately 15 to 20 vehicles uh per year of different types, whether they be patrol vehicles, supervisor vehicles, unmarked vehicles, traffic vehicles, uh all the different types of specialties.

Uh the fleet manager looks at not only the mileage of the vehicle, but he what's more important is he looks at the hours on the vehicle, so the engine hours, which is describes the most wear and tear.

He looks at the general condition of the vehicle, and then he makes a plan of where that vehicle is gonna go uh when it's time to be replaced.

It may be go from a patrol vehicle to then become an unmarked detective vehicle, it may get assigned to an L City department, Parks and Rec, DPW, whoever.

Uh, it might then be turned into a detail car, which is a revenue uh maker.

Um, and after that, once he determines that it's no longer usable or the cost to fix it are too great, he will put it on to uh Gov Deals uh and he's currently working on that right now for many vehicles.

Anything else?

Yeah, that's why I have thank you.

Any question, Councilman uh Napa?

Good evening, Major.

Sorry, I didn't get this question to you sooner, but um, we were doing some traveling, so please excuse my uh me not sending these sooner.

I hope you have the answers.

The vehicles that you're purchasing now, are they intended to replace older vehicles in the fleet, or are we expanding the fleet for the police department?

We are not expanding the fleet.

These are replacing vehicles.

Um these will go into the first and second shift part of the patrol fleet, those vehicles will go down to third shift and work their way down, and finally, any vehicles that were detailed cars or again are just not useful or too expensive to fix, we then sell those.

Okay.

So with the three vehicles we've already purchased, and what's on the docket tonight for our approval, is that going to cap out what the police department is looking to purchase for the entire fiscal year?

Probably not, no.

Okay.

Do you have any expectation or strike that?

Do you have any understanding on what might be brought to us later for purchase?

I do.

We are looking at um replacing or uh purchasing uh most likely two motorcycles uh off lease to save some money on that.

Uh, we're looking at replacing any vehicles that may have been involved in crashes, so that's replacing total vehicles.

Um, and we're looking at, I believe, possibly um I think maybe an ACO truck.

I'm not positive on that.

Okay.

I think that's all I have.

Thank you, Major.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any questions from members of the council?

Councilman Rick.

As part of the uh fleet replacement plan, how does it look in uh in future years?

Are we going to be similarly replacing?

I'm just going to combine the five and eight that are coming up in front of us this evening.

And I believe as the chair pointed out, there were three earlier this year as well.

Do we similarly expect to replace a similar numbers of vehicles next year, the following year, or how does that look?

Um, right now, talking to our fleet manager plan is to replace about 15 to 20 vehicles per year.

That's that's about average.

And uh how many vehicles total in the fleet?

Um, if you take the word vehicle and you count trailers, motorcycles, speed slides, anything for license plate on it.

I believe we have the number right here, give me one second.

It averages around 150.

And again, some of those are trailers and message boards, and has a license plate, it's a vehicle.

Thank you.

I am I do share some of the chairman's concerns about the uh the rate of replacement, although I do understand that uh police vehicles, of course, they have to be in peak shape.

You can't have police vehicles breaking down, and that uh when the vehicles aren't are no longer in peak shape, they're not simply necessarily uh sold prematurely, but they do go to other departments or details or the like at the same time the way that the budgets have been lately and the way that it appears that they will look in the future.

I'm concerned that all departments are going to have to do some belt tightening here.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Any questions from members?

Any other questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Major, um, I think councilman Ricks asked a very good question.

And I'm gonna look for more of a pinpointed answer.

How many vehicles I'm referring to um such as the type of vehicles you're looking for right now, such as the vehicles that you're asking for and another item in the vehicles that replace.

So cars.

I'm not talking about trailers and speed sleds and whatever other type of things that have license plates on them, just vehicles.

I know that we have 30 patrol vehicles, seven supervisor vehicles, approximately eight traffic vehicles, and I believe we have about five community police vehicles.

Um I don't off the top of my head know how many detective and unmarked cars that we have.

So right now we have a count of about 50.

Okay.

And so far you've gotten three, which doesn't include how many we replaced in 2025 fiscal year.

And now you're asking for 13.

As I said in the beginning, I think the spending is out of out of control.

I am particularly concerned with the credit cards in the IOUs that are coming down in the very near future in two to three years from now.

And I'm not specifically saying no new vehicles.

I think that there has to be some understanding on the back of the taxpayers as well.

I don't think that replacing 813, 16 vehicles out of 50 right now, just it doesn't make any sense to me.

So with that said, um, that's just my opinion.

I am going to make a motion to amend PCR 9825 to approve four vehicles.

Do I have a second?

I have a second by councilman Mudo.

Any further questions from members of the committee?

Do you want to have it here?

Just no, I want to do an amendment right here, right now.

And we have a motion in process.

Are there any opposed?

Yes.

Who would you oppose?

Okay.

Motion fails.

So motion for favorable action as presented.

Second.

We have a motion as presented.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

No.

Councilman Muto.

No.

Motion fails.

The vote is two to two.

Motion fails.

Sir.

Solicitor.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Just uh reminder of the rule of revision that we made regarding uh the four-person committees and trying to find uh a recommendation.

Um, should the committee not be able to find a consensus, uh, the default would be to allow it to proceed to the floor with no recommendation.

And so if that's a consensus to okay.

I just want to remind of the rule process.

All right, thank you for that clarification.

This item will move to the floor with no recommendation.

Thank you for that.

Um, next item, item number two, found on page 10.

Design services for Rocky Point Gateway Improvement Project.

That is 2026 098.

Good evening, Tom Tom Crabit, City Planning Director.

This uh project, as you may know, um revolves around the beautification of Rocky Point, both entrances on the north and south side.

Um great project for the city.

There's no city funds in the project aside from Deans and my staff time.

There's three major grants that the city achieved that they'll use to execute the project, one of which is a 4.4 million dollar federal highway grant.

Uh the second is a $500,000 Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank uh program grant, and the third is DEM grant match and the amount of 380,000.

So we had to go out to RFQ professional design services to finish the design and permit the project.

They're gonna have a public meeting, and their proposal as you see here, um, is only 9.1% of the total, which is a great that's a good a good uh fee.

They're gonna have a public meeting and their proposal as you see here is only 9.1% of the total which is a great that's a good a good uh fee um it's a low fee um and that includes construction administration so dean in my office he he did all this work he he deserves a lot of credit for this so I'm here to try to answer any other questions you might have uh going forward thank you director so when it says that the funds come from MIG P funds account 52060 04326 what is that could be just the fund account that the city has put it in from which to pay I would assume what page are you looking at exactly it is on page 11 it says if approved funding for these expenses will would be allocated from MIGP funds account code 52060 04326 what is that code it's about the other packet infrastructure grant yeah okay yeah municipal infrastructure grant program funds account that's just the city's account through which all the money will flow out to the to cover the project so you say that it's the fund that all the money will flow where is the account that the money flows into this grant I don't know well my question is where's the money coming from to pay for this yeah the money comes from the three grants I just articulated but the finance director can probably speak to what type of accounts we put them in in the city.

Okay sure the revenue that we would get from the grant will be on the other side of this it will likely start 5200603 it's on the other side so there's an expense side and the revenue side and they'll all be separated out of the general fund you say there's an expense on the other side other side of what so the we have um reserve funds for grants to kind of take the big ebbs and flows out of the general fund to get a real number what we do is we tend to budget for the matching part of this and it sounds like there is no matching part to this grant so we'll run it through a grant fund and get the reimbursement through the grant fund so there's this zero match to this grant correct this grant that we're getting from somewhere is four hundred and eighty two thousand eight hundred and forty dollars there are three grants federal highway that's 4.4 million Rhode Island infrastructure bank half a million a DEM match 3800 okay that's what I'm asking about and you know it would have made things simpler if that stuff would be included in our documents so we would know and wouldn't have to start digging into this all the time so the bottom line is there is no direct cost to the property taxes or the taxes to the citizens of work correct okay and was there anyone else that bid on this beta yeah I I thought I saw that in here somewhere so why wasn't better's bid included in our binder we we scored them interior and staff myself dean a DEM staff person scored them and Stan Tech got the highest so we negotiated with them first prior to bringing you the uh the proposal no I see the scoring but ultimately it's the council that approves or doesn't approve these bids and why what I'm asking is why wasn't beter's bid included in the bid package so that we could see it and compare it for ourselves councilman um so for architects and engineers there's a federal law that specifically dictates how you bid an award contracts to architects and engineers it's qualification based and then you score them the highest qualified

And why what I'm asking is why wasn't beta's bid included in the bid package so that we could see it and compare it for ourselves councilman.

Um so for architects and engineers, there's a federal law that specifically dictates how you bid and award contracts to architects and engineers.

It's qualification-based, and then you score them.

The highest qualified respondent is then negotiated with.

Again, federal law.

And then if we couldn't come to an agreement on the negotiated price, then we'd have to move to the next highest scoring vendor.

Stan Tech was the highest scoring.

We agreed on a price.

We're asking for authority to enter into contract with Stantec.

It's 100% grant funded, no city resources.

So I'm not familiar with that federal law that you're quoting.

So could you send that to me, please?

So it's it's in the federal law, it's in the state law, and I believe it's might even be in our law.

So it's a it's a state, it's in the state law system.

That's why there's no more.

Um hold on, councilman.

So on page the first page of the director's position paper.

Second paragraph in accordance with Rhode Island General Law 45-55-8.1 and public law 92-582, federal architect engineer selection law, also known as the Brooks Act.

I apologize.

40-USC 541.

That's how we award this bid under those two laws.

And it's in those two laws right there that say the only thing that comes into play is qualification first, negotiation of price.

If the negotiated price cannot be agreed upon, it then goes to the next highest qualified bidder.

Stantec is the highest qualified bidder, agreed upon the price.

We're asking for award.

And the um, and by the way, um, this is in my ward, but I still need to ask these questions.

It's not like just rubber stamp this and you know, go good to go because it's in my ward.

Um, there's still concerns that I'll have regardless of it in my ward or not.

Um this amount of roughly 483,000.

Is this strictly for finishing up the design, or is in the construction is completely separate?

It's it's design and construction oversight.

Right.

Construction administration.

But the actual construction is construction is yeah, we it how much is the five million dollars, six million dollars?

5.28 million dollar contract, all the grants we received.

Okay, of that 434,000, 482,840 is coming out of the 5.2 million for design.

Okay, so less than 10 percent, which is the average for design.

Design bidding and construction administration.

So you're saying that there's still plenty of money left for the actual construction.

4.8 million dollars.

Okay.

Do you have any idea what that construction number is until we bid it out?

Okay, there's no budget set or anything.

Not until it's finally final design is done.

Okay.

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

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Ricks, councilman Riggs.

Has the city worked with Stan Tech previously?

We did.

I think early on on this project, they did the initial designs, the not quite to 60 percent.

And uh the uh the scores were calculated.

Uh beta group was informed of their score and of Stantech's score, or how did that uh part of the process work?

I cannot say that whether or not Dean notified both respondents of their scores, but I know we brought in Stan Tech to negotiate initially.

You know, they're less than the average in the professional service sector for profit is is upwards around 15%.

So to be at 9.1, Dean and I were pretty excited about that number.

Uh have we heard anything from beta group uh relative to whether they are uh accepting and understanding of the uh the assessment of the scores or uh have they been silent on that?

No, have not heard.

Okay.

I was I'm not uh as familiar with this project, obviously, as you are, or as the uh the chair would be as this is in his ward.

Uh when I was reviewing this in the bid package briefly, I was uh a little bit surprised that uh beta group scored uh relatively poorly because I know that the city has worked with them in the past.

I don't have any affiliation with either of those, of course.

But uh yeah, I was interested in that process.

I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Director, uh on here it says outreach, public outreach, 30,100.

What is the public outreach that they're going to do for 30,100?

I would assume they submitted a plan, you know, that brings them into the classifications or points that they received.

It says that they have the it's on page PDF page 27 of 165 in package A of the uh the website docs.

Community meeting number one is in person.

So of course they'll be showing it says here PowerPoint presentation, the residents, um the the designs they have thus far.

They also have a community meeting uh number two in person and three in person, which is impressive.

So it looks like they're gonna give this three, you know, three shots.

Okay.

Incorporate any stakeholder comments from the first two.

And yeah, that's it's a it's a very good uh level of effort I'm seeing with this.

Okay.

Any other questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Thank you.

Hearing none, we'll move on to municipal police and fire term life insurance.

It is on page 22, item number three.

Hello, uh Steven Rotondo, personnel director.

This is a request to ex a 612 request to extend the three-year agreement with Ox Securing Oak Security Company.

Uh we were able to negotiate with them uh a freeze on our premiums for active employees uh and uh for also for the active employees optional insurance.

Uh the only thing we could not get a freeze on was the firefighter retiree insurance.

Uh however, that insurance is paid is reimbursed 100% to the city uh through their uh semi-monthly uh pension contributions um I have concerns with the rollout on this item.

I have concerns with the rollout on this item, what we received and what we didn't receive.

And what it says in our bid package is that the rates are froze, it's the current rate.

Same price as last time.

When I look at my numbers, your numbers, somebody's numbers, it goes from the previous contract of 133,593 for three years to a total for this time, this term 369,333.

And obviously, that math didn't make any sense to me.

When you do the math of what it was before to what it is now, I'm looking at this and I'm saying there's 107 or 102,000 increase.

And what is concerning to me is that that wasn't explained in this bid package.

It didn't say we've changed the way we figured this.

Now we're changing it.

And we're gonna go to the gross amount and wait until we get reimbursed.

Well, that was not presented in this, and it wasn't disclosed until I started asking questions about it last week.

That is not transparent to me.

When I look at this, and I have to try to figure out how is it you're saying 133 is the same as 369, and then to find out that oh um we changed the way we calculated.

Well, I'd like to know why you changed the rate or whoever changed the way you calculated.

What was wrong with getting a bid approved for 133,000 net of employee contributions to change it to gross of employee contributions, and then somebody's supposed to sit here and monitor all this the contributions that are coming in and the weekly deductions and is the math correct?

And is this narrowing down to the same amount?

Why was this changed and why wasn't it disclosed?

Uh the reason it was changed, councilman, is that uh when we did it, you're right.

We did it on the net amount last time.

That's I calculated it based on what we expected to pay based on the premiums, and then took out what we expected to re uh receive from the reimbursements from employees.

The lion share comes from the retired firefighters who are paying 100% of the premium.

Uh I was instructed at this time by the uh by the purchasing division that the best practice and the one that they want to follow is we want to go with a gross amount.

And so I I took the amount that we I based on our last billing, I took the monthly amounts that we're paying right now.

I extrapolated out by 36 months, and I came out with the gross amount.

Uh to put it in perspective, we do anticipate getting from the retired firefighters alone 191 to 192,000 dollars in reimbursements.

It's gonna be 100 percent.

So, whatever their census is over the three years, we're gonna get it back.

So it does it is a stark number, but uh I was explained that the best practices and here from here forward, it will be you're doing it on gross, not on net.

So, seeing as the purchasing department told you to do it this way, I would like to hear from the purchasing department as to why they changed from what it was to what it is, and what is the benefit to the city for doing so?

Francis Gomez purchasing director, the reason why I suggested it this way versus the um past historical way of just asking for net is because um best practice is to ask the council for a spending authority.

So if we're asking for the council for the spending authority for three years, why would we only ask you for one year of funding netwise for this three-year bid?

And that's why I suggested to go with the gross, so that way they are covered, even if we get reimbursements, that will show up later afterwards what we got back.

So, not that I agree with that, but my question is why wasn't that disclosed in this presentation to us, as opposed to us having to sit here and um short of being a mathematician, figure out that wait a minute, 133 isn't the same per year as 369.

It wasn't disclosed because that wasn't in his letter, and I asked him before the letter even got to um uh finalized.

I did ask um the director from personnel, Stephen, to ask for the gross instead of the net.

It just makes more sense spending authority-wise when going along with our ordinance because they are coming here to ask for spending authority, and it didn't make sense to me to do just for a one-year net cost when you're asking for three years.

Well, see, my point is what you have, what we have in this binder, at least speaking for myself, doesn't make sense to me.

And because we have this incredible pile of 41 bids that I personally have spent over 11 hours trying to dissect and go through all of this and make sense to it.

It doesn't make sense to me that we should be expected to just understand in um okay, got it.

I understand what you're coming for from Mr.

Chairman, but and I and I do can include that next time we come back to you for whatever reason because I also think that um explaining where the money is coming from, not in just this bid, but in other bids, whether it comes from the approved budget, whether it comes from grants, should be added to there.

So that way, not only yourself and the other council members of this um council can rest assured that it's not just um property taxes or anything like that.

So I do understand where you're coming from, but that's where I was that's where my idea came from is like best practice would be to stick to the ordinance and asking for the actual spending authority, whether you're gonna get reimbursed, or you might use the whole thing.

And this term life insurance that has nothing to do with the fire department, right?

Sorry, what this term life insurance that we're talking about right now, this doesn't include the fire department.

No, the fire firefighters it this is term life for police, active police, active municipal, active fire, and there's a group of uh retired firefighters upon retirement can uh or at any time can opt into the plan uh at 100% premium cost to them.

And the contributions or the costs that are incurred by the fire department, that is strictly contractual agreements.

I believe that they have the option.

I believe that the retired firefighters have the option of bidding in because of a clause in the collective bargaining agreement.

Uh again, 100% uh at cost, and we deduct it in their semi from their semi-monthly pension payments.

So we get two payments, uh, and it goes right back into the uh the the line item for the uh firefighter uh light insurance.

But that's driven by contract, right?

Does the contract determine what they're going to contribute towards their um life insurance or doesn't the contract in all of these cases uh determines that they have the option of purchasing, but the the price can change, it's not the the premium amount changes from time to time, and that's not contractual.

The right to purchase uh or the option to purchase either $50,000 of term life insurance up until the age of 70, and then it gets truncated to 25,000 dollars of term life insurance at full premium cost.

That's contractual, just as is the the uh the municipal.

Well, actually, these are in all the contracts that the city will provide at no cost to the employee $50,000 of year of life insurance, it's in the contract for all of these.

Yeah, it's part of the benefits package.

So here's my problem with this.

My problem with this is that the administration has had the contract for the fire department for some time.

We haven't seen it.

We haven't gotten anything on it.

So we have no clue what the contract language speaks to with respect to life insurance.

We don't know if it's up, if it's down, if it's nothing, we don't know.

So to ask, and I won't speak for my colleagues, but to ask me to vote on something that may have an impact, or the contract language may have an impact on what we're voting on right now, doesn't make sense to me.

The the contract language regarding retiree firefighters.

Um it hasn't changed, it's been in there for years.

How do you know it hasn't changed?

You have you seen the contract?

Yeah, I was I was on the negotiation committee.

It hasn't changed.

Oh, okay.

Councilman, the language in the expired contract is the same as it is in the current contract that you'll be receiving once it's finalized.

We're waiting for a couple more documents.

The contract is done, we're going for more internal documents.

It's not going to be heard until November.

So that's why you haven't received it yet, but it has not changed.

But firefighter retirees have the option to purchase health uh retired retiree life insurance at their cost, not the city's cost.

At their cost, 100% their cost.

It's deducted from their pension contributions, 100%.

Active active firefighters, police, and municipal have it all in their contracts that the city provides a certain amount of life insurance.

They also have the right to purchase while on active duty additional coverage.

That is what they reimburse.

So how do I know the new contract with the FI department hasn't changed as to what the city is going to contribute to the life insurance?

I just said it hadn't.

I haven't seen the contract.

I have no idea.

Just tell me it hasn't.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Napa.

Just call out if you can because I got the sun in my eye, so I don't see everybody.

And the same thing with the councilman on the other side, please.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

So just a question relative to budgeting, so I can get my head around this.

When we approve the budget in dispatch budget hearing for fiscal 26.

For the three departments, there was line items relative to life insurance in the amount of $57,144 approved by this council.

I don't think we amended that at all.

I think that was what was requested, and we approve what was requested.

Based on my understanding of what was presented here, does that mean that you're anticipating a contribution from employees, whether they be current or retirees?

A contribution of 65,000, almost 66,000 to make up the difference here.

Um I'm not I'm not sure what you're saying.

So budget only approved 57,000.

Let's round it down, right?

So we have for the three for the three uh three for fire municipal and police.

Yeah, for the car fiscal year, okay.

Okay.

So what you're requesting is spending authority above that per year.

Are you anticipating a 60s roughly 66,000 year contribution?

But the the confusion is that the budget is net.

So what you what's budgeted is net because there are contributions that will offset it to that approximately that amount.

Yeah, does the anticipated income from the employees retired or active?

Is that going to be around 66,000?

It should be 65,967 based on my math.

Yes.

Okay.

Where is that going to be reflected?

So the accounting for it gets a little complicated, which is why we we're doing the contracts gross because that is the most transparent component to say what we are paying a vendor.

There are a liability accounts that run through our pension plan and run through our general fund that offset the expense.

Because you can buy up life insurance as well through the city as an active employee.

Um then there are of course the retirees that Steven's talking about.

But they all offset to the end to what's being expended in the general fund.

Okay.

Does it make sense then for next budget cycle to use gross numbers in the requested spend for budget or no?

No, because what we what we're budgeting for is what actually impacts for a real benefit for the employees versus what's being offset.

I mean, we could we could do it that way, but um historically we've just budgeted for for the net in there because a lot of this is actually running through pension payments.

What if there's a shortfall due to mortality in the retiree population?

Then they wouldn't be paying for the uptick.

But we pay for the premium up front, yeah.

We paid on a monthly basis.

Okay, that makes more sense.

That's all I have.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, councilman.

So, director, what you're asking us to do is approve an amount that exceeds what was approved in the budget.

That's what you're asking us to do.

And then it'll filter out, you know, as time goes on.

Well, with the budget is net, and and this is a gross amount.

Right.

But point out though, the cost per employee, and this is this is the important takeaway here.

For the important cost per employee has frozen for three years.

This is a three-year freeze.

We're not our rates aren't going up.

We have a certain number of employees.

That census will change.

The retirees go up and down, uh, and they can discontinue anytime they want.

Our cost uh per employee, though, is an obligatory cost, and it's gonna freeze for three years, and so that's not gonna be that's nothing to change.

And given given that, you know, when you started these negotiations, we weren't getting these rates back.

I had to go back and forth a number of times and negotiate the freeze.

The only thing I couldn't get in terms of the freeze was the retired firefighters, the loss ratio is too too high.

Unfortunately, unfortunately, our loss ratio in the last three years for active employees was higher than expected.

So they've been on this, you know, they were looking at the last five or ten years of loss.

Well, it's higher now, and so against the backdrop of of inflationary pressures and a high loss ratio, we went back and forth a bit to freeze the rates, and so these rates are frozen.

If we don't approve the the frozen rates, if it goes out to bid, we'll never get these rates again, they're all going to go up.

That's not I don't want that to be lost here.

Councilman DLOS.

Well, I'm very confused about the whole thing.

You say that the premiums have stayed the same.

That's what you said.

Except for the oh, I'm sorry, except for the retired firefighters.

All right, well, according to my calculations, okay, the current contract award was 133,593, correct?

For three years?

Councilman, if you look to this the attachment, the second page, security and company provided us with uh the renewal rates, and if you look at page two, it says rate confirmation for the city of Warwick.

They gave a simple table there.

Current rates per thousand dollars, it's 0.09 cents for the basic life.

That's for municipal, and the newer rates are 0.09.

Police and fire, basic life, their current rate per thousand is uh basically 11 cents per thousand.

The renewal rate is 11 cents per thousand.

Uh the third one is uh accidental death accidental death and disability.

That's 0.0166 per thousand, and it's going to remain at that rate.

The only one that you'll see an increase is firefighter retiree basic life.

That's the fund that's 100% reimbursable, and it the firefighters as they retire can take it or not.

It's a buck, it's 1.665 per thousand, and it's going up to 2.450 per thousand.

Drop down another level, the supplemental, the supplemental amount that our employees pay, our municipal employees can buy up an extra 10 or 20,000 dollars.

They pay for that, and we deduct it from their their payroll.

Um, and the same with uh accidental death and disability, those two rates are also the same.

So we were able to negotiate a freeze for the city, what the city pays.

We were able to negotiate a freeze for the optional uh insurance that our active employees pay.

The only thing we couldn't get a freeze on was the firefighter retiree basic life.

That is 100% reimbursable from the firefighters.

We anticipate during the three-year term of this to put it in perspective that the firefighter re retired retired firefighter reimbursement is um in the range of 190, 191,000.

That's okay.

All right, I heard enough of that.

Explain to me, all right.

I can see all these rates have stayed the same except for that firefighter retiree basic life.

Okay, I see all of that.

Okay, but the bottom line is this 133,593 for three years previous, is about 44,000 in change.

I'm just doing this in my head.

Now it's gonna cost for three more years instead of 44,000 in change each year, it's gonna be 123, 11.

That's an increase of roughly about 78,000 per year.

So even though you're saying that the premiums and the rates are staying the same, it's still increasing each year by 78,000.

That the bottom line is money.

Rates don't mean a thing.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

The 2022 that you're looking at, that was based on our on the city's prediction of a net amount.

Okay, as we were.

Whatever it was based upon 2022 was three years ago.

Did you pay that in 2022?

I know you're saying it was based upon that, but did you pay that?

Did the city pay that?

I wasn't here in 2022.

Well, that's a three-year quote.

We've paid it.

We've been we have been paying it over the course of the three years.

Okay, so my question is 44,000 in change per year as opposed to 1231, 11 per year.

It's an increase per year of 78,000.

So even though you're saying all these rates are staying the same, this doesn't make any sense to me.

It's the difference between gross payment and and net.

Here we go.

Councilman, uh so the 133 was based on the net the city paid out out of its pockets.

The city also takes in reimbursements from the employees.

So if right now the what we're asking for to let everyone know that the city pays out is going to pay out the 121.

You have my sheet.

12311.

That's what we're gonna pay out annually.

Out of that, the city is going to get reimbursed from retired firefighters, 100% of their costs.

Contributions correct.

Yeah, we're gonna get reimbursed from any upcharge from municipal and police additional coverages.

But can I ask a question?

Sure.

I may have missed it, but is any of what you're saying now?

Is it anywhere here?

No, councilman Lattice.

No, it's not wants an explanation.

We don't want, in other words, hey, this is costing us a half a million dollars, but the retired people are putting in 250.

We'd like to be able to see that.

We don't want to be mind readers.

Right.

So we apologize that it's confusing.

I know you guys can apologize all day.

But it that's I mean, that's how I don't know how to put it any differently.

That's how insurance, if it's based on the number of employees we have and the number of retirement rates.

I get it.

I see the rates of mostly the same, but like I said, what you know, councilman Latticer, and I'm sure it's um belief of everyone else.

If it was explained a little bit better, we we could make um more of an equated decision.

I going forward going for the future, we will do a better job on explaining that all right.

Because I I was confused about this.

How can they say it's not going up?

It's like right.

It's like a tax return.

You're you're you're paying the gross, but you're getting a tax return back.

So you paid out 100,000 and you got 50,000 back.

It's it's a it's a refund.

Right.

It should be stated somewhere.

I don't disagree with you.

That's all I got.

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh I I just want to just reiterate.

Um, I agree that confusion was caused by the change in your accounting method from net to gross, but I'm also stuck on what councilman knapper has has mentioned that you're asking us to for spending authority over and above what we approved in the in the budget.

And I know it's it's a net, it's net in the budget, and it's gross out here.

So I am wondering if we with no harm that we take a mulligan on this and we we hold it to next meeting just so we can get our cards straight because we have a lot of stuff to go through here, and if we're trying to get this math straightened out, I councilman.

Well, look, so we can't change the budget.

The budget is the budget.

So the budget was based on the net costs before this memo was presented to the council before the negotiations were finished.

There was the personnel director was intending to go down the road of the same way it was presented previously.

Hindsight, I probably should have let them do that as well as the purchasing agent.

I should have probably said, you know what, let's do it the old way.

However, we're here now, we're showing you the gross.

We can't change the budget.

The budget is set, it's it's based on the net amount that the city anticipates receiving.

This is based on the gross amount the city is anticipating spending.

I can't undo the budget.

This contract is expiring.

The councilman will probably point out, it is late, and we apologize.

Um we're negotiating on getting these reimbursed these these rates frozen because they're very good rates, considering what we asked the vendor to do.

I'm just saying because of the confusion with the way it was presented.

My concern is at this time I'm gonna vote it.

I'm not not gonna support this.

So Chief.

Chief, you you just spoke to something I said a moment ago.

You just said you were waiting for the contract negotiations.

Well, that's what I'm waiting for.

No, now I have what you just said that.

I I have bigger problems with this issue now than I had, um, thanks to Councilman Knapper pointing out the budget.

You said you can't change the budget.

Why should we change the budget then?

Let's not change the budget.

Yes, we are.

No, especially not.

Chief.

This wasn't broke before.

This the way it was calculated before wasn't broke.

Apparently, it worked fine because nobody complained about it.

Now all of a sudden we change it, and in spite of in addition to changing it, we don't inform anybody to why we changed it, how we changed it, or that we even changed it.

We just said this is all hunky-dory, it's fine, it's the same rate.

Well, it's not because you're asking the taxpayers to upfront the money to put the money up front, and then we'll have to somehow try to monitor how these rebates are coming back to reduce this down to what the amount is.

So, yeah, I think Councilman Mudo makes a very good point that this should be held until the first meeting in October, and we get the contract, we see what the contract says, and then get the full explanation and disclosure on what this is all about.

Just my opinion.

Councilman Foley.

Good evening.

Two things first, uh, councilman chairman.

You have one minute left to your 10 minutes.

Second question is based on what you've said, the city is not paying any more this year, this fiscal year, up front than we paid last year.

It's simply accounting.

Last year, or in the budget, the dollar amount was 57,000.

It's it's based on the rates, based on the number of people that work for the city.

I can't say we're not gonna pay more because I don't know how many people are gonna die, how many people are gonna retire, how many people are gonna get fired and fired.

Uh I'm just roughing it.

In the budget, it was saying 57%.

Our anticipation is going to be able to meet the budget that is in the budget that you got you council approved.

That's what we're anticipating.

The net outlay will be approximately what that is.

Exactly.

I don't I can't say I mean, I don't have a crystal ball.

But that's what we're anticipating it will be within the budget that has been approved by the council.

I the point I'm trying to get to.

Last fiscal year, the money that was put out by the city of Warwick from the taxpayers was a hundred dollars.

We're putting out the exact same amount this year.

Last year we got reimbursed, so the net that the city paid was the $57,000.

Correct.

Last fiscal year, the net that was paid out.

Yes, I mean there is a margin of error for the number of employees, but yes, it's thank you.

It's from November through October.

It's not a fiscal year contract, so your money's in are gonna be very different, and who's keeping track of the reimbursements is different, and in a different election year, it could be the administration is different and who's keeping track of it.

This this whole thing makes zero sense to me that it was changed from net to gross.

Makes no sense to me, but what do I know?

Um, any other questions from members of the council?

Champion Councilman Wix from what you uh stated earlier.

I take it that when the when members retirees are opting into this, uh, they are also opting into this being deducted from their pension contributions, excuse me, not pension contributions.

I believe earlier it might have been unintentionally stated as pension contributions, but really from the pension payouts, correct?

Yes, it it comes out uh direct uh withdrawal from their pension checks, they buy uh semi-monthly pension checks.

Okay.

So I suppose what's a little confusing to me on something like that is that uh these premiums are they uh paid to the insurance company on a uh biweekly or monthly or uh upfront annual uh basis?

We get a monthly premium bill from the insurance company based on our census for that month, and we pay the bill, and for all of the uh retirees that comes out of their pension checks, and then for uh active employees who've purchased up, they've already signed up, so this is automatically coming out of their.

We don't have to adjust it every month unless somebody is added or leaves, but for the people who signed on, it's gonna come out of their pension checks, or it's gonna come out of their week for active employees, it comes out of their weekly paychecks, whatever their buy-up is, and that hasn't changed.

And I imagine that most of the time that works fine, works smoothly, but have there ever been instances, at least uh while you've been with the city, where uh something didn't add up where uh that is specifically with the pension, excuse me, the uh life insurance contributions.

I'm trying to imagine if there are or have been any situations where because of the payment schedule or otherwise, basically the city taking on that particular risk of being the middleman here has uh uh in your time with the city, has a city effectively ever gotten burned on that difference while it plays middle man.

No, because the the um the payments are like I say the employee has to sign up, and it goes uh until the employee or the retiree either disenrolls, which they do sometimes, or passes away, which they also do, and the active employees they they will change from time to time.

They'll buy up further, they'll stop buying up.

Um I will say, I think is what you're alluding to.

We order we audit the bills periodically because someone drops off, and if if we uh if somebody has dropped off, if somebody had quit and they're on the bill, we look back, and if we've been paying for them for two months, we notify the insurance company, they they'll reimburse us the full premium for the amount of time the person was gone.

It also goes in the other direction.

Somebody didn't make it onto the bill.

We find, hey, this person's been on for two months, we owe you, you know, we owe you two months.

So we we audit to to accommodate to you know make sure that we're paying for and not overpaying or underpaying.

Okay, so the city and insurance company have had a good relationship uh like that with getting those uh those differences uh straightened down and accounted for.

Okay, that's uh that's really what I was uh looking for with those questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman uh Council President So just so I'm clear.

Uh I haven't heard it stated one way or another.

What happens if this gets held?

Is that a problem?

No.

Honestly, I don't know what new information you're going to receive.

It's still gross versus net.

I I agree with you based on everything I heard, but I haven't heard anyone ask that, but I have heard the suggestion of holding it, so I want to make sure someone at least asks this question.

I'm not sure what the uh freeze has to when it has to be enacted.

The contract doesn't expire until October 31st.

And then you automatically get a grace period.

I don't uh yeah.

So to answer that, answer that question.

I don't think I don't see that the company, I told them we would be presenting this to council that if we would freeze the rates for three years, that you know that it would be that it would have a much better chance of passing.

Uh I don't recall, nor do I see on this that they said that this offer is only good for X amount of time.

I would be somewhat concerned though, because I don't know what else we can give.

The rates are frozen.

I I apologize for the presentation.

Um, I probably should have anticipated that, but it's presentation, it's it's a matter of uh form over substance at this point.

The substance of this is if we approve this, our rates freeze for three years.

And we did not have sadly, we did not have a good loss ratio.

It took a while to get there.

It's one of the reasons this is coming in so late.

So I do want to say I hope that's not lost here.

Oh, forever regret the form used the for the the way I structured it.

But the substance is we got a freeze for three years.

We're not going to get that if we put this out to bid, because anyone that bids is going to ask this this they have this information.

How many people do you have?

How old are they?

And what were your losses over the last three to five years?

We're going to share that with them.

We're not going to get these rates for another three years.

So you know, I'm sorry, I'm a more my apologies.

Um, so what I've heard tonight, and please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm mistaken.

By the way, this sound system is better, Phil.

Even even right here, distance to mic.

Well Phil made the sound system better, in case people were wondering.

Uh what I've heard here tonight is one, the change regarding gross to net or net to gross, rather, was to move towards best practices.

Granted, I also heard regarding the format and manner of presentation was not ideal, but it sounds like the administration agrees that they'll gladly do it differently next time around, which is great.

So we don't have any uh miscommunication or misunderstanding.

And it sounds like by all accounts that this represents a better deal than we would otherwise get.

The only information that has been stated as potentially lacking, that is not obtainable, at least on paper today is the actual contract itself, what the administration has represented, what those figures are in that regard.

So I am unclear as to any purpose to hold it at this time, especially if it's only contingent on the contract.

I mean, they've made the representation, so what's in the contract and they would know they negotiated it.

So I'm not sure the whole of it.

It sounds like everything else has been addressed.

If something hasn't been addressed, then absolutely please ask so we can get there.

But otherwise, uh I'm not seeing a reason to hold.

Yeah, I'm sorry, Council President.

Thank you.

Councilman Nappa.

Thank you.

So I just want to be clear.

I don't think that anyone on the floor tonight can only speak for myself, but I don't think after hearing from my colleagues, anyone thinks you did a poor job negotiating the rate or getting the rate locked in.

I think that's favorable.

From my understanding, and now that I'm looking at Munis also, I think that what this boils down to is the city or your department coming to us and asking for spending authority that almost triples what was requested and approved in the budget.

Now I understand the net versus gross.

However, since you yourself, well, actually think the finance director uh stated that we pay this out monthly.

One of someone who spoke tonight and presented stated that.

So we're only paying out.

We should only be paying out.

And it looks as though in the Munis report that we're only paying out the net.

Is that correct?

I'm sorry.

No.

Oh, okay.

I'm not sure where you're looking in Munis.

Are you in the account?

I'm looking at the I'm looking at whatever MUNIS report we get presented every month.

Oh, it's so the printed report.

Yeah, so that amount that you see in there will be the net amount.

So on the 15th and 30th, we get the payments from the pension weekly, we get from the active.

So you'll what you're seeing in the budget is the net.

Is the net.

So perhaps to clear up this whole runaround confusion of net gross 130, 55, 57.

If we approve as a body tonight, the net spend, which was requested in the budget, it feels better for me at least, and I assume some of my colleagues that we're approving what we approved in the budget for spending authority, that shouldn't leave the city short on spending ability because it's we approve the net, you're only spending the net in actual numbers.

And if moving to best practices next year, according to the purchasing department is shifting to a gross calculation, then perhaps in next budget cycle we make that whole correction all at the same time so that everything is on gross, so that we're not approving above what's been requested in the budget.

I think that is what for me at least is the biggest sticking point is that we're you're asking for spending authority above and beyond almost triple of which the budget approved.

So I get that the dollars in and out make sense, but I think it's rather uncomfortable to say okay, you have spending authority triple that of the budget that was approved, even though the back end accounting practices would reflect the net.

If you prefer to approve this as net, that that works as long as we're very clear about it.

Um I will actually be the one who takes the blame that I don't think this should have been budgeted as uh it's not budgeted as bid as net, approved as net.

I think it should be bid uh approved as gross because I think this is not dissimilar accounting-wise to a grant.

We just did the Stantec grant, you approved 400,000, knowing we're gonna get 400,000 back.

I think that's the best practice for this.

But if you wish to approve the life insurance net, that's as long as we're clear about that.

I think if you want to move to gross in the future, I think that the budget newness I think all things should reflect the same accounting practice, not six or one half a dozen the other.

Yeah, I mean, I I actually preferred the gross PFCs because I think it's hard to track between finance and personnel and purchasing, but we can continue to do that if you put it.

So if it makes sense for next budget cycle to do gross numbers so that we can say, okay, we're approving a gross number in the budget.

So when we talk about it as a body to say, all right, we're we're anticipating giving this department spending authority of up to what we actually have here in this budget that's laid out on our tables in front of us.

It I that's where well now you're gonna have a problem because this is a three-year bid and you're talking about next year, so we're gonna chase the problem in the opposite direction.

No, you just gross it up for one year.

Pardon?

Just gross it up for the one year in the budget.

It councilman, one or the other.

We're looking for a three-year bid.

I understand.

It's a three-year bid.

Keep it the same for three years.

Yeah, right.

So for three years, I get yeah, I hear what you're saying.

So if we everything needs to talk the same language, we we can't talk gross, net, net gross in three different, four different areas.

Just makes more sense to issue the spending authority for the actual amount that we had approved in the budget already.

And like the chief said, we're not going back and changing the budget.

So it really feels terrible for me at least to say, okay, we approve 57, but we're gonna we're gonna up we're gonna now approve that you spend three times that.

I think the rates are fantastic.

And I'm not trying to take away from your work on that end, and I want that to be very clear, and I don't think any of my colleagues feel like those rates are bad.

But I I did I think we just need to approve what we already approved, not above and beyond.

Right.

I mean, if you if you wish to approve this as net, that I think it's well documented for that.

That was kind of my beef with it.

Um, I think it's very clear how this is budgeted for and paid for now.

So yeah, I'll leave that up to the chair.

So, director, two questions.

Was there um councilman foley with all due respect?

This bid package has over three million dollars of taxpayer dollars in it.

And if we need to spend a little more time on it, so be it.

We we can move, we can move order the point of order solicitor.

The rules state we have 10 minutes.

If you want more time, you're gonna make a motion.

Got it.

And I'll be doing that if so needed.

Was there any pro uh no?

This was a question for the um finance director.

Was there any problem with the net way of doing this for the last three years?

We've made it work no, yes or no.

Was there any problems?

We've made it work.

Okay.

Um was there any stipulation from the insurance company that says you got to go from net to gross in order for us to guarantee the rates?

Or were the rates guaranteed and how we implement it is up to us?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the public?

Please thank you.

Ian Sheridan, Ward Nine.

I think this is really a huge um accounting issue.

But so one of the questions is am I not understanding that we might hire new five uh new firefighters this year in addition?

Didn't we have a fire school going on that we're bringing on new firemen?

And does these numbers account for any additional staff that could be coming in?

No, not sure.

I'm not sure I heard the question.

I'm sorry.

Does the amount of insurance cover any potential new staff coming into the city?

Well, the only staff that's on the books today.

No, we're not calculating for new staff.

I mean, but when staff come on, we do pay, but we're not projecting 20, 30, 40, 50 more people coming on.

We just did it on the basis of our census in August.

So my other question is when you issue a check to the insurance company.

I'm assuming the check is based on say if you pay it monthly, it's one twelfth of the premium.

Right.

And then in the accounting, you have you have an amount of funds that is for city employees, current city employees that get full full paid part of their compensation package.

The city pays for that.

Then there's an there's a second round of people where Municipal Police of Fire can get extra insurance for their spouse or whoever or themselves.

And then the third is the retirees that reimburse you for the insurance that they get.

Do you account for each of those sections on the city's books?

So you have separate GL numbers for each of those.

So the money comes in and comes out.

Um police life uh life insurance, municipal life insurance, and firefighter life insurance.

So we have three three line items, yes.

So the line items pass in and out.

So at the end of the year, the line items balance.

Oh, the two the two balance, and there's one there's one where the city's got to pay out directly.

So there's one obligation for the city and two to the two that just um balance out.

Well, we we hope at the end of the fiscal year that it they all come within budget.

I just think that the question could be simplified by general ledger accounts that just flow in and out so that you understand that at the end of the year the police the the the firemen that are with their retired that are reimbursing zero out that they're reimbursing that the police that are getting extra insurance are paying the extra insurance to the city so that you end up netting from a separate account that you can see and that they could present this to you.

It's just too confusing.

I'm sorry.

It's fine.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Councilman Nappa, to your point.

If this were to be approved, what they're talking about now, 123,111 per year, that's a monthly payment of 10,259.

If we go the way that was apparently um testified to working okay, um, it would be $372 a month.

So yeah, I see the cash out laid big and the return.

We don't know what the heck returns gonna be.

It's all based upon what you get.

Anyhow, um, I want to assign a PCR to this, and I believe it would be PCR 9925, Madam Clerk.

Okay, Councilman Napo, would you entertain a motion?

Or I can make a motion.

It would be go ahead and recommend a motion to amend to the net spend rather than the gross second.

Okay, solicitor.

So if you want to just send it no recommendation on the full council address it's all just recommendation, councilman Napa, it's your call.

Recommendation okay to make a motion to move to the full council with no recommendation.

Second or second okay, we have a recommendation to move PCR 99-25 to the floor without a recommendation.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

At this time, we will adjourn the finance committee to entertain the business at hand.

The time is 626.

We when we return, we'll be returning back to item five.

Purchase 2026.

No, I'm sorry, item four.

Purchase five Chevy Blazes.

Would the public properties committee please convene?

Public property.

Comes to order at six thirty PM.

First up, acceptance of minutes from committee meeting held on June sixteenth, twenty twenty five.

Do we have a motion?

Move favorable action.

Do we have a second?

All right.

Oh second.

Moved by Councilman Foley.

Seconded.

By Councilman Daily Wees.

All in favor?

Aye.

I four oh.

Okay, we have three items on the agenda.

We're just going to stick with the first one for now.

First item, PCO sixteen-twenty-five, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick.

Three kids LLC applicants.

This is sponsored by Councilman Day Louise.

It is inside Ward Four.

Do we have a recommendation to refer to the full council for public hearing?

So moved.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

The committee shall adjourn for now and pick up the remaining two items later.

The time is six thirty-one.

Thank you.

Mr.

Napi.

Mr.

Delouise.

Here.

Mr.

Boley.

Mr.

Gephott.

Here.

Mr.

Kirby.

Mr.

Latticeah.

Mr.

Muno.

Mr.

Napa.

Mr.

Riggs.

Here.

Nine present.

The very well rested Councilman Napa can re lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Oh see what sound leave the time.

And so first up, General Communications, announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Does anyone have anything for this?

See, none.

Oh, sorry, Councilman Gebhard.

I I just wanted to uh offer a moment of thanks to the to this city council as well as to our other elected officials.

Um Warwick Powell recently had their uh biggest fundraising effort of the year, and we had the support of the entire council as well as the entire Warwick delegation, and uh that means a lot, and it it goes to exactly the um kind of things that uh we should be supporting here are our youth and uh and athletics and uh and advancing the next generation.

So I want to thank you all uh for your support.

Councilman Lapser.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, congratulations on that good job, Councilman.

I would like to ask for a moment of silence for um one of our uh long-term employees of the city, um, also a friend.

Um, and that is for Ted Sano's brother who recently passed away um last week or so.

We all have a moment of silence, please.

Does anyone have anything else for this item?

All right, see none next is presentation of findings and recommendations regarding the school department and its finances by the Warwick Public Schools Budget Commission informational only.

As a reminder, that means uh the public and the council may not ask any questions for during or after this presentation.

However, uh I highly urge council members if they do have additional questions besides what we've already submitted prior, please write them down and we'll get them to the commission afterwards.

Whichever one you want.

Okay, we'll do it.

Thank you, Council President and members of the committee.

It's an honor to be here before you tonight.

I'm here today.

Uh I'm as the chairman of the school budget oversight commission.

Can you just state your name?

I'm sorry, because some people only hear the audio.

Okay.

My name is Ernie Ernie Almonti.

Thank you.

And I'm I am the chairman of the School Budget Oversight Commission.

I am here today with Sherry Kunz, who's the um vice chairman of the commission, and we're going to present information jointly, so in two different pieces.

So I will um start out with a few comments and then we'll switch to the vice chairman, and then um we'll answer all the questions that were related to us.

So if I could just for a second, so I know it'll happen sooner or later after put these glasses on now.

Um, first of all, I want to let you know we have five members of the commission and that worked on this since you you created this commission.

And I want everybody to know that besides just the time that we saw at our meetings, there were numerous hours on both meeting with on people in the school department, meeting with each other, reviewing documents.

There's a lot more than just what you saw.

It was sort of like a duck that you see going smoothly, but the feet under the water are moving really fast.

So we did a lot of work during this time.

But I especially want to call out our vice chair Sherry and Angie that worked on this commission because the two of them put a tremendous amount of time into what with what we did here, and they deserve to be recognized separately for the work that they did.

And I'm grateful to all the work that they invested in the time they put in.

I want to talk about process.

Um, I first of all, I can see why they were there was frustration as you move forward in the past, because even with us with the commission, there were several iterations of the budget that we received, constantly doing the work and getting new ones.

And as we talk to you tonight about the reasons for those, you'll see that the many of those will be corrected with the recommendations that we make um to you tonight, and that we make to the school committee.

The first thing is I I want to thank a few people.

Um Sue Baker, the um clerk.

I I've worked a long time in government, over 30 years.

I have to say, probably the best clerk I've ever worked with in my whole career.

She um is outstanding at the work she does, and she kept us on task and helped uh keep us uh in line with what we had to do.

But I'm truly outstanding, the best I've ever seen.

Lynn, your your treasure and finance director, mayor Bakosi, council president, um, councilman Latissa and Mudo.

Thank you very much for coming to our meetings and and asking questions and keeping us on task as well.

Um, Chairman Gallaghan, uh great opportunity to work with you and that's a trust and respect in you as well.

Superintendent McCaffrey, outstanding uh the trust we had with each other, the collaboration, information that was shared in the finance director, the new finance director, who to me is a star and uh a great find for all for the city of Warwick to have him here.

I think if this trust and collaboration that work with us carries over to you moving forward, this will be smooth sailing for the city as you move forward.

But there's three other people that I think are really important that I want to recognize before I get into the numbers.

Kayla Quirk, Yaman Rodriguez, and Kaylin Pole.

The three of them work in the WARC School Finance Department, and they're young professionals who did an outstanding job.

And really wanted to say to you that if you think about this, this is a 200 million dollar operation.

They did work without a leader in there for almost six over six months.

A great task.

And I've told them several times, and I'll say it to you in my whole career.

The things they learned in the last six months will probably benefit them for their whole career.

They've seen things that people didn't would never see in their career, sometimes 20 years.

They learned baptism by fire, how to handle a deficit situation, how to handle the finances.

But the three of them, they're gonna go places.

They did a really good job and want to recognize that.

I also want to recognize New England Tech because you wouldn't really know about this.

But during this process, and I only found out about this by accident.

There were two students that were going to New England Tech and the running start program, and it costs about $9,000 a piece.

New England Tech, realizing that the city of Warwick was dealing with the deficit in the school system, uh, waived the whole fee, $9,000 apiece.

That's $18,000.

And again, I found out about that by accident, but I think you all should know about it.

That's a community leader stepping forward to help their community.

And I thought it was a wonderful thing.

There's one other thing, um, and I know my whole career you never think in advance of action, but I talked to the CIO for the state of the state of Rhode Island, and the state, and he will come down and spend time with the IT department to go through all the expenditures that they have to see if there's any way they can reduce those expenses or run more efficiently in what they do, just sharing information and outstanding that they're willing to do that.

Now I'll talk to you about the budget, the numbers.

And what you'll see is we as we went through this process.

This our commission, remember what the law said that we couldn't touch anything that was payroll and payroll related, that was related to a contract, and we abided by that.

But I just want to let you know publicly, like I said at our meetings, and we all feel is that that really handcuffed us in doing our job.

So we would do we were working with a small percentage of the budget, the largest part of your budget is payroll and payroll related.

Couldn't touch that, but we could touch all the other areas.

We feel extremely confident in the numbers, all the other areas that we were asked to look at.

The rigor we put involved, the the documentation we reviewed, the questions that we we posed, we feel completely confident with the numbers.

So what I would tell you is right now the the deficit for the city is two million one hundred one thousand, three hundred and eighty-eight thousand.

That's the deficit for the school department based upon the budget that we uh recommended to that.

We're recommending to you.

So we went through all the other items.

We found it just give me one second, so I have the paper in front of me.

What we did is we looked at the total expenditures, and and our vice chair is gonna go in more detail on these, but on a high level, 201,442,000, 834,028.

Keeping in mind that major portion of that was payroll and payroll related, which we couldn't touch, but that's the total 201 million.

After we deduct all the revenues that come in, either from the city, the state, or other miscellaneous areas, it leaves a shortfall of 2,181,388 and 28 cents.

And we were fully supportive of this.

Take $2 million from the insurance fund to offset the deficit.

And but you have to remember that this is recurring expenses, and you're using one-time money to do that.

But it would be poor, it wouldn't be a good practice to fund that amount and have taxpayers pay for that amount when you have money sitting in a savings account.

So it did make sense.

Take this one-time money out of the insurance fund and offset part of those expenses.

There's also 152,000 in opioid money, which the city used to pay for a school expenditure, which is a recurring item, but you wouldn't have recurrent revenue.

And we have to keep in mind that there's a deficit, the one the big one that caused all this to take place in 20, the year end fiscal 25, that we've heard and we'll never know the exact number until the audit is done, is approximately $5 million.

So you have deficits from 23 and 24, a total of 1.2 million, roughly.

Approximately 5 million from 25.

Walking into this year, this would be another 2 million short.

And then keep in mind that going forward to the 27 budget, you won't have the $2 million again from the insurance company to take out of the savings.

And then we'll have to spread the $5 million deficit over five years.

That's another million.

So you're basically going to walk into year 27 with approximately $3 million 152,000 deficit before you even addressed payroll increases and things like that.

So just to summarize high level, and I'll turn over to Sherry, the vice chairman, high level.

You have 23 and 24.

23 originally was a surplus, but when the audit was done in 24, found out there was a mistake in 23, which turned 23 into a deficit.

24 was a deficit.

Combined, that was approximately 1.2 million.

25, which the audit isn't done, will be approximately $5 million.

We'll know for sure when the audit's done, which probably won't be until December 31st.

And then this shortfall right here, approximately 2.2 million.

And keep in mind, you don't have to deal with it today, but within the five-year plan, when we come back to you with a five-year plan, we're starting out 27, 3 million short in that year.

So I'm going to stop here.

We have more to tell you about, but we're going to stop there and turn it over to the vice chair to talk a little bit about the budget and process and findings.

So sure.

Thank you, Ernie.

Good evening, Council President, members of the council, and members of the public.

As Ernie said, my name is Sherry Koontz, and I'm the vice chair of the commission.

And I'm here this evening on behalf of the commission to provide an update on our work regarding the school department's finances and to share our observations and our recommendations.

It's not an exclusive list.

I just kind of pulled together the items that were of most concern and largely contributed.

Over the past five months, the commission has worked diligently with the administration to review the school department's budget, uh, financial practices, and long-term outlook, with our focus being on our goal.

Wait, sorry, this is awkward.

Okay.

Um with our focus being on our goal throughout this process to provide an independent objective assessment that supports fiscal responsibility, strengthens transparency, and ensures that public resources are being managed in a way that best serves our community.

Um it's important, I think, to recognize that the budget challenges that are facing the school department didn't arise overnight.

And historical budget overruns are driven by several recurring factors.

Um, rising personnel costs, unfunded mandates, the absence of timely and accurate financial data, a lack of strong financial oversight and financial skill, and decisions made without the benefit of reliable long-term forecasting.

Um, in some cases, short-term solutions have been used to close the gaps, but as we've seen, these approaches often defer the problem rather than resolve them.

Um, just as these issues developed over time, they're not going to be corrected overnight.

Um, strengthening internal controls, rebuilding fiscal discipline, and changing financial culture requires a sustained effort, leadership and accountability.

Um, our recommendations are designed to start that process by focusing on practical steps like strong written policies and procedures, routine reconciliations, clearer accountability for payroll and staffing changes, and standardized reporting.

That will that's what we think will build a stronger financial foundation for the school department.

Um with that being said, I'm gonna share some of the high-level things that um came out of our work so far.

The biggest component and the biggest thing that we saw that contributed to this issue was a lack of internal controls.

Um it's uh internal controls and strong internal controls, they're critical to organizations, school department included, um, because they help ensure accuracy and reliability and financial reporting.

It's essential, that's essential for budgeting and decision making.

Um, they identify issues early, such as unexpected costs or discrepancies.

They that that allows prompt proactive management.

You can make the change now instead of letting it spiral till the end of the year.

Um, they promote accountability across departments and staff.

You have a clear policy in place, you can hold people accountable.

You can say you're not going to do what's always been done because that's not the policy.

Um, and they protect public resources and they build trust with the city council, the taxpayers, and the community.

Um, in short, internal controls provide the foundation for responsible financial management.

In our review, we found that key areas such as payroll reconciliations, position control, and expenditure tracking do not have the level of oversight and documentation that BRECT best practices would require.

This lack of structure increases the risk of mistakes, inefficiencies, and in the worst case, misuse of funds.

Now I'd like to introduce an example to illustrate the impact of a lack of internal controls.

But I wanna reiterate something that the chairman said.

We were not allowed to touch compensation or look at those numbers.

However, when issues were brought to our attention, we were able to assess them and to make recommendations going forward to help ensure that those things do not happen in the future.

So with that being said, uh discrepancies were identified by the finance director between HR and payroll listings, two separate listings from two separate departments that's supposed to list everybody who's being paid by the department, did not agree.

And there were not concise discrepancies between the two.

So it's not as if one were missing a set and the other, it was both ways.

So the finance director spent a lot of time with his staff, I'm sure, reconciling those listings together.

At the end of that process, that resulted in approximately five million dollars in additional compensation and related expenses that needed to be added to the fiscal 26 budget.

So just let that sit in.

This made it clear to the commission that these listings had not been reconciled.

So historically, there's been inaccurate data being used to prepare your budget.

So it's no surprise that you've had overruns.

You're not, it's it's the old adage for lack of a better term, garbage in, garbage out.

Um, so just to further drive home that impact, if I haven't already, uh, this one occurrence can have comp um can have compensation related expenditures being salaries, wages, and benefits, they make up roughly 80% of the department's budget.

80%.

Um without strong internal controls in this area and others, uh, even small errors or inefficiencies can have a disproportionate impact on the overall budget, which is what we've seen.

Um I wanna be clear, these gaps are not a reflection of the dedication of the staff, but it's it's uh it's the systems in place that support them that are lacking.

Uh when internal controls are weak or missing, staff are left without the tools they need to manage public resources effectively and transparently.

Our recommendation to that point was that the school department prioritize establishing and enforcing stronger internal controls.

Um, we provided them a list of policies that we think are best practice, and it's our understanding that they have already started implementing those recommendations.

Um, tracking of grant funding and related expenditures to also include personnel related costs.

Um, the commission in working throughout this process, we identified that grant funds and their related expenses are not or have not historically been properly tracked.

So, what happens with that?

A large number of grant funds come with funded positions.

So if you're not tracking who's hired under a grant fund, it's impossible to tell when that grant expires which positions are also going to expire.

And what we've seen is that historically grant-funded positions were often continued even as the grants approach term um expiration, without sufficient analysis by the administration to determine how to absorb these costs within the department's budget.

Um, this practice has two significant impacts.

First, it creates unplanned financial obligations that constrain the general fund.

And second, it reduces the school department's ability to make informed staffing and budget decisions.

It's impossible to know where your general funds are being allocated if you can't parse out what's general funded, grant funded.

Um, without clear tracking and timely analysis of grant-funded positions, the risk of budgetary surprises increases.

It's no surprise.

Um, to address this, the finance department has developed a detailed spreadsheet that they're going to be using as a central tracking tool so that everyone is aware of what a grant is, how much the award is for, when it expires, if if it funds personnel, et cetera, and who those personnel are.

Um, furthermore, the department has also implemented a policy that the finance director and superintendent must review and approve any grants and the use of matching funds.

So that's accountability with respect to your grant-funded positions and grant funds in general because it's not just personnel, there's other expenditures that are included under the grants.

Um the last point I want to make for this high-level overview of the big issues is enhance budget to actual reporting.

Um, another area of concern identified by us was a lack of usable forecasting and analysis reports.

Currently, the budget to actual reporting doesn't provide the level of detail needed for effective financial oversight or proactive decision making.

Without timely and comprehensive data, it's it's extremely difficult to anticipate potential overages to adjust unexpected costs or to identify trends that could impact the department's fiscal health and to identify them promptly in the moment, not months later or at the end of the year when the audit's done and oh wow, we've we've got a deficit.

Um we recommend we've mentioned it.

Um I think I want to point out a lot of these policies we've recommended throughout the process.

Um we do plan as a commission to have a formal list of policies that we will formally vote on to hold the department accountable.

Um they have told us and we feel confident that they have started implementing these, but we just felt it was a better layer of um assurance to so to so to speak.

Um so that being said, with um we recommend the budget to actual reports be updated regularly to include for each line item current year spending, prior year spending, and the amount remaining in that budget line item to have a uh a clear reference to say, wait a second, we're getting close to what the approved budget was.

We might want to look at our spending, not just oh, we're on track with last year, because last year might have been a deficit.

Um I think um oh, I do want to point out tracking and management of technology related expenditures.

As Ernie touched on, um, having the chief information officer come out and take a look at technology expense would probably be a really good benefit because we do spend a lot on technology.

It's just the way of the world, it's the way of education.

It just you you can't get around it.

Um that being said, um, products are transitioning.

So software's now are becoming software as a service.

You're paying a subscription for software that in prior years you probably have purchased with a one-time fee.

Um, as these softwares evolve and these subscriptions continue, there's opportunity for overlap.

There's opportunity where one software might do something that two softwares do.

Um, so we recommend um and we spend a lot on technology subscriptions, a lot.

We we we being, I'm a work resident, so I say we, but the schools.

Um, as they continue to rise and software is continue to change.

We think it's a good idea to do in in a deep audit of your subscriptions.

Track usage.

If something's not being used, if they're buying 100 subscriptions and they're not using all hundred, re-evaluate.

So we're we do plan to recommend subscription management analysis and possibly an internal audit of all the subscriptions that um that the schools are currently purchasing.

Um so with that, I will I think turn it over to the chairman and we can start addressing some of the questions, which I probably already addressed in this, but some of the questions that we received from some of the council members earlier uh this week.

Okay, thank you.

Um if you don't already know, she's a Warwick resident, so you have a treasure right in your backyard that understands the stuff very well.

It's fabulous addition to this.

I I credit the school committee for naming her because she's absolutely outstanding on this commission.

A few things the vice chair mentioned about things like payroll.

If you think about the payroll piece, um, and talked about the five million dollars off.

I talked about that earlier about those several iterations you have.

We thought we were close to getting the numbers close to zero.

And the next thing you know, you find out the payroll's off by five million dollars.

And it's been important to know that certainly understand in a time of crisis, people are making decisions in the leadership position, but hire outside contractors to do the work in is about sixty thousand dollars outside contractors to come up with numbers that were we're off by five million dollars.

You're better off not spending the money and let us find it on our own.

But we wasted several weeks going through this number to find out that the numbers were wrong and the city had to pay that money.

Um, it would have been better off not spending that money.

I think it's we need to say that.

Um, the Munis system, you should know that this is the accounting software, budgeting, payroll, all that information.

The city side, the administrative uh side of the city uses MUNIS, and the school used something different.

But they did sign the contract to work with Munis last year, which is wonderful.

It's a real good system, and it'd be great that the two are working together.

But you all should be very much aware that in the year 2025, this the school department spent 260,000 on this and didn't use it.

So it's 260,000, you pretty much just burned without getting any value whatsoever.

But in 26, the number is about 340,000.

And I know I did this without looking.

So the first one was 260.

This one's 340, uh, 200, 340,000.

But the good news is they've already started training.

They're using this program.

And I'm telling you, this will be a great addition to the school department and accountability, transparency, the information you get.

But I thought you should know that the 262 got no value last year.

That's a lot of money.

And 340 this year, I think get great value out of it.

There'll be some hiccups.

There always is when you change software from one to another, there'll be some hiccups in that, but you should know that.

And um, the vice chair mentioned about we're gonna talk about in our next meeting, which is this week on Wednesday, the possibility of um um having a performance audit.

Remember, we couldn't touch the payroll and payroll related issues, but strongly feel that there's an area that you should take a deeper dive into.

So we're gonna look at making a recommendation to have a performance audit done on the a few things.

They'll look at these areas.

One would be class size, utilization of our buildings, redistricting, employee count related to a declining student population.

So instead of having someone who this isn't their field, look at having a performance order, people who are skilled in this area to take a look at this.

So all of you could walk away saying, Hey, I had an independent body look in these areas, we're either doing well or we're not, because we do see declining uh student population and the cost is going up.

So everybody has legitimate reason to ask a question, why would that be?

One of the best ways you can find that out is by having this performance audit done.

So we're going to discuss that at this week's meeting.

And um, we would look for the city side to pay for the performance audit, and don't know what it is yet because we didn't have a meeting, but that is something we really feel should take place.

Um, I'm gonna go back to you, Vice Chair, because there's more that we want to share with you.

Um do you want me to go through the questions?

Yes, please.

So I'm gonna start with Councilman Um Gebberhardt's questions, and I hope I said your name correctly.

So if I can, Vice Chair, just uh a quick thing.

We thank you very much for sending those questions to us ahead of time as we ask because you can ask us whatever you want, but we always felt we wanted to give you the answer, not an answer.

And by giving it to us ahead of time, we were able to do some research so we get you the answer to your question.

So just want to make sure.

As an auditor, um, we're both auditors as auditors.

We always want to make sure we give you an answer based on fact.

So the first question from Councilman Gabrihart was Did the Commission look at any areas that were not within the scope of changes that could be made, but our material to the school department budget were any personnel expenses reviewed?

If so, what were the key observations?

Well, I already touched on that with the internal control, that was a big one.

Um, so some a couple other things that came up um that weren't really related to reviewing those items, but were done on like a high-level cursory um approach.

So the original budget, like one of the very first days of the commission, both um one of the other commissioners and myself, uh Angie and I, we both looked at FICA and Medicare, and those are pretty easy amounts to recalculate pretty easily because they're standard rates, so 6.2% and 1.45.

So individually, so we knew it was correct when we both brought it up to each other.

We recalculated it and we saw that the amount that was included in the budget for those expenses um were slightly higher than the standard rates uh coming in at 6.533% and 1.61.

Um, so I'm sorry, 6.61.

My apologies.

Um, so we recommended that they they look at these our calculations to see if our assumptions were correct.

And the answer was yes, your assumptions are correct, and they reduced um the 6.9 FICA, 6.9 million in the budget for FICA and the 1.7 million for Medicare down to 6.8 at 1.6 million.

So that was a pretty simple fix, just a math error.

Nothing got cut, nothing got changed.

It was just a recalc.

Um, yeah.

If I can, just to add to that, um at this stage, what I'm here to do is provide color.

Never thought in order to ever provide color to uh statements that were made.

But I want to just engage to look at this number um in this process.

What a fine-tuned fully functioning finance department, this would have been an easy find.

When we sat in a meeting and did a quick back of the envelope calculation and realized it was off, that's how easy it is for people that are trained to look at these things.

This never should have come to us off by that much money.

So just want to make you aware of it.

But remember, when we are talking about these things, these things are prior to the current finance director that you have.

Don't ever want the two to be cross.

And it's he's outstanding at what he does and was not responsible for that.

Um, so one other item to know um to answer that question.

Uh, we recommended that the finance department review the recent actuarial report for the wise pension contribution, because I think there might have been some confusion along the way about having to put in a prior contribution.

And it's known that when you have the actual actuarial report or calculation for the pension, it's an estimated contribution based on past events and where the plan sits today to keep it at a certain funded status.

So we recommended that they look at that report that they pay for to determine what the estimated anticipated contribution would be for the pension at this point in time.

And I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that reduced that number by was it close to the million?

It was a little bit over a million.

So what happened was there was conversation about making up those dollars amount, a dollar amounts that were not contributed.

But an actuary actually calculates that number to make sure you make up those numbers and spread it over time.

So by asking the actuary to run the numbers and look at how do you make them whole again, even though you missed a few payments, they change the dollar amount you have to put into the plan.

And that's why we use that number based upon an independent body, an actuary telling us what the number should be, as opposed to people saying put an extra million in or an extra 750 in.

Then the that fund over time, based on the actuary will be fully funded.

There's no there's not a chance that they'd be short because as long as you make the annual contributions, you will.

And those annual contributions were recalculated by the actuary.

So we feel 100% confident in that number that's in that budget.

Um, so the next question uh was one of the stated objectives was to compare peer per pupil costs to other like districts, and what were the core differences between us in Cranston, East Providence, others observed, and what can be done uh to bring us in line.

So I did provide the council a presentation that Ride had presented us because they harvest all of the UCOA data from the district, so all of their accounting data.

And there's an interactive website where you could drill down and learn way more than you've ever wanted to know about school district finances.

Um, but uh if you take a look at that, one of the high level one of the one of the things that stuck out was, and it's no surprise the out of district spending to North Kingstown.

Um Warwick spends 982,000 as of fiscal 24, which was most recent data available, um, in a total of 2.7 million on that uh printout.

Uh Cranston spends 45,000 of 772,000, and East Providence spends zero out of 232,000.

Um, the administration is well aware of the high cost that we spend to send kids to North Kingstown.

Um, they it's kind of considered one of those unfunded mandates because there's not really a whole lot that the district can do to stop it, or so they think.

But I think one of the things um that we have talked about is maybe it's a good idea for the district to analyze why are so many kids going to North Kingstown.

Forget what they say, what's the real reason?

And maybe if it's sports, we need to look at our sports programs and we need to maybe invest a little bit more in those programs to have those kids come back here and draw in some other kids so that instead of us spending the 982,000, we're getting the 982,000.

It's it's it's that outside the box thinking that would probably really help.

Because at the end of the day, you can't, it's it's it's tough to tell the kids they can't go to the other districts for whatever program they're going for.

Um if I could, Vice Chair, just to jump in on this one.

So this one's really important where a lot of people frown upon if we use the words if you run it like a business.

But let's talk about if you run this like a business.

Let's say, for example, you which is true, you have seven girls from work play in North Kingston's soccer team.

So they go to school there, and you have to pay, let's say, 20,000 apiece for each one of those schools, pay that to North Kingstown times seven is 140,000.

If me, I'm running this like a business, and it's the coach.

Let's say we do a survey, we find out it's the coach.

Well, as many people would get upset about it, I'd pay a coach 50,000 more than he's making to come here and get all of them to come back to school here, and you'd still save a lot of money.

Or it let's put it a different way.

Let's say let's use an example.

Um, Rhode Island College started cybersecurity program.

What if you started a uh continue uh a CTE program on cybersecurity, partner with Rhode Island College, and maybe get kids from other towns coming to this city and paying you the fee to come here, and if as long as that fee exceeds your cost, that's a good deal.

But it's thinking differently.

We can't do things the same way it's always been done.

Let's start thinking a little bit differently how to how to reduce costs or increase revenues.

So back to you.

Um so to further the CTE costs.

So that's the cost just to pay to send the kids out of district um throughout our process and through our finance director and the administration and the work that they did, it was identified that um we had historically been paying Warwick's per pupil rate, which is the tuition rate that's calculated by ride for every city and town in the state of Rhode Island or any um LEA and educational agencies, not just cities and towns, but your charter schools and what have you.

They calculate a per pupil expenditure rate.

I mean, uh a per pupil rate for tuition.

And Warwick's is is quite high.

I think it's about 24,000.

Um comparatively, North Kingstown's about 16,000.

Uh, we had historically been paying our rate, the 24,000 to North Kingstown.

Um the administration identified that there's actually legislation that clearly states that that rate should be the average of both the sending and receiving district.

So that would resulted in an adjustment to the budget for those students and a fix going forward, where now we're not sending more than they should to um North Kingstown.

And the cause of that is is chalked up to a lack of controls.

Nobody in the department before had identified that that legislation existed.

Um that's just a real eye-opener, I guess.

So that was that was uh to I think Mr.

Uh Councilman Lottisor's question was what was an aha moment?

That was one of them.

Um next on that list of per people expenditures was technology, which we already talked about, the software.

So um one thing I will point out when you look at that ride uh pamphlet, it stuck out to the chairman and I immediately when we looked at that technology spend about 1.8 million compared to I think it was 500,000 for Cranston and maybe 400 for East Providence.

That's significant.

So that prompted us to immediately have a meeting with the administration to say we're gonna go through wants versus needs, because something's in here that might be a little bit outrageous.

And in doing that, we identified the majority of them seem to be ride-mandated subscriptions.

And so the cause of that fluctuation seems to be partly classification differences.

So where Warwick codes something might be different to where Cranston and East Providence, even though they're following UCOA, ride had made the comment that districts are doing the best they can.

So we did go through that, and the results of that, we did um not us, but the administration identified a software uh totaling about 42,000 that was not really used and not many people liked it.

So they agreed to cut that out.

So that was a uh key takeaway from that data, saved uh 42,000.

So if I could, because the vice chair used a term UCOA, and I'm not sure you all know what that is, but that's the uniform chart of accounts.

So that's so you could compare apples and apples if you compare one city to another city.

That's the reason for that.

I was the auditor general at the time.

We created UCOA, but I thought in case you have Ron Jeopardy, you would want to know what it meant.

It's United, it's uniform chart of accounts.

And so you can compare apples to apples.

Um, and that's what we did here.

But you also hear some people say that part of the reason why the cost is higher for the city of Warwick to some of these other cities is because they pay Social Security and others do not.

But to me, you got to look a little deeper.

That's why I think a performance audit would be a good idea.

You have to look a little deeper because those other communities that don't pay Social Security tend to pay a higher salary to make up the difference.

So you still should be comparing apples and apples.

One did it with payroll, one did it with paying social security.

So either way, they're both making up the difference in there.

Um you want to take the next question for Mr.

Only if you could tell me what it is.

I didn't do the either.

Okay, so the next question on this is um what contract terms should be the highest priority for upcoming contract negotiations with um with the teachers union.

And um uh we talked about this.

Sherry and I spent a lot of time going through these questions, and we really feel this is beyond the scope of what we were asked to do, because remember, we were we were told not to touch that area, so it's beyond our scope.

But again, doing a performance audit would let you know those areas that would be either too much money that should be talked about or not.

Um, I know anecdotally heard a little bit about um the sick time, and I would say maybe you'll look at whether it's sick time or whether you put people on T or have TDI to do that.

That could be a question in the performance order.

Ask that question and say, do you save money or do you not save money?

And then that's a negotiable item that you could work with.

But we feel it's outside our scope to deal with anything in the contract.

Um, it says has been the next one.

Um, it says has been it has been said the grant federal funding creates expense revenue recognition issues due to the delay variability of reimbursements for Medicare, Medicaid expenses.

What was reviewed in this area?

Um, and what enhancements are in place to improve visibility to this.

Well, just so you know, again, we keep saying what a treasure they they have by hiring the finance director, the new finance director has already identified issues in this area and as a skill set to address the identified expenditures that were excluded from reimbursements that should have been included.

He addressed it in the first week that he came here.

So you jump right on that one right away.

The next one is what grant funded positions, if any were retained beyond the funding available.

Have these been removed, alternative funded and secured, and what are the next steps?

And we talked about process improvements, employee grant controls will address this, incorporating finance and superintendent in the grant approval process.

The reason why we said that is grants were being approved, not at the finance director and the superintendent level, which is where they should be.

That's one of the process improvements the vice chair mentioned that we talked to them and they will be instituting here.

Because every grant, when you read a grant throughout my whole career, if I've seen you get a grant and I'll make it up.

Say it's for a million dollars to hire 10 people at 100,000 a year.

Everyone in the business knows you tell all the employees, I've got enough money to pay your salary for one year, two years, whatever it is, and at the end of that one year or two years, you don't have a job.

That's unless we get another grant.

That wasn't being done here, number one, and number two.

So I could ask for I can come back and say, I'm really excited, I got a million dollar grant.

Oh, by the way, the city's gonna kick in 250,000.

Well, you should know that ahead of time before you allow someone to apply for a grant and get a grant to know what the commitment is.

So those processes uh are involved, uh been recommended and already being executed by the superintendent and the finance director.

I'm gonna I'm sorry for the walking back and forth.

The next one given back to the vice chair.

And uh to further touch on the grants a little bit more, um, not just knowing what the match is, but really understanding what the requirements are when you're accepting the grants.

Um, we just recently had purchases brought to us for approval through grant funding um that were for travel reimbursements for um enhanced airline seats.

Uh and the federal guidance when you accept federal awards, even if they're passed through from the state, you still have to abide by the federal guidance, um, specifically states that you have to purchase the cheapest seats available.

Um, so not abiding by that may never come up, may never be identified by the oversight boards, the US Department of Ed.

But if they did that jeopardizes our current funding, it means that the Department of Ed could ask for prior funding back, or they could deny future funding.

So it's very important to update the policies to make sure that they're in alignment with what the federal guidance is because that's what you're agreeing to abide by when you accept the funds.

And I will say that immediately the finance director updated the travel policy to reflect the specific language and the guidance.

And so it's a good example of immediate action and going forward as long as these things are continuing, we will be in better shape.

Um so the next question from Councilman Gabrihart is what financial controls have been implemented at the direction of the budget commission and what impact should we see from these controls.

Um we haven't formally approved or um yeah, approved the implementation of any um policies.

I think that will probably be the next meeting, if not the one after that.

Certainly as soon as that happens, but high level um we've already got over the grant tracking, reconciliations of payroll, reconciliations of your two reports from HR and payroll and implementing better budgeting uh tools.

And keep in mind that all of these controls will help to reduce the chance that this would happen again over spending on the budget.

Next question was what is the status of the immunist implementation?

How does this simplify a streamline integration with city finances?

I mentioned this a little bit earlier, but just very quickly.

And we do know that the city, um, the school department has already started training.

And as I mentioned before, just keep in mind there's a lot put on them.

They gotta they have to handle paying their expenses and um running the school department and institute and software.

Whenever I see in software throughout my whole career, there's always a hiccup in there.

So there might be some, but I think you got the right team in there with the training, they'll get it going.

And it'll probably take this full year before things are running smoothly by using new software.

Um the next one was uh are the areas you sought to review, but you were unable to either due to limitation of time or bandwidth.

Um we had no restriction based on time or bandwidth, as I mentioned to you.

Um from myself, the vice chair and Angela.

We came to the school department, we spent weekends, nights, and did all we reviewed all kinds of things.

Um, nothing would stop us from doing our job.

So that is not the case.

The only one is that I mentioned the beginning, the statute that created us had a big cave out in there.

That would be the only one, but that's not your question.

Yeah.

So this is easy because we wrote this is easy for us because we wrote down me and Ernie, so we know who to hand it to and so um the next question what were your key learnings and aha moments?

We've already touched on those.

It was the um the calculation of the FICA and Medicare was uh was because of how easy it was, that was a real like brain scratcher for lack of a better term.

And the other one was just the overall just lack of policies and procedures and controls.

Um I I don't know if um the chairman has anything to add, but I think it's one of the things that we realized out of all this is keep in mind this problem um from a high level was not a not a problem based on lack of revenue, it was based on lack of controls.

If you had the right controls in place, they would have developed this trust between the council, the city side, and the school, even the school committee.

The school committee, in fairness to them, they weren't getting the right information presented to them just as a change for all of you, it was change for them.

So I would say to you that it's the controls that was the issue, the right controls, developing trust, having accountability, having the right reporting mechanism, catching things early so you could stop them so they don't spiral out of control.

That's really the problem here.

And now it's just making up for past deficits and moving forward and instituting these controls in place.

So back to you.

Um so the I think it's the last question is what what does the Warwick School Department need to focus on for the next three to five years to ensure a successful financial future?

First and foremost, again, like a broken record, implement strong internal controls and policies.

Um, and and I think it's important to know they're not set it and forget it.

So it should be a continuous process.

Um, there should be a mechanism for review and assessment.

Hey, something that is a best practice didn't really work for us.

How can we make it better?

Um, there needs to be a process for that too.

Um, the other thing that I think people fail to realize when there's financial issues and organizations um is you really need to maintain a strong finance department and do what you can.

You have a very good department.

I audit a lot of organizations, and your finance director is one of the best I've worked with.

So maintain your finance department.

And then if I could just to add to that, 100% correct, but it also involves mentoring, which would be provided, mentoring, leadership, which you have in this individual and training.

Those things will help develop a stronger.

You have young professionals in there really stood up and did great things with little.

With a little proper training, they're going to be superstars.

I think they already are.

They've learned a lot.

But yes, I was just going to say that.

Do what you can to keep them and to continue to invest in them because it's very hard to find people who are qualified and also have the ambition and the dedication.

And you've you've got that.

So and then the last thing I would add is continued collaboration and transparency with the city.

And I think ongoing communication and collaboration and the transparency is essential.

It ensures a shared financial interest.

Everybody's on the same page.

There's no surprises, there's no tension.

It's it's I think it's paramount to make it work.

Um that's it for Mr.

Gabriel Hart's question.

So and we have more questions.

Yeah, you have I have yours.

Oh, it's on this one.

We plan on standing right next to each other, but no, with this, no, no.

These are no this so you're one, two, and three.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yeah, I figured it'd be easier for you if we were at two separate ones, but forgot we only have one set with the answers.

Um, the first one, if the commission's hands weren't tied by enabling legislation, what would be the additional actions taken and proposed by the commission, including the following salary reductions, school closures, elimination of staffing positions, increasing the size of classrooms, reducing staffing through attrition.

I would say all of those, we would apply the same rigor that we apply towards all the other expenditures.

All of these would be on the table if we were doing that.

So, but even if you gave us the opportunity to do that, I understand and I follow collective bargain agreements.

I know part of that is negotiation.

So that would be the process.

But we would raise all those issues.

And in the future contracts, because that was a previous question, they all should be talked about.

But I think if you had a performance audit and had the data to back it up, then you have a valid reason why you're saying you want to make these changes because it's based on facts.

The next one was um if the city of council approves additional funding for the fiscal year, will that automatically be added to the maintenance of effort?

Which I was strong.

Uh well, I'm gonna add the actual, I won't add the extra piece.

But um whether city, if the does it add to maintenance of effort.

So let me explain maintenance of effort for you.

If you uh let's say previous years deficits, if you fund those, that does not add to maintenance of effort.

The way the, and I'm not a lawyer, I'm a CPA, I've done audits in this space.

I'm speaking as an auditor, not as a lawyer.

But what happens is years over, you have a deficit, you fund that, that's not maintenance of effort.

You like the one we're talking about now, the two million dollar shortfall, you fund that now, that becomes maintenance of effort.

That would not be our recommendation, anyways.

You'll hear at the end.

But if you do fund it now fully, that would become maintenance of effort.

The next one is if city council does not approve the 2.2 dollar request for additional funding by the school department, what is the recommendation from the budget commission to the school department to balance their budget for fiscal year 2026?

Um, keep it in mind, as I mentioned, that we couldn't touch the payroll piece.

To me, you you have a few options.

Number one, you could fund it, keep it in mind if you did fund it, that adds to maintenance of effort.

Number two, if you don't fund it, which is not a bad option, if you really think about this.

If if you didn't fund it, and you allowed the city the school department to spend according to the budget that we recommend, but always searching and looking for through attrition in other areas to reduce expenditures, that 2.2 million with them, the school committee can make changes that we couldn't make, so they could make changes, and the superintendent and the finance director can make changes throughout the year.

So let's just say, for example, we're saying this budget is 2.2 million short.

If you said I'm not going to fund it, because it is an option, so we have to talk about that.

If you say I'm not going to fund it, and you say I want you, the school department to look at avenues to reduce costs further.

Who knows?

Maybe at the end of the year, by finally cuts to attrition, people leaving, they could get that 2.2 million down to 1.8 million, and then you can fund that at the end of the year.

But now you'll know that the school side did extra effort to reduce that number, and you could still fund it.

I mean, we all know you as a council, a mayor, um, you have a lot of other interests you have to solve.

You have police flyer, public works.

It's not just school.

Everyone has to understand that that you have a lot to balance.

And um, so the school department, it could be put on them to try to find other avenues.

And there's like I can go to a low level.

Let's say we talked about even in a commission about purchasing purchasing of um let's say supplies, bring it up to the finance director level, bring it up to a higher level because what's happening is you have some teachers and some personnel that want to buy from Amazon, someone might want to buy from WB Mason.

And let's just say, for example, they spend 10,000 here and 10,000 WB Mason.

But then what we talked about it, and and if you talk to one of them, they say I'll give you a discount anything above 10,000.

Well, why don't you spend all 20,000 at WB Mason and get the discount instead of doing 10 here and 10 here?

Those decisions of purchasing shouldn't be at any other level other than the finance director level.

So it should be up at that level so they could figure out how to save money by purchasing in bulk or maybe even combining purchasing with the city side to reduce uh expenses.

And uh I'm going to take number five on this page.

Number four is you, but I'll do five and then we'll give it up to you.

Um, so number five is what action, if any, will be taken by the commission or the auditor general with regards to the school department filing a balanced budget for fiscal years 23, 24, 25, when that was not the case.

Well, we have no power like I would say for us as a commission, we don't have the power to institute anything that they didn't have a balanced budget.

What would happen is I know the mayor is looking at addressing 23 and 24, the shortfall in 2023 and 2023 and 2024, that 1.2 million in total.

So I'll leave that to the mayor to decide what he's gonna propose to you what to do with that number.

And for 25, we actually don't know what that number is until the audit's done by the auditors, which you won't get until December 31st.

So it's in my whole career, I don't deal with hypothetical things.

We don't know what that number is.

But think about it.

We don't you didn't give us the power, we don't have the power to do anything with that.

So that would be at the state level, and I would leave that to the council here and um the auditor general.

But I know in conversations, I was the auditor general for 17 years, so I kind of know how they think there.

I know in the auditor general's office, it basically is put controls in place, reduce the chance this would ever happen again, and and develop a five-year plan.

That's generally been the cost throughout my whole career before me and continues on.

Because remember, we have we have children to educate here, and that's important to keep in mind.

We have to educate the children.

So uh okay.

So question number four uh would be Would the Commission recommend quarterly in-person reports be presented to the city council by the school department finance director at specific city council meetings?

We think that that would definitely increase transparency.

We would absolutely um recommend that.

Um providing timely updates on prevent um the financial performance, it creates an opportunity for early identification of issues before they snowball into bigger issues.

Um meeting regularly, the district and the city could be better positioned to address issues such as revenue shortfalls, expenditure variances, unexpected financial pressure um from mandates, uh, rather than waiting until the end of the year and taking an after-the-fact approach, because you can't really fix it once it's already been done.

Um, this collaborative approach approach would also allow both entities to adjust priorities, make informed decisions, and ensure for fiscal resources are aligned with the community's needs throughout the year.

Um the budget commission uh will discuss formally recommending that to the district.

Um, and and we think quarterly meetings are definitely a good idea.

So next, uh okay.

So will the budget commission be recommending any mandatory state or city oversight, time-sensitive financial reports or other financial accountability to the city and the city council.

I thought that one aligned uh pretty good with the prior question.

So uh the state legislation, uh, I mean, the legislation that created the budget commission already built in state oversight by requiring the auditor general to approve the deficit reduction plan.

Uh, beyond this, that the commission would not recommend any additional mandatory state oversight.

Adding another layer just it shifts the focus away from problem solving and collaboration towards compliance and bureaucracy, and that's never a good thing.

Um, so through the budget commission process, the city and the district have already begun addressing long-standing issues and building a more collaborative relationship.

It's it's been pretty um remarkable to see.

Uh additional state involvement could hinder this progress rather than support the positive momentum that's underway.

Uh, for that reason, local control should remain the focus.

Um, as the school district and city leaders are closest to the issues and they're the best position to make timely informed decisions.

Um, and I I think personally to further strengthen um transparency and collaboration in the community, considering community input uh would also probably be a good idea.

Uh nobody knows your district better than your teachers, your paraprofessionals, your parents, and maybe even some of your students.

Like it might be a good idea to reach out and have some type of collaboration with them to see what's going wrong and use that information um to make decisions.

Uh the next question was please provide a spreadsheet showing the proposed budget for fiscals 27, 28, 29, and 30, assuming the council approves the 2.2 million dollars.

And if they don't, um, this is going to be incorporated into the five-year plan, which has not been presented to the commission.

Uh, we've been focusing for the last five months on the fiscal 26 budget.

Uh, the next step now is to address that five-year plan.

So that's in the works.

And so you know we requested from the finance director to develop that first phase of the five-year plan and present it to us.

You know, that's their department, they give it to us.

Then we'll review the same way we did with this, line by line, year by year, and go over that plan.

Understanding that we know we need this estimated five million dollar deficit in 2025.

We'll know the real number and the audit stone, but say it's five million, which is a number that's been presented to us somewhere around 5 million.

That's a million a year that has to go into that budget.

We know the $2 million that came from the insurance is one time money.

That's gonna have to be built into the first year, the year 27, that I told you would be roughly 3 million in the whole, 3 million 152,000 in the whole day one on that budget.

But we'll walk that into the plan.

Uh but the plan is going to be generated first from the school finance department and then reviewed by the commission, not us preparing.

We're not doing that.

They want to prepare.

Um, the last question: what is the average cost per student um to educate in Warwick as compared to the rest of the state?

I also provided that breakdown for um, I believe it was the fiscal 24 cart, it's the current year that they have, um, both per pupil expenditure.

So that's district wide per total number of students.

Um, again, calculated by ride.

And then there's another calculation that's done by ride, it's the special ed cost per student.

So that takes it drills into that UCOA and it identifies all the special ed specific costs versus um the number of students receiving those services, and it provides that um rate as well.

So just to point out, Warwick for the per pupil expenditure.

So again, that's total per student is about 25,526 per pupil.

The lowest district is Cumberland at 17,011.

And then the highest, they it's not district, but education agency is the Rhode Island School for the Deaf at 12,691.

So the range is pretty large.

I think Warwick's tends to be on the higher side, but certainly not the highest, obviously.

Um, and there's so many things that go into it.

Um, the chairman mentioned, like just the social security taxes.

So there's some districts that don't pay that.

Warwick does.

Um, so it's really hard to pinpoint and use that as a driver, I would say of an analysis.

It certainly helps, but there's so much more data that goes into that that it wouldn't be it wouldn't be prudent to just use that number, I believe.

Um to point out comparatively, Cranston is 20,637 and East Providence is 23,222.

So Warwick certainly higher than those, but not by a significant amount.

Um, on the special ed side, uh, Warwick's about 85,054.

And again, that's special ed cost specifically per student receiving services.

Cranston, 84,824, and East Providence is 101,656.

That one's an even harder number to really use, and you probably shouldn't because every student is different.

So every student's services are completely different.

It's not an apples to apples.

Um it's it would be very difficult to use those numbers as a baseline for any real analysis, I would think.

And the other thing too is this is a perfect time, the five-year plan for the school department, the school committee to think strategically.

How do you go through those next five years?

Are we still looking at student population declining?

Do we have buildings that need major improvements set up that you have to fund?

Does it make sense to make those major improvements?

Does it make sense to lease space from somewhere else that's cheaper as you move forward?

So I think what has to happen.

Um I've always said throughout my career, I should never let a crisis go to waste.

This is a great opportunity to look at everything and think differently and how you run operations and say, could I provide high quality education in a different form of delivery?

And that includes everything.

Looking at class size, looking at redistricting, looking at um the CTE programs, and um, and all the things we discussed tonight.

All those things should be thought about.

You have nine months until next year.

So nine months, you can start working on a strategic plan.

If you do a performance audio, you'd also have some additional facts to base it on, and it'd be a great opportunity to do some future thinking.

To me, and the close out the comments on this piece is um truly having oversight.

You should have accountability, you should have insight and you should have foresight.

The accountability portion is all the controls that the vice chair talked about.

The insight is the accountability portion where they're communicating with the council and the mayor's office, the finance directors, quarterly meetings, uh what you spent this year compared to what you spent last year, roll forward.

What does this look like to the end of the year?

Stopping things before they spiral out of control.

That's all insight.

And then foresight is that five-year plan.

And it's not just running the numbers in a spreadsheet and saying add four percent to all these things.

It's actually looking how could we do it differently in a more efficient manner and provide a high level education in a more efficient manner.

That's what should be involved in overthinking all of this accountability, insight, and foresight.

Anything else?

Okay.

So we told you what the number was.

We gave you all the information.

We believe we answered all your questions.

Um, Mr.

President, I don't know if there's anything else that you want from us to answer questions or whatever you want us to do.

Okay.

That's what I understood.

So we're done with our presentation, except for the vice chair has uh a final comment to make.

So um, it might be a little repetitive, but I thought it was important to say it myself.

Um, so on behalf of the commission, I just want to recognize really emphasize the dedication and professionalism of the new finance director, Mr.

Craig Enos.

We're very, very lucky as a city to have him to help us out with this mess.

Um, taking on the new role during a period of significant budget challenges and while the budget commission was being formed, required exceptional commitment and leadership, which shouldn't go unnoticed.

Um, I'd also like to acknowledge the dedication of the members of the finance team as the chairman mentioned, Kayla Quirk, Yarmain Rodriguez, and Carlisle Vinson.

They really did step up when they had limited leadership during the transition, and they did a wonderful job, and they continued to do a wonderful job assisting us throughout the process.

Um, equally, I want to acknowledge the new superintendent, Mr.

Bill McCaffrey.

He stepped up, he showed up and he worked really hard and tirelessly uh to answer our questions, even if some of them were, I'm sure redundant.

Um, uh, provide us data that we asked for in a timely fashion, and um to help enhance our understandings of the school department's um operations and financial challenges.

Um, everybody was super transparent.

They they withheld nothing.

It was it was very it made our jobs very, very easy.

Um, so the efforts of these individuals and identifying discrepancies, reconciling data, and providing timely information were really invaluable.

Um, the insights and support provided allowed us to perform a thorough and accurate review of the school department's financial operations, and we're all very, very grateful for their dedication, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.

Um in closing, uh, throughout this, the chairman and myself both obviously we are very committed to the community.

So we decided that we would like to um donate the money that we earned for this job back to the schools.

So we've brought um checks.

We would just kindly have you tell us, probably, Mr.

Gallaghan, uh, how we make them out.

So and Sean Gallagher, it's Sean Gallaghan.

Just tell us who we make them out to.

Um, so other than that, that is it.

Thank you for your time.

And if you guys have any other questions, I think you all know how to contact myself and the chairman will be happy to answer them, whatever you need.

So thank you all, and thank you for what you all do.

Thank you very much to both you and apparently happy birthday to Miss Kunz, who showed up here for hours on her birthday.

Thank you.

I wouldn't want to spend it any other way.

No.

Next in our docket is acceptance of minutes from the council meeting held on August 18th.

Is there any objection to approving those minutes as presented?

Seeing none, so approved.

Uh next, we have public comment rule 41 after general communications and prior to 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 subject to the following stipulations.

The total period of time for public comment shall not exceed 30 minutes.

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 more than six citizens are signed up and present, that 30 minutes will be split evenly amongst speakers.

Time shall not be transferable amongst speakers.

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

City council members will not respond to questions during the public comment period, and the public comment period session will terminate at the expiration of the earlier of all speakers speakers concluding their a lot of time or 30 minutes.

Waiver of this provision requires unanimous vote of the council.

Okay.

So we'll come back to the first name because I don't see him.

Uh so first we'll start with I apologize in advance for any pronunciation failures.

Uh there are six people signed up, by the way.

Uh Danielle Dubai.

Sorry, good evening, Council President and members of the council.

My name's Danelle Duby, and I live at 99 Midgley Ave, the last home on the shoreline path that has historically served as the most direct route to the water in my house.

This path runs through Safe Harbor Marina Apenog, and its new owners are blocking long-standing historic access.

Homes lined Midgley Ave decades before the marina was ever built, including mine, built in 1914 and always accessible via Midgley Av.

Arnold's neck plat was platted in 1909 by Herbert Caliph.

And in 1911, Calliffe donated Arnold's neck to the city of Warwick as a public park.

In his will, he said that if Warwick ever decided to no longer maintain Arnold's neck, Midgley Ave would always remain a public highway to the shore.

In recent weeks, the Warwick Beacon has reported on the obstructions at Midgley Ave.

I want to thank Senator McKenney, Representative Bennett, and Councilman Kirby for meeting with CRMC to begin the process of formally recognizing this corridor as the right of way that it's always been for over a century.

But right now, my house and the beach does not have adequate emergency access.

The fire department has said they could push through if necessary.

But how can they when boats, stands, and trucks are blocking the way?

The only other egress to the beach is Arnold's neck drive.

It's narrow, steep, and not adequate for staging in an emergency.

And my tiny three-foot e-gress on the Arnold's next side is obstructed by three foot trash barrels.

I have no other place to store my barrels except this small egress path to Arnold's neck.

My barrels are three feet.

The egress is three feet, and they completely block the path.

My neighbor, my neighbor has even complained to the mayor that those barrels are impinging on her property line.

Picked up off of Shatdock, since my legal address is indeed Midgley Av.

I'm a seasoned nurse practitioner, and I know that this is more than an inconvenience.

It's a public safety crisis.

Children live at my house.

People swim in the bay, they walk their dogs on the shore.

Emergencies happen both on the water and on land.

Midgley Ave has always been the safest and clearest path for response to marina patrons, to residents at my house, and to the public beach.

Would the city of Warwick rather wait until tragedy strikes?

And the law is clear.

Under Rhode Island General Law 24-6-1, rights of ways survive abandonment.

That means abutters like me and my home still maintain rights of access, even though the road was abandoned in 58.

We'd like the city to put this in writing within a resolution affirming that fact and enforce it.

Multiple staircases from Arnold's NAC still lead down to Midgley Ave, and they're still used.

They're e-grasses that residents have used for decades.

The marina has no right to threaten people for using these staircases or to threaten to call the police for walking to the shoreline.

That's another example of how this corridor has continued to serve homes and utilities.

You have one minute, Mr.

Bye.

But above all, it's unacceptable that emergency access is blocked right now.

I understand process, but the city must step in immediately to restore access and protect both the rights of abutters and the public safety.

You were elected for times like this.

Our city council, our advocates, our protectors to stand up against a multinational corporation that's bullying a neighborhood and profiting off our shoreline while blocking the very access our families have relied on for generations.

Thank you.

Next, I believe this is Ann Sheridan.

Good evening, gentlemen.

First off, the school departments or the school committee's presentation was extraordinary.

I just need you to state your name first.

I'm sorry.

Ann Sheridan.

Thank you.

Board 9.

Um I listened to Speaker Shikachi over and over at the August meeting asking for a five-year tax treaty for his clients for the property that they plan on building on Post Road.

The tax plan that was presented to the council that night showed 15 years worth of treaty.

It appears to me that the speaker was suggesting that they were asking for a little more than what the city for a lot less than what the city was offering.

Well, I don't agree with, I don't agree with this plan at all.

If the city wants to reward a developer for creating this project, so be it.

But understand that it's a reward for something that is not needed, but it will only benefit the developer with legal cash in his in his pocket.

Apartment occupancies are at record highs.

The state and the speaker himself speak to that constantly, so there is no need to compensate the develop with incentives.

Developers and developers build when they know rentals are in high demand and occupancy rates are almost guaranteed.

The fact that 20% of the units will be income limited will be reflected in the assessment during the appraisal process.

The appraiser will consider sales, fair market sales, but will also consider the income and the expenses of the properties that and it will more heavily relate to the to the income that's impacted by the rent restrictions.

There will be no direct tax benefits to the tenants, whether they're low-income people or regular tax paying people, regular income people.

The only benefit of income restricted taxes is to the developer.

So any additional tax treaty benefit will anure to the development.

Again, legal cash in his pocket.

Give him the five-year tax treaty the administration wants to give him as a reward to build on the site.

Give him the five-year tax treaty that the developer has requested, but not anymore.

Anymore is an insult to the taxpayers.

Thank you.

So I think this says Marge Polter.

Does anyone have a name adjacent to that?

Just in case I'm really butchering it.

All right, next is Richard Langsa.

Richard Langseth, Budlong Farm.

We have tax free properties in Warwick, churches, charities, libraries, educational institutions.

These people come into the city hall, fill out the paperwork, and get exemptions.

That's how the law works.

The institutions provide services and rule of taxes.

The public wins.

The Budwood Beach Association pays no taxes on its streets.

So the BBA must be a charity, right?

No.

The BBA is the developer who owns the streets.

It's a private shareholder owned business.

It yells out to the rest of us, stay off my private ways, like many other shoreline entities do.

The BBA has a duty to come into City Hall and report its streets to be put on the tax for all.

That's the law.

But it has not come in 154 years, leaving the streets not taxed.

Not only does the public miss the revenues they deserve by law, they get screwed.

The public pays for Buttonwoods water lines, sewer extensions, paving, snow plowing, street lighting, insurance.

I figure the uncompensated cost is in the range of $1,000 per Buttonwoods household each year.

Over 30 years, the cost to us, the other 35,000 households in Warwick is over four million dollars.

What do we get for that generation?

Generosity?

Nothing.

Squat.

That's us squatting before the BBA's private property signs at the pillars of the Bud Woods Gate.

You might ask, why does the Buttonwoods pay no taxes on its streets?

The BBA is a land developer.

When it platted out its lands, it drew in tax-free streets.

Most developers do that.

They don't want to pay taxes on the streets.

So they draw a plat maps with tax-free streets and bring them into City Hall.

The trade-off is public access.

The kicker is that the BBA dedicated these streets to the public 150 years ago to get the tax break.

Now the BBA goes to the mayor to get him to wink and nod to agree to privatize the streets without collecting taxes without a hearing.

He says, sure, why not?

Why not?

Because we get chipped.

No tax revenues, yet no public access to the shore.

That needs to change.

Either take down the no trespassing signs or pay 154 years of taxes and reimburse the city for sewer lines, water lines, street lighting.

This is really a simple concept.

Either pay up or take down those signs.

This goes on.

Extraordinary.

What I'm talking about here is just a little bit of incompetence, but it affects me personally, and it affects you know 82,000 people in Warwick.

One minute, Mr.

Langsa.

One minute.

Okay.

So you know, we really have to focus on these kinds of things.

Why isn't this Buddonwood speech association paying taxes?

They're running around town saying this is all private.

Well, if it's private, they should get down to the assessor's office and they should announce that their streets are eighteen acres of untaxed land and get the city to agree to pay the taxes.

Thank you very much.

Next is Darlene Netco.

Hello, Darlene Netco, Ward 7.

I've been a teacher for 38 years.

I'm at Tollgate, and I'm also president of the Warwick Teachers Union.

I went to every one of those, or mostly every one of those budget commission meetings.

I only missed two.

And I watched the process in action.

And at the end of the day, the budget commission presented to you that the schools for fiscal year 26 need an additional about $2 million.

It should be noted that that $2 million was the original ask of the administration right from the start.

So if the schools had been properly funded from the start, then the budget commission wouldn't have found that now the schools are $2 million short for fiscal year 26.

Just a little history here again.

I know I've said it before, but it bears saying again.

Warwick was the only city or town in the entire state to cut the full 5% and never give it back.

So really the schools have been underfunded for at least 15 years.

Add to that the fact that the schools paid the debt service on a bond that they should never have been paying for another seven, eight or nine years, about over a million dollars a year, and our schools have been underfunded.

Throughout this period of time, I need to remind everyone that schools have closed.

In 2016, secondary schools closed and were consolidated.

In 2018, elementary schools closed and were consolidated.

They have cut I would go back a few years.

We had 1,200 teachers, we have 860 now.

This fiscal year 26, the school department cut 45 positions, mostly special ed teachers and special ed teachers' assistants.

And right now, I can tell you there are huge problems in our elementary schools because we don't have the proper number of TAs and special ed teachers.

I heard um Ernie Almonte talk about class size.

Right now we have classes that are over.

And yes, we have some classes that are under.

Those are the special ed self-contained classes, and those are some AP classes.

So when you look at the AP and the special ed that are small, and you figure that in with all the others, you say, Oh, we can cut class size, we can uh put more kids in a class.

We can't without education suffering.

We need fewer kids in a class, not more.

Um, the budget commission looked at the unfunded mandates, and I know that has come up in this uh forum on many occasions.

The pathways programs, uh Mr.

Almonte mentioned cybersecurity.

Our career center has a cybersecurity program.

Our career center and our high schools have all of the programs that Warwick students are leaving to go to other districts.

What doesn't Warwick have?

Brand new fields to play on.

We are losing students because they want to go play sports in another district, and that's the truth.

The only program in this entire state that another district has that Warwick does not and cannot have is the animal science program at Pontigansa.

We're not going to do animal science here, but we've got everything else.

The problem is with Ride.

Ride the legislation says that if a program is substantially similar, then the sending district doesn't have to send the student.

However, RIDE has refused to name anything substantially similar.

And Warwick and practically every other district in the state except for Pontaganza in North Kingston, who came in on the ground floor and have been grandfathered with lesser programs.

Warwick and all the rest are losing out because we had to create more difficult and more advanced programs that are more than these other districts.

But RIDE won't call them substantially similar, and Rywood will say, go ahead, kids, you can go off and play sports in North Kingston.

Um, it also bears noting that um Mr.

Armonti kept mentioning he can't touch salaries and payroll.

You're damn right he can't.

Those are negotiated contracts, whether they're union, like WISE or WTU or our administrators that have negotiated their contracts.

How can this commission that just came into being have any right to touch anybody's salary or anybody's working conditions?

You have 45 seconds, Ms.

They don't.

So it would have been an obscenity if they had been able to, and an unfair labor practice.

Um, I just want to add as long as the city saw fit to put a budget commission in place for the schools, it's time for a budget commission for the city of Warwick itself.

So we can see where the money is, who's got what and where, and what we all need to run our schools in our city.

Thank you.

All right, and now I just want to circle back to the two people I didn't see.

First, Rob Cody, and then again, Marge Pullard.

All right, doesn't look like either are here.

So next, that brings us to referred business first, PCO 16-25.

In ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick three kids LLC applicant one one-one two West Shore Road Assessors Platte 333 lot 103.

This would be first passage.

This was in public properties, so councilman Ricks.

Recommend opening public hearing.

And motion to open public hearing.

Motion made, seconded by councilman foley.

Any objections?

See none public hearings hereby opened.

Now you're gonna make me do a roll call.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed abstentions, blessing.

All right, so public hearings here by opened.

So petitioner.

Thank you, Council President and honorable members of the Warwick City Council.

Attorney Joseph Brennan here on behalf of the applicant, three kids LLC.

The um proposal that you have before you is generally very simple, although sometimes it can look more complicated on the maps.

The properties located at 1112 West Shore Road.

Um, it's got an existing single family residence with an existing detached garage.

What the applicant's looking to do is to he's already been to the planning board.

We have master plan approval, which is conditional upon uh a zone change approval here before the council is we're looking to switch our current zone from A7 to the A7 Plan District Residential Limited Overlay District.

This is one of those zones that's been created as part of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan to allow for greater density because up until recently Warwick didn't even have provisions for multifamily, although you do now have them for two families, but this would now turn the property into a three-family.

So what we would be doing is keeping the existing single-family residents, demolishing the existing garage, and somewhat in the garage's space, it's a little bit to the north, putting a proposed two-family duplex.

So side by side.

But he would have to open up that curb cut a little bigger.

And he would provide ample parking, what was required by the ordinance, which is two spaces per unit.

So we have three units, and we'll be providing six parking spaces.

And you can also see all the way to the north in that paved area that he has a proper turnaround.

That way that last space has the ability to turn around rather than having to back out all the way through.

So people would still be exiting West Shore Road forward facing.

No one is rear facing out onto the road.

It's a very busy road, so obviously that safety concern was a big bonus as part of the proposal.

Additionally, uh, if you can see on the map, the surveyor did a great job putting the dotted lines, which shows the building envelopes, which is allowed in the zone, we'll be meeting that criteria from the side yard, the front yards, and the rear yards.

So although we did have the ability at the planning stage and through the city council stage to ask for waivers from the dimensional requirements, the applicant chose not to do so and has built everything within those dimensional criteria.

Additionally when you do change the zone to the A7 Plan District Residential, there's a formula that allows for that greater density.

That density is nine units per acre.

And by the surveyor's calculations, we have just over half an acre, and we would be able to put five units if he wanted to, or if he if he was proposing, but it's just a further going to show the council.

He's only proposing three.

So he's really looking at the land area that he has, the ability to park the right number of cars in a way that doesn't stuff it all together, but looks like a very nice perfect project for the area and the land.

Um, for after this, if we were to see receive the zone change tonight, we would then further proceed on through the planning stages where we would have another public hearing, our third one for preliminary plan review, and hopefully we would be able to do final, either combined with preliminary or an administrative phase afterwards.

If the council has any questions, myself or the applicant is here, we'll do our best to answer them.

Thank you.

Does the administration have anything they want to add?

Also make sure if you're not speaking for a members of the council that you turn your mic off because you can hear the system start to freak out when more of us have our mic on.

Tom Cravitt, City Planning Director, nothing to add, uh Council President.

All right, uh, Councilman DeLouis.

Yes, um, I just like to um say that I've been by the property.

Well, I drive by it pretty much every day, and there's plenty of room there.

I I walked it, and I don't see that there would be an issue.

Um there's no uh the comments or there's no negative impact to the city, and it would be providing um you know more housing space, so changing it from A7 to A7 PDR.

I I would recommend that uh it would be uh a positive thing, Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

I also reviewed the documents as submitted.

It seems that the applicant has done a very good job with preparing the packets, going through the proper process here, and just looking at the numbers as well.

Uh it adds up just as Councilman Day Lewise and uh attorney Brennan had stated.

I'm seeing that according to the tax assessor's website, this property is over a half acre.

It's currently zoned A7.

It appears from the tax assessors uh data that it's 0.56 acres, which works out, and pardon me, I don't have the precise numbers.

I didn't go and look at the uh the deed itself in land evidence records, but works out to somewhere in the area of 24,000 square feet.

So it seems perfectly suited by the numbers uh to have plenty of space for that single family house along with uh an additional two-family house.

Seems everything was done properly, and of course, I would in these land use matters that are specific to and uh affecting a particular ward, I would tend to defer to the city councilor of that ward, as they are the ones who would be most likely hearing from the various abutters if those abutters had any concerns or complaints.

So for all of those reasons, while I would wait for the public comment to make any type of final decision here, I would say that it looks like everything was done properly here.

And I would thank the applicant uh for doing their due diligence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other members of the council want to speak before we switch to public comment?

Say none.

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposed project?

Pardon?

Well, fine.

First, uh anyone in favor of the proposed project here to speak.

Anyone in favor?

Anyone in favor?

Anyone in favor?

Anyone here to speak against the project?

Anyone here to speak against the project?

Anyone here to speak against the project?

Anyone here just to speak on the project at all?

Anyone here to speak on the project at all?

Anyone here to speak on the project at all?

Seeing none.

Does anyone want to move to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Motion made by Councilman Rick.

Seconded by Councilman Foley.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

So the public hearing is hereby closed.

Any further comment from members of the council?

My only two cents is just to I assume the administration's gonna ensure that the comments from directors will be addressed prior to the conclusion of the process.

But given that this process as a whole is far from over, I assume that the answer is yes.

Yeah, not of affirmation from the audience.

So yep.

So if there's no further comment, uh I believe clerk can call a roll unless I'm missing something.

Ah, fair point.

So is there a motion for favorable action?

Motion for favorable action.

Seconded by Councilman Foley, Councilman Napa.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Second.

Seconded by Councilman Latiser as well.

Uh seeing no further discussion.

Uh clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinaby.

Yes.

Mr.

DeLuise.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Yes.

Mr.

Gepott, Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Lattice.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Napa.

Yes.

Mr.

Riggs.

Yes.

Nine yes first passage.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And thank you.

All right.

So unless there's a strong objection, we're gonna move back to intergovernmental because there are some appointments.

And I believe from there we will go to finance, unless there's something I'm missing.

So if the intergovernmental committee could convene, please.

Good evening.

The time is now 82.

Uh and the intergovernmental committee comes to order.

Uh first order of business.

Uh August, uh, the acceptance of minutes from August 18th, 2025.

Do I have a motion?

Motion of all favor.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Is Mr.

Hannon present?

Okay, Mr.

Hannon not being present.

I am reviewing this.

Appears to be a new appointment, right?

Um, yeah, per our rules uh for a first time appointment.

We do uh need Mr.

Hannon to be present.

Um so I'm looking for a motion to hold that.

So moved all in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Next up.

Uh we're gonna hold that to October 6th.

All right.

Next up.

Michael Logar.

Mr.

Logar, are you present?

Uh okay.

We will hold this one for next time as well.

Make a motion to hold second.

All in favor?

I lastly, uh, we do have a reappointment uh tonight that we can act on.

Uh Mr.

Jeffrey Juicy, uh, who is a member of the uh King County Water Authority.

Uh uh from Ward 9.

Um, I did uh receive communication from the Kent County Water Authority that they were very interested in uh retaining uh Mr.

Juicy on this board.

Um and uh they actually had better record keeping than that we did um because they were the ones to flag that it was uh it was time uh to get this one done.

So um being a reappointment, uh he's not required to be here.

Does anyone have any questions, comments, concerns?

Hearing none, uh do I have a motion?

Uh uh sorry, uh members of the council questions, comments, concerns?

Members of the public.

Okay, seeing none, have a motion.

Motion to move favorable on appointment.

Uh move by three, second by six.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Uh lastly, we have PCR 9225 resolution relative to the city council meeting calendar for 2026.

Uh, this is Council President Snappy.

Uh would you like to introduce this?

Yeah, I think we have one modification for that one for the September meeting of the further solicitor.

Uh the council president is proposing uh one amendment to this, and that is to make the September a single September meeting on September 14th instead of September 21st.

Uh Rush uh Yom Kapoor is the 20th and the 21st.

Uh so we will move it for if uh the council's pleasure.

And did we uh okay?

Just can I make an observation on that?

So Rosh Hashanah falls on the weekend.

When is the observed day?

Well, it's tonight, so yeah.

This is why this came up because someone alerted us to like, hey, you you scheduled this on a on a holiday?

Oh Sean at the well, weren't supposed to do that, and now we I was like, well, we should look at the upcoming calendar, and sure enough, Yankapur is fell on the proposed date, the original proposed date for September.

So hence the proposal to move it to a different day.

According to a quick Google, it uh that would be complete by Sunday the 13th.

So the 14th would be in order.

Okay, uh any discussion about the uh proposed changes.

Councilman Latticer.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um so the first time we've had a one meeting in September since I've been on the council and even before, to my knowledge.

Um, we've only had one meeting, and that's this year.

I'd like to know what the reason is for only scheduling one meeting again next year in September.

Does anyone have the reason?

The solicitor asked, hey, you want to do it again?

And I said, Well, if it worked this time around, then sure.

People seem to be on board with it for this time around.

Obviously, if that's not acceptable, then we schedule two.

Well, with all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate.

When every one of us ran for office, we knew what the days were and what the meetings were to schedule just one meeting three months in a row has led to where we are tonight with 41 bids.

The reason is well, you only have one meeting in July.

You only have one meeting in August, one meeting in September.

What do you expect?

To have only one meeting in September.

Um I don't know what the reasoning is, but if someone is unavailable to attend two meetings in September, then so be it.

You don't go.

But that shouldn't uh facilitate or determine that the rest of us are only going to be here for one meeting.

Because next year you're gonna hear the same thing.

We're gonna hear the complaints that there's only one meeting in July, and that's why we had to um hit the bid package so hard.

There's only one meeting in August, and now you guys are doing one meeting in September.

I don't I don't think that is productive.

Perfectly reasonable opinion.

I I have a question.

Is there anything that would prevent the finance committee from meeting uh 10 times in September?

That wouldn't be an objection on my part.

Just the only thing I'll point out is September is uh this upcoming September is somewhat frustrating date wise.

The first actual week of September where there's a Monday is Labor Day.

And then we all now are all aware of the 21st being a holiday.

So uh we could if there was a appetite for the two meetings in September, we likely would be looking at uh one of the weeks being a Wednesday meeting.

Uh yeah, the other problem is the the solicitor wisely try to avoid the back-to-back week meetings because it ends up being to in short less productive than it should be when we do that as the mild way of putting it.

So if we wanted to do two, because right now before it can't be the 21st, so but 14th and the 30th, but that would give us the back to back.

Well, I guess first should be people decide whether it be a straw pool or whatnot.

Do you want to do two meetings in September or not?

If the answer is yes, then we got to figure out when to have those meetings.

Well, I think the issue with so you're gonna have back-to-back meetings wouldn't be the first time.

We we've had that numerous times.

Absolutely correct.

Yeah, it's not a I don't think it's a deal.

I don't think it's fair to say it's a end or bill or a deal breaker.

If we have to, we have to uh I I think it's a disservice to the public for us to have one meeting in September and one meeting three months in a row.

And just before you go, just so I get can get in my head straight.

The change here though isn't eliminating a meeting in September.

The change is just changing the date of the one meeting that we already have scheduled scheduled in September.

I think another one.

So my proposed change was just moving the one that we have.

Uh Councilman Latticer has raised the prospect of doing two meetings in September.

But we have we have a count, we've already approved a calendar with one meeting in September.

Is that right?

No.

No.

This is our first our first attempt at this first try.

Okay.

Sorry.

Apologies.

No, not your fault.

We didn't present it as articulately as we could.

Uh Mr.

Chair, Mr.

President, I I can give some background to kind of the organization of this, uh, plus the proposed change that would be for consideration.

Um, there were varying objectives that we've tried to keep in place that have been at least given feedback from us that has been favorable, particularly um maintaining Monday night meetings for predictability's sake, as people historically in the past have had other issues on uh midweek meetings, and because of the volume of Monday holidays throughout the calendar year, uh that poses problems.

Um, there was frustrations over the years regarding having um consecutive meetings in back-to-back weeks um because of the overlap of things and the drafting in between resulted in things not being as uh organized, and so stretching it out and avoiding back to backs was another priority that was um endeavored towards um the September meeting ran into issues with the very late labor day falling on Monday the 7th, um, and with the holidays previously noted, given the fact that we had a singular meeting proposed for this year, it was at least started as a baseline for your consideration to continue similarly.

Um, but it's fair observation that that is a uh concern of yours.

Um that be said, there's no um issue there's always the availability for special meetings at the at the call of you know the majority of the president and the mayor um to fulfill other obligations that present themselves as well.

But um avoiding holidays, avoiding Wednesdays, avoiding back to back meetings, and trying to map it all out was uh the intention.

Well, when I voted for this calendar last year, and never voted for it to be the new rule or the new norm.

I voted for it because it was an exception to the rule, and as I understood it, or at least interpreted it, it was gonna be a one-time thing.

This calendar, we're talking about it a year in advance.

So I mean, you get the you get the city calendars, you get the the city websites, you get all the notice, etc.

etc.

There's plenty of notice for folks if we have a one-day change.

So in September of 2026, why couldn't you have a meeting on Monday, September 7th, and the second meeting on Wednesday, September 23rd?

September 7th is Labor Day.

But your point is still well taken as far as the prospect for other times that we can do it if you really want to do two meetings.

If you just want to cut it back to one meeting, fine.

So what do we do next year?

Do we just say eh, let's just do one meeting in June, because we have all the budget hearings to do, and I don't feel like sitting here for three or four meetings.

So some people may like that idea, right?

But I don't think the taxpayers would um appreciate the um the business section or session being cut short.

But it's your pleasure.

I will vote no on one meeting.

Councilman Ricks.

Oh, I ask you.

Thank you.

I would also suggest that and another complication with the September calendar in an even numbered year, is that the statewide primary would be on a Tuesday, September 8th, the day after Monday, Labor Day.

So even if we were to have a meeting scheduled on the Wednesday following, well, I know a lot of uh my fellow counselors will spend the full 13 hours at the polls on that Tuesday, uh, greeting voters.

So that would tend to be more time greeting, speaking with constituents, less time available for actually preparing uh for the meeting that particular week.

I would suggest that if we wanted to go in the direction of an additional meeting, it may make sense to have two meetings in August, but then of course that comes with its own set of complications there, especially since the summer meetings, July and August.

Those aren't necessarily the best times for public participation either, given that so many people uh have different trips, etc.

Uh during that during the summer.

So there is no easy solution here in particular, and I'm not saying that one way is necessarily better than another.

I don't necessarily have a strong point of view on this.

I don't think it's the worst thing in the world that a September meeting like the one tonight may wind up going late.

That's also part of the job.

That's all.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for your patience, Councilman DeLuiz.

Uh go ahead.

You don't want to hear what I have to say.

Oh, we get can I make an amendment uh, Mr.

Solicitor to have two meetings in September, and we can figure out the dates later because we're wasting too much time on this topic right now, as far as I'm concerned.

This is doing a disservice to me.

Never mind the public.

My suggestion would be if we want to get into amendments, we should do them on the floor with uh and not in committee.

All right, but you're you're you're welcome to do so.

My suggestion would be since it's advisory to move the item to the full council and let the the populace decide from there.

I think that's a that's a good call.

So let's uh any other discussion amongst the committee amongst the council.

Um so uh how would we how motion to move this to the full council without recommendation?

Move without recommendation made by three, second by six.

All in favor, aye.

I did ask the public anything to add Mr.

Rotundo.

Anything anything to add?

Uh okay.

Uh hearing none.

Uh that was uh motion by three, uh second by six and four zero.

Uh and that is all the business of the intergovernmental committee.

Thank you all for your time and your patience.

Mr.

President, call for 10 minute recess, please.

Okay.

Sure.

Okay.

We're gonna take a brief recess and come back.

I just give a vague term.

Brief, overlooking it.

Finance committee is back in session.

I would um respectfully request if there's no objections from the finance committee to move ahead on our docket and allow the tax assessor to come before us and make his presentation on abatements.

So he doesn't have to sit here until midnight.

Well, what evening, Neil Depuis, director of assessing, and thank you.

Um this month we have abatements in the amount of thirty-two thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight dollars and ninety-three cents.

Um about eighty percent of those are new exemptions.

Uh, but we're getting into the tax appeal season, so you will see some granted abatements uh from tax appeals as well.

Okay, with regard to those uh requested abatements.

Are there any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Are there 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, I need a motion.

Move favorable action.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Director.

You're all set.

Thank you.

Okay.

Found on page 31, which is the purchase of five Chevrolet blazers.

Major, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, councilman.

Uh Robert Hart from the police department.

The police department's requesting a 566 exception to notice to purchase five Chevrolet Blazer mid-size SUVs from Liberty Chevrolet of Plymouth Mass under the GB Greater Boston Police Council Master Price Agreement cooperative bid.

These vehicles are either in stock or due to be delivered delivered to the dealer shortly.

These 2025 SUVs will be assigned to various specialized units within the department, such as detectives, task force, and administrative services, and they'll be replacing former patrol vehicles.

The total pricing, which needs to be amended for these five vehicles, councilman, is 200 and 6,209 and 75 cents.

Okay, thank you.

Um Madam Clerk, I want to assign a PCR to this as well.

What is it, please?

I think it's 100.

We can give it to the minister.

On the term life, yeah.

Okay, so it's PCR 125, right?

Okay, okay, thank you.

Okay, um, I have uh the same issues uh as I had with the other vehicles.

Uh for me, this is about um runaway spending.

I I don't know how to clarify it any other way.

We just heard an hour and a half of testimony about uh issues that exist and potential issues that um we're facing in addition to many other things as we come down the road.

We just heard an hour and a half of testimony about uh issues that exist and potential issues that um we're facing in addition to many other things as we come down the road, and um as I had said many years ago, sometimes you need to do um a little more with a little less, and that's where where I'm at uh right now, particularly with um what I see going on.

So I will um ask for uh if there's any questions from members of the committee, councilman Foley Anticipation of the same conversation we had a while ago with the other bid, I'd like to make a motion to send this to the floor without recognition.

I'll second it.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Um we will uh first we need to vote on the amendment.

Thank you.

Um the amendment from the major is to adjust the total amount to well, first of all, it was 206,205.

The major needs to amend it to 206,209.75 cents.

Uh that's correct, sir.

I move the amendment.

And I'll second the amendment.

All in favor on the amendment.

I okay, and um the next motion that we made ahead of the motion to send it to the floor without recommendation.

As amended, second as amended.

Okay, we have a motion on that.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Um next item number five, 2026 183.

Um, would it be putting a PCR on that as well?

That's 10125.

That's found on page 35.

That's the purchase of a 2026 pinnacle 64 T day Cab Mac.

One is one as well.

Sorry.

Yes, a PCR in that as well, Madam Clerk.

101 25 Christy, it's all yours.

Oh, okay.

I didn't know if we were having discussion.

Uh Christy Moretti Public Works.

Um, the public works department is requesting to purchase a 2026 Pinnacle 64T Cabin Mac.

Um, this is uh uh tractor trailer, um cabin chassis that attaches to our our trailers and um we use it to haul things um you know materials in the trailer, we use it to move the grinder around.

Um it will replace a 1994 Kenworth with a million plus miles on it.

Um and this is also uh in the approved um capital budget for fiscal year 26.

It was approved in the amount of 225,000.

This request is for 177,390.

Christy, didn't we recently approve purchasing a flatbed trailer to um deliver equipment from one place to another so that it wouldn't have to rack up miles across the road and wear and tear, et cetera?

That's a that's a small 18-foot trailer that attaches to the back of um one of our bigger pickup trucks or one-ton dumps.

That is this is uh the trailers that we have are are the metal hail trailers that you see hauling material, gravel or loom or whatever.

Um I think they're 40 yards.

It's uh and this is a tractor trailer you're talking about, right?

It's the cab and chassis.

Yes.

And what vehicles are you going to be using this piece of equipment to move part A?

And secondly, how often is this equipment you're gonna describe to us being moved?

So you're asking how often we're going to use the tractor trailer.

Yeah, what do you need this piece of equipment to move?

Oh, as I just stated, we attach a trailer to it that has material in it, um, or we use it to um haul things to the landfill, or um we also use it to move our grinder if we need to pull it out of the compost and bring it elsewhere, city yard, or um we have to attach it to this cabin chassis to move it.

Why can't that be done with um uh 3500 heavy duty pickup or with one of the dump trucks that you have?

I believe we just approved another dump truck.

This is not even the same classification of vehicle.

I'm not talking about the vehicle.

Um, the trailer, you want the vehicle to pull the trailer.

I'm saying why can't you use a different vehicle to pull the same trailer?

Because the trailer is a 40-yard trailer, it has wheels on it.

It's a 40 what?

It's a 40-yard trailer.

40 yard trailer?

Yes.

What does that mean?

40 yards.

It means that it's you have it kind of looks like a tractor trailer, so you have the cabin chassis and the trailer attaches to it.

I see the truck.

Okay.

And I'm asking, why can't you use a different truck to pull the trailer you're talking about?

Because the other trucks don't it's it's not even the same.

We can't use a dump truck to pull the trailer.

Why?

I see landscapers pulling these giant trailers all the time.

Eric Rose Public Works.

This isn't like a standard trailer that you would pull like lawnmowers on.

It doesn't have like a hitch that goes to the back of this.

This is a legit 18-wheeler trailer that pulls like a legit dump truck.

I mean, it's it's not your standard hook it to the back of your trailer hitch.

This is this is an 18-wheeler.

This is the cabin chassis that gets attached to uh a huge piece of equipment.

It has the type of the type of hookup that you see at like a legit truck stop.

So does this trailer have eight wheels?

This trailer you want to pull that you but need to buy this this truck for for uh 180,000 dollars.

Does the trailer that you need or that you want to pull, does it have eight wheels?

No.

Then how is it an 18-wheeler?

You said we're talking about an 18-wheeler.

18-wheeler means that trailer is gonna have eight wheels.

How many wheels does it have?

The trailer, yeah.

12.

The trailer has 12 wheels.

Right?

Impossible.

Okay.

How is that impossible?

The trailer has 12 wheels.

Two, four, six, eight.

So this is gonna be a 22-wheel vehicle when this trailer is hooked up.

Something doesn't make sense to me.

Councilman uh Bill Facente, chief staff.

This is this is a tractor trailer cab that pulls the 40, 50 yard trailers that haul 50 yards of stone, our excavator, our large excavator, our large grader.

The tonnage alone on the excavator, the machines on the the hitch of it, you can't tow it with a 3500 pickup or dump truck that we have.

During the council budget meetings, you commended the city for getting a million miles out of, and which we're being serious, it's a million miles on that truck.

You commended the city for getting a million miles out of the cabin chassis that we have.

We're trying to replace that so we can continue to do the work that our city needs to have done.

It's it's a it's a specialized piece you that you see on the road that Venagro would use to move their their excavators from jobs to jobs.

We have machinery that we can't move right now because of the truck, because of the truck, the cab and chassis, the cab, not the trailer, not the machinery that sits on it, but the actual truck that the driver sits in to drive.

We cannot move our machinery to job sites.

So did you go off a bid for this thing?

We did not go out to bid.

This is part of the um as stated in the um director's letter, it's a part of uh government contract, the metropolitan area planning council greater Boston Police Council government contract.

So it's essentially like piggybacking and I know so it's like uh an MPA.

So what we're doing here is we're assuming that the price of 177,000 is like the best price.

So let's not bother going out for bid.

And by the way, did anyone uh happen to take a look around and see if there's a late model truck with 200,000 miles on it that we could get another 800,000 out of less than 177,000?

So in the in the capital budget, I believe it was approved for 225,000.

This is coming in 177,000.

Say that again in the capital budget, it's I believe it's 225,000 approved.

This is 177,000.

So, Chief, just because I I understand, councilman, what we're asking for.

We went out, we have the MPA or the master price agreement or the the cost sharing.

We're saving the city money by use by buying this piece of machinery that's in stock.

We're not waiting for it.

We're not ordering it and having it built.

So I'm asking if there could be more money saved by buying a used one.

Why is it every time that we need to have a piece of equipment?

We have to go out and we have to buy the Cadillac of equipment, and it's always gonna be brand new.

This is this is not a catalog.

Especially on a vehicle, we already got a million miles out of this thing.

So if you can buy a used vehicle uh four or five years old, and you can pick yourself up something with 200,000 miles.

I'm just what is frustrating to me is that these things come before us, and no, we didn't go out for bid, no, we didn't shop around to get other prices.

This is what it is, and that's what you gotta do.

Well, let me remind you, you talked about the capital budget in the budget.

I voted no on the cat on the budget, which means I also voted no on the capital budget because that was for me what was in that capital budget was excessive spending.

So I didn't vote yes on the budget.

Prior administrations have purchased used equipment.

We will always buy used equipment where we're gonna be able to do that.

They bought junk.

I'm just saying, you buy used equipment, you're going to get junk.

It's the reason it's being sold is because it's used and someone else doesn't want it.

We're trying to invest in our infrastructure, in our trucks, our vehicles, and we're doing the best we can to make sure we're not in the shop every single time the axle breaks or something breaks because we bought a used piece of equipment.

That's why we're buying new, so we have longer life so we can get a million miles out of this piece of equipment, like we did the last one without seeing if there's better pricing.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

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.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have two seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

This will move to the floor.

I assume that was one abstention and one abstention.

Thank you.

Councilman Foley.

Item number six, 2026 130, firefighter operation medical evaluations fund on page 65.

Good evening, Assistant Chief Ummanhauer from the fire department.

Fire department went out to bid for firefighter occupational medical evaluations.

Fire department received four bids, and after evaluating those bids, the fire department's recommending the award go to AtMed Treatment Center of East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

Fire departments use AtMed over the last five years and have been very satisfied with the services they're providing.

Current bid expires 101725, and we're requesting a two-year award for an amount not to exceed 160,000.

This comes from budget code 3535 occupational medical program.

Chief, um this is uh a contractual requirement, correct?

It's not contractual, it's uh to make sure that we stay in line with both NFPA and OSHA standards.

Both NFPA, uh the 18 uh 1580 standard and the OSHA respirator standard require uh annual physicals, physical uh extra.

So this is no language in the contract.

The contract doesn't stipulate that we have to do annual physicals.

This is the physically the standards do.

And what did you spend last year?

Uh last year we didn't spend uh because this the end of the NFPA standard and the OSHA standard give you a six-month window within your annual physicals.

So because we didn't finish our physicals till the spring of 2024, we aren't actually we're we were due the this spring, but we could push it off another six months.

Uh so that's what we did.

We we didn't use that money in the last fiscal year, and we pushed it into this fiscal year, so we we could save the money for last fiscal year.

And the last time this came up, I asked the same questions and the time it came up before I asked the same questions.

So last year you spent $4,273 and three cents on that item, and you transferred out of that line item.

$81,000.

Where did the $81,000 go to for last fiscal year?

Yeah.

We use that as part of the co-share for the grants that we received.

So we don't typically budget for the city's side of the co-share for the like the AFG grants that we receive.

So that when we got to the end of last fiscal year and we had to come up with the match and grant money, the the department is responsible for coming up with the grant the match money for those grants that we get.

We utilize those funds that were left in our budget in order to put it into a fund in order to match the grant funding that we received from the AFG grant for the AirPACs and for the paramedic program.

So you used $81,000 of taxpayer dollars that we approved for medical exams for something else.

We deferred it, the exams till this fiscal year because we were we were able to do that to be able to free up the our operating budget in order to accept the grant for the air packs.

So can we defer that 81,000 that we approved last year that didn't didn't use?

Can we defer that to this year?

No, we didn't we didn't defer the money.

We we utilized the money in what we thought was a more efficient manner was to take a million 1.1 million dollar grant and free up 70 or 80,000 of our operating budget in order to accept the million dollars from the federal government.

You would have you would have taken the 81 somewhere else for the million dollar grant.

So the analogy um, you know, it is what it is.

Fact of the matter is um there's been more than just last year that those exams weren't used.

So how many how many um firefighters used Pat?

Oh I'm sorry, um the year before when you use up, I think it was the year before I used up almost all of the money, right?

The year before we did the whole department, yep.

Okay.

And how many of those firefighters passed that medical exam?

Uh all but one.

All but one.

Correct.

That's pretty interesting to me, because the reason I'm asking it is because of the amount of sick days that we have in the fire department, which I'm looking at when I look at medical exams, and everybody is healthy and hunky dory.

Um, that just begs other questions.

So this item.

You have no no time frames or no time limitation like you did last year, where they only gave you six months to to do this, right?

It has to be annually, but it can be plus or minus six months because of it says annually, but annually to people mean different things.

Is it a calendar year?

Is it fiscal year?

Is it every 12 months?

So when they use the word to term annually in the standards, they always they give you a plus or six months, depending on when the employee where the employee may have come in six months before everybody else was getting their medical exams done.

So you don't want to have to do them again in six months.

So they always give you that buffer.

So because last spring we didn't end our medical exam process until the spring, we had six months to get them done.

So that pushed us into right now, which we're actually in the process of doing our exams right now.

How many firefighters are going to get a fiscal exam that involves this um monies right here?

So this money is the budget.

The the budgeted 160,000 is set for 212 firefighters for two years.

For one, so 212 firefighters in each of the two years of the bid.

The the budget that I'm looking at says you're asking for 160,000.

So that's 80,000.

80,000 a year, 212 firefighters that comes to a little over 79,000 a year.

So you're telling us now that there's no there's no problems with these medical exams, this six-month thing, because you're going to spend the eighty thousand this year, and you're gonna spend the eighty thousand next year.

We've already spent eighty thousand this year in the current bid.

We're still under the current bid.

We had this bid doesn't take effect until October 17th, but we're finishing up our medical, we're doing our medical exams right now from the from the previous bid, because the the bid price was cheaper on the previous bid.

And by the way, so why is this um so late coming to us?

Uh, I did mention that in the report itself uh in my letter.

I said that we recognize it's slightly late.

Uh I was waiting to put the bid specifications out until the tentative agreement was signed.

Uh while they were in contract negotiations, a lot of times the medical exams in the cancer screen portion of this exam, which is contractual, actually falls into how my specifications are written.

So I wanted to wait until we had an idea of whether or not anything was changed as far as the cancer screen order go before I put this out to bid.

So as soon as I found that out, then I put it out to bid the way that it was.

Nothing changed.

So you said to me earlier that um this medical exam had nothing to do with the contract.

That wasn't part of the contract, but yet in your position paper, you say this was due to being late.

Um this was due to ongoing firefighter contract negotiations at the time, the bid specifications and announcement.

Correct.

The medical exams are not, but the cancer screening is, and the cancer screen is done in conjunction with these medical exams.

You'll see that coming up later.

Isn't cancer screening a separate item altogether?

It's a separate item for it's a separate bid item, but it's the blood draw that's done is done in conjunction.

So we save the money from having to get blood drawn twice.

We actually have them draw the cancer screen and blood during their medical exam at no charge.

So when at some point in the future we get a copy of the contract, that contract is not going to contain any language in it regarding bid item 2026 130 firefighter occupation medical examinations.

That's correct.

There should not be any.

There's nothing in that in there, and nothing as far as I've been told, there's nothing that changed as far as the cancer screenings go, which is in the contract.

Okay.

All right, I'm gonna move on from that item.

Um item number seven.

Sorry, I forgot.

You guys are so quiet.

You're so quiet, I forgot.

The oxygen is on the good thing.

Um, any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the committee?

Are there any questions from members of the committee?

Are there any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the council?

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the public?

Any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on.

Thank you for that, Councilman.

2026, 208 Warwick Public Schools, student assistant services found on page 72.

Good evening.

Um earlier tonight, just identify yourself, please.

Lynn Project Finance Director.

Earlier tonight, you heard the school department uh give a presentation about some of their budget findings, and uh what I'm presenting to you is actually one of them.

Um they have a Department of Education mandatory um program that provides um drug counseling for our students.

Um they asked if I thought that that would be an appropriate use of our opiate settlement money, and I agree with them.

And um, I'm here tonight to ask if you agree okay.

Um Director, it I know it speaks to um this program and and that restriction and this requirement, etc.

etc.

in the position paper.

Um said that they have um I think you said they have they have a plan.

Sorry, they you they have a plan that deals with this opioid um monies that they're requesting.

They actually took it out of their budget.

They what please it is not part of their budget for the fiscal year.

It's not part of their budget.

No.

Have you seen that plan?

That document.

Have you seen the document?

It says all funds received are to be utilized exclusively to alleviate expenses related to opioid treatment prevention and recovery efforts to combat opioid epidemic.

My question is have you seen any documents or any plans or any uh programs for the opiate for the opiate money?

And the school department, yeah.

For the school department?

Yeah, so far I've only seen this plan.

If you look at the I attach the invoice to your backup document.

Uh yeah, I saw it.

Yeah.

There's specifically this is this is from the vendor, right?

I mean, it specifically notes parents, students, administrators, um members.

Hold on, excuse me, one minute.

Point of order.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

I think just to clarify the the last you're referencing the last sentence in the position paper.

No, um I'm in the um document that we have on page 73 in the first paragraph.

The first paragraph.

Yeah.

It says all funds received are to be utilized exclusively to alleviate expenses related to opioid treatment prevention and recovery efforts to compact combat opioid epidemic.

My understanding is that sentence also references how the opioid money should be used.

That could be wrong if though that's the ruling from the settlement.

That's verbatim out of it.

And this this program specifically addresses alcohol and drug abuse counseling in our schools.

So it would be an appropriate use of that money.

I am well, um we heard an hour and a half of testimony this evening because of a lot of inappropriate stuff.

So I understand what the purpose of this is, and it's wonderful.

No problem.

What I'm saying is, has anyone seen the plan?

We're gonna give the school department 152,640 for something that's supposed to have a plan supposed to be used expressively for this, etc.

etc.

So have we seen anything that shows the plan?

So the reason why I'm actually doing it this way, I'm presenting this to be paid directly from our opiate funding is because it is not giving it to the school department.

We are cutting a check directly to this vendor to run this program full stop.

There's no check to the school department.

It is going to coastline EAP for this project success program.

So the money will not be going directly to the school department.

No.

Why did they have it in their budget then?

It's been taken out of their budget.

As of when?

As of the last meeting.

As the last meeting that I was at, it had 152,000 in that because I challenged that at the meeting, and I said, What are you talking about?

The city council is going to give you that, or the city's gonna give you this.

We haven't said anything.

You interjected that there is a number, and I'll be presenting it to you at the next meeting.

So this was in the budget at the last meeting that I was at.

Now maybe they had a meeting after that that I didn't go to that they took it out of the budget.

It was part of their plan to remove this hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars.

Their final budget is not, it's it's not in stone yet, but the plan was to come here and present this to you in hopes that you would approve it so that they can remove it from their plan from their budget.

That was part of their outline.

The last meeting I was at, they had it in their budget.

Now you're saying that when they talked about it tonight, the chair said we were here to recommend a 201 million dollar budget.

That 201 million dollar budget was the bottom line, including 152,640 at that meeting that I was at.

It does not include it.

Right there, it was on the spreadsheet.

You have that spreadsheet.

They they removed it at the last minute because I pointed out they needed to take it out.

At the last minute, when at that last meeting at the budget commission.

I was there till the end of the meeting.

So was I.

I didn't remove anything.

When was the last meeting?

Last week, week before.

Last week.

If it was last week.

Last week was only um approval of purchases.

Was the one I was not at that meeting.

So you're telling us that 152,000 was taken out as of last week.

As of tonight, it is not in their budget.

And we are not going to see a final budget until December or something like that.

I I don't know when a final budget will be presented.

Have they ever they the school department?

Um they ever had this plan before.

This program, they they run it for 10 years.

They've been running for 10 years, and how has that been funded?

Through the appropriation through the appropriation through this opioid appropriation.

No, no, through something else.

City appropriation to the school program.

City appropriation.

Okay.

Well, I'm looking at something that we're being asked to vote on.

That we we don't have a budget from the budget commission or proposed budget.

We don't have a program um of what this money is going to be used for.

Um I don't know.

They talk in here that this must have um trained master's level student assistant counselors.

We have none.

Um, I think that if we're going to be approving 152,000 for anything that we need to be certain as to how this is going to be used.

This will 100% with all certainty be paid for this program.

They've run the program for 10 years, they run it out of their budget.

This is this is us paying for it through our settlement money and not through the school department.

We are paying our vendor directly to run this program with their master's level counselors.

What would they spend in this program last year?

Um they told me it was 140 something.

Councilman.

Sorry, last year they had to spend 134.

Last year was 134.

Yeah.

Just a point of clarification.

So you're saying this money is being sent to a third party that is fully accredited, has everything they need, all the bells and whistles, and they will run the program.

Absolutely.

Through our schools.

Thank you.

And they provide you with an accounting of this?

How much money was dispensed?

When it was dispensed.

Yeah, I would how it was used.

You get all that?

With approval, I will be writing a check to this organization of 152,000 to run this program.

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you.

Um sounds like just uh a maybe is uh a housekeeping item since we don't know exactly if it's in the school department's budget or not.

Uh no, I don't I know but maybe we just set our expectations by doing at least an amendment, I believe, where we could just say you know the money is contingent to pay this as long as it's not in the school deposits budget.

It is it's not in their budget.

Well, it would be well, it'd be the proper approach, Mr.

President.

You weren't on the mic, unfortunately, so a lot of people couldn't hear you.

I apologize.

Thank you.

My question was uh what would be the appropriate way to amend this expenditure to uh include that uh if it gets approved that this expenditure is not in the school department's budget.

I mean Ernie, sorry Dan, I'm interrupting.

Um Ernie spoke tonight about how it's not in their budget.

We we don't control their budget.

Okay, I'm just trying to expediate things by if this is the concern, we just it it would seem odd that they duplicate the spending should you appropriate for it, but no, uh that's all I had had to say on that.

I was just trying to move it forward by uh guaranteeing we're not double butt budgeting.

So sorry.

So what what was the answer?

I didn't hear what the answer was from the solicitor.

We we can't control their budgeting.

Um the answer was it would seem odd by them to duplicate the spending that you appropriate, but we can't control what they do should you wish to proceed.

So that true that I agree with that we can't control what they do.

Um director, this 152,640.

Is that part of the opioid reserve fund of 984,732, or is the 152 in addition to that?

The balance when I wrote this memo was the 984,000.

You can take out 150 for this.

We actually just received another check for 100,000.

So where does this show in the Munis report?

Because I was looking for it in the Munis report that I got as of the other day, and I couldn't see um close to a million dollars in the municipal for opioid.

Where would that show?

Per the regulations of the settlement, we actually have to keep it in a reserved fund, so it's actually doesn't run through the general fund at all.

The money that comes in and the m is completely due to the opioid epidemic, and all of the money that we pay out is to only be used as a um response to that.

So somewhere in the city of Warwick is almost or was still as of tonight, almost a million dollars in a what'd you say, a reserve account that doesn't show it, doesn't show any place.

Of course it shows.

Where's the show?

It shows in Munis, but not in the general fund, it's in fund 321 and it's outlined in our financial statements as well.

Okay, hold on.

It's in fund what number?

321.

321.

That's it, just 321.

Yeah.

General funds 100.

This is 321.

It's what, please?

I said the general fund is in fund 100.

Opioid is 321.

100 321.

That's where that close to a million dollars.

I'll find it if I look for it.

Yeah.

And that.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, any other questions or any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from excuse me?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Councilman Geb Hott.

Okay.

Um, any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none.

Yeah, let's put a PCR on that.

102-25, madam clerk.

Thank you.

Next item.

Number eight.

Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Motion for favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

We'll talk about it on the floor.

Um number eight, 2026, 182, found on page 77.

Purchase Zamboni.

Hi, Christy.

Hi.

Public works is requesting to purchase a Zamboni for the Thayer and Warburton Ice Arenas and the amount of 122,589 and 28 cents.

And this is also part of the approved capital budget for fiscal year 26.

So Christy, didn't we just recently approve 50,000?

I think it was 50,000 to repair a Zamboni.

So we would have a spare Zamboni if we needed one.